1944-02-02

PARLIAMENTARY RESTAURANT

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house has appointed the Honourable the Speaker and Messrs. Black (Yukon), Dupuis, Edw-ards, Farquhar, Furniss, Goulet, Howden, Jaques, Laflamme, Lafontaine, Macdonald (Brantford City), Maclnnis, McGregor, Mclvor, Mayhew, Pinard, Purdy, Rheaume, Thauvette, Tucker and Tustin a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the restaurant so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act as members of a joint committee of both houses on the restaurant.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house has appointed the Honourable the Speaker and Messrs. Adamson, Aylesworth, Black (Chateau-guay-Huntingdon), Bruce, Cardiff, Casselman (Grenville-Dundas), Castleden, Coldwell, Emmer-son, Eudes, Factor, Farquhar, Fontaine, Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont), Gershaw, Goulet, Graham. Green, Hansell, Henderson, Howden, Hurtubise, Jaques, Jean, Lizotte, Macdonald (Halifax), Mackenzie (Neepawa), Mackenzie (Lambton-Kent), Macmillan, Marier, Martin, Mayhew, Moore. Poirier, Pouliot, Purdy, Raymond, Reid, Rickard, Ross (St. Paul's), Thauvette, Warren. Winkler and Wood a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the library of parliament so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a joint committee of both houses on the library.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask the Prime Minister whether or not it is within the purview of this committee's reference to inquire into the question of a national library for Canada? I realize that the wording of the reference indicates that it has to do with nothing more than simply the library of parliament. There has been quite an agitation in Canada and considerable pressure has been brought to bear for the establishment of a national library for Canada. I wonder if this committee, which has never been very busy in the past, might take this matter into consideration. It appears to have some importance in the mind of the public at the present time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think the question of a national library for Canada would properly come within the purview of this committee. The committee's functions are confined to matters relating immediately to parliament. That does not, however, preclude discussion on the question of a national library on some estimate or some appropriate occasion.


Mr. COLDWELL:: May I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question? Has consideration been given recently to the appointment of a successor to the late Hon. Martin Burrell?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, consideration has been given to the filling of the vacancy mentioned, and I hope to be able to announce an appointment before very long.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both houses on the subject of the printing of parliament, and that the members of the standing committee on printing, viz,-Messrs. Bertrand (Terrebonne), Bonnier, Bourget, Casselman (Grenville-Dundas), Castleden, Chambers, Chevrier, Corman, Crete, d'Anjou, Denis, Dubois, Dupuis, Durocher, Edwards, Emmerson, Esling, Evans, Fauteux, Ferland, Fraser (Peterborough West), Furniss, Gillis, Goulet, Grant, Green, Kealy, Hlynka, Hoblitzell, Hurtubise, Kuhl, Leader, Mac-Diarmid, MacKinnon (Kootenay East), MacLean (Cape Breton North-Victoria), McGregor, McNevin (Victoria, Ont.), Mills, Moore, Mulock, Purdy, Rheaume, Ross (St. Paul's), Sinclair, Sissons, Soper, Tripp, Tucker, Tustin, Weir, White, Whitman, Winkler and Wood will act as members on the part of this house, on the said joint committee on the printing of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Business of the House-Legislation


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 3, to amend tlie Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
Gordon Graydon: Might we have an
explanation?


Air. FAIR:: Under the present act -the board is compelled to use the services of the selling agencies now established. I believe better work can be done in other ways, and for that reason the bill provides that no commissions shall be paid to these agencies but that the Canadian wheat board shall set up its own selling agencies.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to make an observation and, founded upon that observation, to ask the Prime Minister one or two questions with regard to the session, if Your Honour and the house will permit me to do so. It appears likely that this year the debate on the address will be less extended than it has been in previous sessions.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I hope so.


Gordon Graydon: I have expressed that hope also. This is not the first time the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) and I have hoped for the same thing, though sometimes we have differed when it came to realizing our hopes. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I believe if that were to happen it would meet the wishes of the public, which I am sure the house desires to do. The country wants us to conduct its business with efficiency and dispatch, and I hope that the example we may set in this debate will be followed throughout the session. The duty of the opposition, as you know, sir, is to scrutinize and criticize legislation and to audit the expenditures. I do not think -this house should be made a sounding board for political programmes and party plans, and all that sort of thing.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Graydon: I noticed that most of that response came from the section to my left which is more accustomed to do that

very thing. However, I should like to say that so far as the Progressive Conservative party is concerned we are trying to organize to do a job, in connection with our house activities, that will be acceptable to this house and to the country. The tempo of the whole session of course is set largely by the government, and for that reason I am asking the Prime Minister to bring down at an early day the legislation envisaged in the speech from the throne. The rules of the house will permit that to be done, as a result of the reservations contained in the motion adopted on the opening day of the session giving right of way to the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I hope the Prime Minister will see to it that this legislation is brought down, if possible this week. There is no reason why legislation which is envisaged in the speech from the throne should not be ready, and if it is, I would ask the Prime Minister to bring it down. -I would ask also that all committees be set up this week, if possible. It does not take very long to introduce bills or set -up committees, and that work should be undertaken at once.
I have given the Prime Minister notice of these questions, and I should like to ask something else. I presume that when the debate on the address has been concluded we shall take up the war appropriation -resolution. Last year we had -the budget first, but this time no doubt the war appropriation resolution will come ahead of the budget. I should like to inquire of the ministry whether, when that resolution is brought down, they intend to pursue the course that was followed last year; that is, if they intend to consider it department by department. I think that worked out well last yea-r, with one exception; and therefore the details of all the items coming under that resolution should be brought down before we attempt to deal with the resolution itself, as was done last year. Then I should like to ask the Prime Minister at what stage of the session the government intends to bring down the budget, and also what legislation the government has in mind other than that mentioned in the speech from the throne. All this has a general bearing upon the whole scheme of our parliamentary system. I should like to know also whether, when the Prime Minister goes to the conference of commonwealth prime ministers, it is his intention to ask for an adjournment of the house while he is away.
I am asking these questions only with the idea of trying to formulate, earlier in the session than we have done before, some plan by which the work -may be facilitated and the


Business of the House-Legislation
session shortened, because there seems to be a tremendous volume of work ahead of us and I believe we should plan carefully in order to take care of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I need hardly say that I am in complete accord with my hon. friend in his desire to have the business of the session conducted as rapidly and efficiently as possible. He may be sure that the government will make every effort in that direction. I regret that I have not the vision of a prophet or a seer and therefore am unable to give my hon. friend direct assurances with respect to all that is going to happen in the course of the session. I shall indicate to him in general terms the course which the government intends to follow, though naturally how the session proceeds will depend, among other things, upon circumstances beyond the control of parliment, to begin with, and, within parliament itself, certainly beyond the control of the government. However, it is gratifying to realize that hon. members of all parties appear to share the hope of the government that the debate on the address will not be prolonged unduly. I have no desire in any way to curtail the right or privilege of any hon. member to speak in any debate, but I do believe that in previous years the debate on the address frequently has run on much too long. Last year it continued for a month or more, and I believe the public deprecated the length of time it took the House of Commons to conclude that debate. If there is general agreement in the view that the address should be voted in short order, I can assure my hon. friend that other legislation is ready now to be taken up immediately the debate is concluded.
As to the general business, if hon. members will look at the speech from the throne they will see that it falls naturally into three parts. The first part refers to the war and the importance of war measures receiving consideration ahead of all others. There can be nothing as important as the winning of the war and making every necessary provision toward that end at as early a date as possible. Then follow the measures that relate to the period of transition between the close of the war and the establishment of peace. The fact that the speech from the throne dwells at some length on these measures, and on others, must not be taken as an indication that the government entertains any belief that the war is going to end suddenly, or soon. The contrary, as I said the other day, is the view of the administration. I believe the war will last much longer than most of us have assumed it would.
However, it is part of the government's obligation to anticipate, so far as possible, situations which may arise in any eventuality. And for that reason we have had already to take carefully into consideration, as did committees of the house at the last session, those situations which will arise once the war is at an end. The first of the new situations would be that arising from the conditions in devastated areas in Europe, conditions in countries which have suffered, and which will experience need of assistance from the united nations, in order that their peoples may be enabled to reestablish themselves.
Simultaneously there will also be the most important work of the demobilization of our own forces, and making provision for their reestablishment in orderly fashion. Certain measures will be necessary in that connection. I might describe these measures as illustrative of what is related to the transitional period.
Then, following that, measures by way of reforms will be required, if the new era is to be an improvement on the old one-and we certainly hope and expect it will be. Many measures of social reform will have to be carefully considered. But they cannot be considered by this House of Commons alone because, as hon. members well know, under our constitution certain obligations are assigned to the federal government, and others to the provincial governments. Close cooperation will be required between provincial and dominion authorities if we are to bring into being a nation-wide programme of social security and human well-being.
I do not wish to discuss a matter which might be the subject of debate, but may I point out that in his amendment my hon. friend opposite has stressed the importance of the dominion in its social and fiscal measures not invading the jurisdiction of the provinces. When my hon. friend, the leader of the C.C.F., was speaking in the debate he said-the speech from the throne indicated a first-rate example of passing the buck from the dominion to the provinces. I leave hon. members to judge for themselves as to just in what position the government is placed when dealing with these matters. I, myself, cannot find any sure path to follow, other than that laid down in the constitution of our country as a guide, and what in the way of cooperation will, we hope, be the attitude of all governments in Canada at this time in seeking to meet situations which will lie ahead of us all.
So, speaking broadly, we find the legislation for this session divided into those three fields, namely that which relates immediately to the prosecution of the war, that which relates to the transitional period, and that relating to

Business of the House-Legislation
social problems which will also follow immediately after the war ends, and in larger measure as we enter the period of peace. The government will seek to introduce its legislation, broadly, on those lines.
The measures we wish to take up first of all are those related to the prosecution of the war. Then, as I have said, we will proceed to those matters arising immediately from the war and in the post-war period, and other measures will follow in due course. I am not laying down a hard and fast line. As hon. members know, there are some subjects, the discussion of which will take a longer time than others. There are some we may wish to discuss immediately, and then allow some time to intervene before renewing discussion on them. There are always miscellaneous measures. They will be interspersed. The government will have to judge in respect of those matters what it thinks will best serve to meet the general need. Broadly, however, I have outlined the position.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) asked if we can have all these measures introduced this week. I do not think he is serious when he prefers a request of that kind. No administration has ever brought down its whole programme within the first five days of the session-unless it was intended that the session should last about that length of time.


Gordon Graydon: That is not the only reason.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: However, we will keep the house plentifully supplied with legislation, and if hon. members feel they have not had the time necessary to consider certain legislation before debate is opened in the house, they have only to ask that they be given a little time, and it will be afforded. That is what we seek to do. We do not wish to congest the order paper with a large number of measures, but rather it is our desire to bring before the house in an orderly fashion and in accordance with the plans I have indicated first of all the measures which are the most pressing.


Gordon Graydon: Of course, the introduction of bills does not congest the order paper.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has his responsibility with respect to the introduction of bills, and I have mine. I should not wish to see measures brought down at other than what I regard as the most appropriate time. The government must be the judge of that.
The next query raised by the leader of the opposition was as to whether we can have all committees appointed this week. May I say to him that that depends on him much more

than on me. It depends on other hon. members and other parties in the house rather than on the government. The complaint has been made that last year a long time elapsed before some of these committees were established. I shall not at this time go over the reasons for that, but I would point out in passing that one of the reasons was that, time and again, when we hoped to be able to proceed with a motion related to the appointment of some committee, we were prevented from so doing by a motion from the other side of the. house, occasioning at different times debate which ran on for some days, and the opportunity to get committees appointed was precluded from day to day and often from week to week.
Then there was a further fact-and this is important-namely, that there was a desire on the part of some hon. members to start debates on the several motions to establish committees. On one or two occasions I was asked to please hold over my motion to constitute a committee-the committee on war expenditures was one-because it was the desire of certain hon. members to have a debate upon the motion.


Gordon Graydon: Of course the Prime Minister knows why that was.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have forgotten it-if I ever did know.


Gordon Graydon: Well, I can tell him, if he wishes to know.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am no longer interested as it belongs to the past; but what I wish to say now is that- if hon. members are prepared to allow these committees to be constituted without debate, and that is the position they will take with respect to each committee as its appointment is proposed, I would undertake to say that practically all committees will be established this week. As hon. members will have seen, notice appears in Votes and Proceedings of motions for most of committees that remain to be constituted.. If it is the wish of the house-and it would be very helpful in every way if such proved to be so-I believe those committees could be established at once. If there could be an understanding that there would be no debate-no lengthy debate-on the establishment of the committees, I am sure we could forward them in such fashion that practically all standing and select committees would be established this week.
My hon. friend asked if it was the plan of the government to go on with the war appropriation measure, immediately after the conclusion of the debate on the address. That is the intention. As soon as the debate on the

Business oj the House-Legislation
address is concluded the war appropriation resolution, now appearing on the order paper, will be the first item for the consideration of the house, with the possible exception of some routine motion or motion respecting the appointment of further committees. The bill based upon the resolution is ready to be introduced, and it is the intention with respect to the discussion on the bill to follow the same order of procedure as was adopted last year. That is to say, the estimates with respect to the war appropriation resolution will be broken down, as before, and the debate will proceed on the different branches of the service, taking one service at a time.
My hon. friend asked me at what stage of the session the budget would be brought down. I cannot answer that question offhand because that will depend upon how much time is taken up with the other war measures which will be brought forward in succession. Following the war appropriation measure, without a very long delay, there will be brought down a measure with respect to mutual aid, This year this measure will relate to aid in the nature of relief to countries in Europe as well as to war supplies. I would hope that both of these important war measures might be disposed of before the budget is brought down.
In referring to these matters I think I ought to stress the tremendous load that necessarily falls upon the shoulders of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). Most of the measures of defence in a time of war are financial in character and the Minister of Finance will have a heavy load to carry in bringing forward these measures one after another. But he tells me that he feels he is equal to it. If the house will, as it has done before, cooperate with him I think we can have these measures brought along fairly Boon.
There are also the estimates. They will be ready and tabled shortly. The government hopes to get on with the estimates a little more rapidly this year than has been the case in previous years. It is an open question as to whether more progress is made in the end by having one particular measure discussed at considerable length until it is completed or to break up the discussion and take on other measures in the interim. I am inclined to believe that perhaps it is better not to stick too closely to any one measure through every day in the week but rather to vary the programme in some particulars, while holding in the main to getting through a particular measure. We should I think introduce other bills, some of which may be of minor importance, and have discussions on different
subjects so that the discussion on a particular measure may not become too monotonous. The estimates can be taken up on. one or more days in the week and we shall hope to begin with them at an early stage of the session.
The leader of the opposition has asked me what legislation the government intends to introduce other than that mentioned in the speech from the throne. I cannot indicate to him at the moment what further legislation there will be. There is one bill with respect to the disposal of obsolete war materials which will be brought forward and there are other measures I cannot recall at the moment. There may arise a number of measures in the course of the session. At this moment I am not in position to tell my hon. friend what they will be. The speech from the throne does not usually make mention of all intended legislation.
I have been asked whether it is the intention to adjourn parliament while I attend the conference of commonwealth prime ministers. Here again I cannot speak with any degree of certainty because I do not know when this conference will take place. It is likely to be some short time hence, but whether it would be advisable to adjourn will depend, first of all, on the time at which the meeting takes place and, next, on the progress that meanwhile has been made with the different war measures.
I should point out to the house that before very long the government hopes to have a conference between the dominion and the provinces. The government has been ready ever since the last conference with the provinces to have another dominion-provincial conference and we have reason to believe that the provinces now are ready and willing, some of them I understand quite anxious to meet with the federal government in conference to discuss some of the social problems and financial questions that they along with ourselves have had necessarily to consider. It may be that an adjournment would be advisable in connection with a conference of the kind. It might be possible to arrange to have it take place at the time the meeting of prime ministers is taking place in London. However, I cannot say as to that at the moment or whether it will be necessary or advisable to have an adjournment at the time. I do say, however, that the fact that we are faced with the possibility of an adjournment gives an additional reason why this house should in the interval seek to make all the progress it possibly can with the war measures.
The last question my hon. friend asked was whether there were any other general sessional

Business oj the House-Legislation
plans which the Prime Minister would care to disclose to the house. I have not any in in mind at the moment. If any should develop I shall be glad to acquaint my hon. friend with them.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I think all hon. members wish to expedite the business of the house. During the past several sessions, however, there have been no private members' days, and opportunities are few for private members to bring forward the ideas that their constituents often wish them to bring forward. To my mind the debate on the speech from the .throne offers an opportunity which is now seized by hon. members for that purpose.
I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) could expedite the business of the house if he would say whether it is the intention to move the various committee reports that were tabled on the last day of the last session. If it is not, then I shall object most strenuously to the suggestion that all the committees be set up -this week. With regard to radio and war expenditures particularly I am certain that some discussion should be undertaken in this house. If we have -the assurance that the reports are to be moved, then perhaps there would not be any need to enter into a debate when we are setting up the committees. But if we have not that assurance, members will naturally seize the opportunity-I know I myself intend to do so-when we are setting up the committees to discuss matters concerning radio and war expenditures. Other members may have other reports in their own minds.
As for -this house being a sounding board, I take it that this democratic institution affords the right to every member of parliament to bring forward matters which he considers of interest to his constituents and to the country. Therefore I object strenuously to any suggestion that the house is being used improperly as a sounding board.


Gordon Graydon: I was just cautioning my hon. friend against it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I may
answer the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, my impression is that reports made at any session must be dealt with at that particular session. It would require the unanimous consent of the house or the adoption of a special resolution to permit of discussion at this time of reports made at a previous session. I am not therefore in -a position to give my hon. friend an assurance.



QUESTION AS TO PAYMENT OF LOST PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. There lias been some reference in the press to the possibility of the early payment of participation certificates which have been issued from 1939 to date. Many thousands of these participation certificates have been mislaid by farmers and I should like to have a statement from the minister as to the position of a farmer who had lost participation certificates.


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to' the hon. member for Lake Centre for asking this question. This matter has been dealt with by -the wheat board. That board has duplicates of all participation certificates, and whether they are lost or not, payments will be made. Those who have lost or mislaid their certificates may have to wait a little longer for payment, but they will be paid eventually.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: How soon are payments likely to be made?


James Angus MacKinnon: Payments on the 1940 participation certificates will be started in March. Payments on the 1941 and 1942 crops will be made immediately after completion of the 1940 payments. May I add, in reply to the question just asked, that I am occasionally asked as to the amounts of the payments. It is impossible to say yet what the amount of the payments will be, but they will be announced as soon as possible.
I am also asked as to payments on the 1943 crop. That crop is now only in course of sale and delivery and it is impossible to give any information with respect to it.
The wheat board have had a tremendous accounting problem not only in connection with their ordinary activities but in taking over all the wheat in Canada. They are just as anxious as we are that these payments be made at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. WRIGHT:: I should like to ask a supplementary question. The wheat board took over the wheat at the closing price on a set date at SI.231. The board has been disposing of the crop at the market price, which, judging by the United States price would be between SI.50 and SI.60. What becomes of the difference in price?

Wheat


James Angus MacKinnon: That will all enter into the participation certificates when the 1943 crop is being closed up.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister indicated that he was prepared to answer my question. He has not given an answer yet; I wonder if we may have it now.


James Angus MacKinnon: I was under the impression that the hon. member was referring to the 1943 crop.


Percy Ellis Wright: I was referring to the 1940, 1941 and 1942 crops, not to 1943.


James Angus MacKinnon: The answer I gave was appropriate to the 1943 crop. I am quite ready to give the answer, and I would have given it had I understood the hon. member properly. When the government decided to pay the wheat grower SI.25 a bushel instead of 90 cents as an advance on the 1943-44 and 1944-45 crops it was understood and announced that all the unsold wheat in the wheat board's hands would be taken over at $1.23i a bushel. The 1940-41, 1941M2 and 1942-43 crops were closed out in full on this basis.



ALLOTMENT OF RAILWAY CARS FOR DELIVERIES OF

[Stage Direction]
1943 crop
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: I wish to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce another question. There are areas in Saskatchewan, and particularly in Alberta, where farmers have been unable to deliver practically any part of the 1943 crop because of the control of the allotment of cars. That has caused considerable hardship and injustice. Will the minister give the house the assurance that this inequitable allotment of cars will be rectified, and tell us when we may expect effective action?
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON .(Minister of Trade and Commerce): The hon. member for Yorkton telephoned my office just before three o'clock and said that he intended to ask this question. I do not think the situation is quite as bad as his language would indicate, but undoubtedly transportation difficulties have prevented some producers from delivering as much grain as they wished to sell. The trouble is largely caused by transportation and because of the necessity last fall of getting to eastern Canada and to the head of the lakes for export large quantities of grain. If the hon. member will let me
know to what particular points he refers, I shall be glad to have the wheat board check the situation.
I would point out that in the province of Saskatchewan there are 1,128 shipping points. Only four of these are on a three-bushel quota to-day; sixty-four are on a five-bushel quota; 180 are on a seven-bushel quota, and the remaining 880, or 78 per cent, are on a ten- or fourteen-bushel quota.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It does not matter what the quotas are; they cannot deliver.


James Angus MacKinnon: The deliveries are very close to the quotas except in particular spots, and these are receiving the attention of the wheat board.



VETERANS' ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. H. KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Pensions and National Health. Yesterday, the minister tabled an order in council providing, under certain circumstances, for increases in amounts paid to veterans under the War Veterans' Allowance Act, and also for certain increases to widows of veterans. I should like to ask the minister this question: Will it be necessary for veterans and widows who are entitled to these increases to make application for them, or will all such cases be reviewed automatically?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): They will be reviewed automatically, and arrangements to that effect went into operation this morning.
.	LIVE STOCK



NEW ARRANGEMENTS WITH REGARD TO SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS BY QUEBEC FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Mr. -Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, although I know, as the Prime Minister says, that he is a very busy man. I asked the minister a question on Monday last in regard to the slaughtering of animals by farmers in Quebec, and their being permitted to sell the carcass without a permit. I asked whether Ontario farmers and farmers in other provinces would have the same privilege.
Live Stock


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I will give an answer to that now.
Briefly, the new arrangements may be described as follows. The wartime prices and trade board will issue slaughtering permits to local farmers' organizations in the province of Quebec, giving farmers who have registered with the local organization the right to slaughter their own live stock and to sell the resultant meat. The local farmers' organization will be responsible for the distribution and proper use of meat stamping equipment, for the completion of a monthly report by each registered farmer of slaughterings in relation to coupons collected, and for the preparation of a monthly consolidated report by the secretary of the local organization of total slaughterings by all registered farmers in relation to coupons collected.
These arrangements were recommended by and have the approval of the Quebec Department of Agriculture, whose field officials will cooperate with officials of the wartime prices and trade board.
The wartime prices and trade board is hopeful that the plan, which is not yet fully developed, will facilitate the slaughtering of live stock by individual farmers. As hon. members know, farm slaughtering has been almost universal in the province of Quebec, and it was particularly desirable to work out some method of issuing permits which would not interfere too greatly with established practice, while retaining the degree of control essential to the proper functioning of meat rationing. If the plan proves to be successful in the province of Quebec, the board will be prepared to extend the same arrangements to other areas in other provinces where similar conditions exist.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) asked a question regarding a reported lay-off by the Toronto Shipbuilding company. He wished to know what procedure was adopted in such cases, with special reference to returned soldiers.
The determination of lay-off procedure is the responsibility of national selective service, and since the question has been raised I should like to advise the house of the procedure which has been worked out as between national selective service, the Department of Munitions and Supply, and war contractors.

With the consent of the house I will do this; by placing on Hansard the following documents, which are self-explanatory:
1.	Circular of the Department of Labour, Employment Service and Unemployment Insurance branch, dealing with lay-offs in war and related industries.
2.	Circular issued by the Director of National Service with respect to lay-offs.
3.	Letter and circular signed by the deputy minister of the Department of Munitions and Supply which has been sent to all prime contractors to the Department of Munitions and Supply.
4.	Circular letter from the Acting Coordinator of Production of the Department of Munitions and Supply to all direetors-general of production branches, heads of divisions and presidents of government-owned crown companies, setting out the procedure which is to be followed in any changes involving stopping of production, reducing the rate of production or cancellation of orders.
The contents of these circulars will answer the question of my hon. friend and any other questions of this kind which may be asked during the session.
The procedure outlined affects lay-offs where the number of employees involved is in excess of fifty. The Department of Munitions and Supply does not ordinarily receive advice of any lay-off involving less than fifty persons.
In the case to which my hon. friend refers, I am advised that fifteen carpenters were given notice on Thursday, January 27. These men are no longer required because the specifications of the furniture and fittings on the particular vessel on which they were working have been changed from wood to steel.
I now table the documents:
Department of Labour Employment Service and Unemployment Insurance Branch Ottawa
December 27, 1943.
National Selective Service Circular No. 317
Subject: Lay-offs:-War and Related Industries
1.	This circular supersedes and cancels rulings and procedures Number E 10, dated January 23, 1943, and E 10A, dated March 31, 1943.
2.	The procedure outlined below will apply to all lay-offs, involving 50 or more persons, and due to the curtailing, cancelling or completing of orders for war and related materials but will not apply where the lay-off is d.ue to seasonal curtailment of civilian goods or services. Where less than 50 persons are involved the procedure outlined below will apply but notices and reports will not be required.
3.	Notifications of lay-offs will come from various sources, and generally head office will notify the regional office, which in turn, will
FEBRUARY 2, 1944	U7
Labour Conditions-Toronto Shipbuilding
notify the local office of the lay-off. On occasion, regional offices or local offices will be the first to receive a notice of lay-off; in these cases they will immediately notify the other offices; for instance, a local office hearing of a lay-off will advise its regional office, which, in turn, will notify head office, or if the regional office first hears of a lay-off, it will notify head office and the local office.
4.	When a lay-off is notified to a local 9ffice by a regional office, the latter office will issue instructions on the handling of the lay-off and advise whether a regional officer will advise on arrangements or whether the lay-off will be the sole responsibility of the local office. If a local office first hears of a lay-off it can assume that the lay-off will be its sole responsibility if the number of persons involved is less than 50 and it will immediately contact the employer and make the necessary arrangements, notifying the regional office by mail. If the lay-off involves 50 or more persons the local office will communicate with the regional office by wire or telephone and the regional office will then decide whether it will be necessary to send a regional representative to advise on the handling of the layoff, or whether this should be handled by the local office. The regional office will immediately notify the local office of its decision and issue any necessary instructions.
5.	It should be borne in mind that practically all lay-offs will be in industries covered by NSS Circular 282-A and B Labour Priority Industry

"Freeze" of employment, and consequently no person can be dismissed without the written permission of a selective servioe officer. This means that no lay-off can take place without the authorization of a selective service officer and further no lay-off is to be authorized until the procedures outlined ibelow are carried out.
6.	The officer detailed to communicate with the employer concerned will arrange for an orderly lay-off in the light of the general manpower situation at the particular time. He must courteously point out to the employer that we are definitely interested in who is, or who is not, to be laid off. It is not our intention that the least desirable or least efficient workers will be those to be laid off, but rather, first, those persons available for the army, and, second, other persons who can be moved to the advantage of, or with the least disturbance to the general labour situation. The demands for the army are continuing demands, and must have a definite priority, unless the persons available have exceptional skills which are greatly in demand by high priority industry, for example, tool makers, journeymen machinists, journeymen electricians, etc., should be transferred rather than be called up. The whole situation should be explained to the employer tactfully.
7.	In order to obtain men for the army the following procedures will be used:-
(a)	Where an Industrial Mobilization Survey has been completed the regional employment officer will direct an officer (preferably an investigator who has worked on the survey) to contact the employer, supplying him with a copy of the industrial mobilization survey plan, and the necessary subsidiary documents including Form NSS (M) 2-job description-for each man listed in the survey. He will -then be in a position to discuss the status of each employee on deferment. He should -advise the employer that up to the number involved in the lay-off, all men on deferment -according to the survey, will be called by the registrar, unless there are very good reasons for not ha%ring particular men
called. He should further advise the employer that, due to the reduction in production, there will probably be available some skilled men who were previously deemed to be very essential, but who could now be released. After carefully explaining the whole situation he should then go over the survey marking "A" against each man who can be called by the army (men over 38 years of age should not be included) and "T" against the name of each man available for transfer. Where a man is considered to be a key-man, the reasons for this consideration should be noted on the survey. If the number of available men on deferment is in excess of the number to be laid off, -the employer will be advised that those who are shown to be replaceable in the shorter periods will be called first and these men will be indicated on the survey. The employer will then be advised that those men will be called for army service, or for transfers and must be given notices of separation. It should be mentioned that a percentage of tbe men who are on deferment and who will be called by the military authorities, will not be accepted by them and may later be available for reemployment. If such men return to employment additional men on deferment, if available, must be given notices of separation. This procedure will in many cases look after an entire lay-off, but if the lay-off involves more people than can be taken care of in this manner the procedure outlined in paragraph 10 is to be followed.
(b)	Where no industrial mobilization survey has been made the officer on his first contact with the employer will request a list of all persons presently on deferment employed in the establishment, and a further list after the first one has been prepared of all other male persons in the designated age groups. These lists should be made up on form NSS (M) 1 -industrial mobilization survey and will be supplied by the officer and should contain all necessary information for the registrar to make calls. A similar procedure to that mentioned in (a) above will be followed for the first list, and an endeavour will be made to get as many men as possible for the army, and for transfer.
8.	The surveys and lists mentioned in paragraph 7 above will be sent immediately on completion to the chairman of the mobilization survey committee, in whose military district the lay-off occurs, for approval and submission to the divisional registrar. The registrar will thus be advised of the men available for the army and for transfer to high priority industry and will arrange to call up men and approve transfers. Transfers will be approved provisionally but local offices must mail to the registrar, a completed form 144-A-notice to divisional registrar (section C applies), marked "lay-off" in the upper right hand corner, for each individual who is transferred. The lists of men in the designated age groups but not on deferment will be supplied to the registrar by the chairman of the mobilization survey committee to assist in cheeking delinquents.
9.	When men on deferment are laid off and the registrar so notified, the local office^ tnust acquaint all placement officers who will be dealing with these men with this information. Men who have received, or will shortly receive their order-military training should only be referred to jobs of short duration and should not be referred to jobs of a permanent nature If it is decided by the registrar that certain men null not be called, the local office will be
8	COMMONS
Labour Conditions-Toronto Shipbuilding
so notified. Men who fail to pass the final medical examination, will be handled in the usual manner at the army reception centres.
10.	Where persons in addition to those on deferment are to be laid off, they should generally be laid off in the following order, subject, of course, to seniority rights where plants are covered by collective bargaining agreements, or subject to the conditions of any other employer-labour contracts:
(a)	Workers with previous agricultural experience, particularly dairy farm or stock raising. These persons will be directed, if possible, to year-round farm jobs;
(b)	Workers who are needed in other essential industries in the same vicinity;
(c)	Workers who are required by outside essential industries, and may be moved;
(d)	Younger -workers without family obligations (workers in this group are more adaptable, and are generally more easily moved).
(e)	Married women, if their husbands are supporting them.
(f)	Older men and women, if the foregoing classes have been exhausted.
It should be noted that generally women should not be laid off as long as they can replace men. Local situations may, however, alter this general rule, and discretion must be exercised.
11.	Employers should be requested to prepare nominal rolls on forms NSS 240A and 240B lay-off report-nominal roll, in triplicate covering all persons to be laid off. Samples of these forms are attached, and will be supplied by the regional office to local offices as required. When this nominal roll is completed by the employer, one copy will be left with him and the other copies will be used by the local office as the basic record for the lay-off. Complete instructions as to its use are on the back of the form.
12.	When persons are interviewed, forms U.I.C. 701 will be given the number shown on the lay-off report, nominal roll, for purposes of identification, and the name of the firm will be noted prominently on the 701. 701's for each separate lay-off will be kept in a separate file until final disposal of the applicant1 is made. If disposal of any person has not been made during the period of three weeks from the date of separation, the situation at that time will be considered to be final, and will be shown under the appropriate heading, and the 701 placed in the regular files. In other words, final disposition of all persons from lay-offs must be made in three weeks from the date of their separation. Otherwise, for record purposes, they are treated as ordinary applicants.
13.	Additional reports form NSS 240D, lav-off summary report, and form NSS 240C, lav-off summary weekly report, as per samples attached, will be prepared from the lav-off report- nominal roll. Form NSS 240D' will be completed at the close of the week following the week during which the first separation took place. Form NSS 240C will be completed for each subsequent week and will give the cumulative or to date totals for the lay-off. The final report, marked "final" in red ink. will be the report for the third week after the week of the last separation. This will allow sufficient time to record the disposition of the persons laid off and will not unduly prolong the period for

which reports are required. These reports -will be made in quadruplicate; two copies for head office, employment service division (one of these will be forwarded to the Department of Munitions and Supply). One copy for the regional office and one copy for local office files.
14.	The regional employment officer shall notify the regional insurance officer of any probable lay-off of fifty or more employees, unless the persons to be laid off can ,be placed immediately in other employment.
15.	Wherever possible, arrangements should be made to interview the workers who are to be laid off during the period covered by the notice of separation, and at the plant. Direct referrals to new jobs -will be made when possible, and the required permits issued. By interviewing at the plant, it is believed that situations will be handled in a much more orderly manner, that crowding and congestion at our offices will be avoided and that the workers and the companies involved will appreciate our efforts to offer new employment with as little lost time and inconvenience as possible.
16.	Lay-offs are difficult situations from every point of view, and all officers are cautioned to use courtesy, tact, and diplomacy in dealing with all parties concerned.
17.	This circular is effective January 3, 1944, and all lay-offs on and after that date must be handled as outlined above.
IS. Form NSiS 240-0, lay-off summary report

must also be completed, insofar as it is possible for all lay-offs which have taken place in the period from November 1. 1943, to December 31, 1943. Where a lay-off is in progress at December 31, 1943, a report will Ibe submitted as above, and then the procedures outlined in this circular *will be followed insofar as it is possible.
H. F. Caloren Allan M. Mitchell Director of Employment Service and Unemployment Insurance
(Letter attached to National Selective Service circular No. 317-1. January 19, 1944, Subject: Lay-offs-War Contractors.)
Information for War Contractors in Connection with "Lay-offs"
You are no doubt already aware that essential changes in Canada's war production programme necessitate certain "lay-offs". National Selective Service is most anxious in such cases to reassign employees promptly and with the least inconvenience to all concerned.
Definite instructions have been given to all offices of National Selective Service to cooperate fully with employers and to follow the procedure which is briefly outlined herein.
As you know, your establishment has been classified as a "designated establishment" under National Selective Service Civilian Regulations and consequently you may not terminate the employment of any male employee without the permission in writing of a selective service officer. Therefore, the closest nossible cooperation will be necessary in working out arrangements between yourselves and the local employment and selective service office.
Before giving any general or individual notice you are therefore required to discuss the matter

Labour Conditions-Toronto Shipbuilding
with the manager of your nearest employment and selective service office. He will be ready to render immediate assistance in working out the details of the "lay-off".
The procedure to ibe followed in reassigning labour due to "lay-offs" will be as follows:
1.	Owing to the needs of the army for a large number of men each month, the first step must be to release those men suitable for the armed forces. If an industrial mobilization survey has been completed for your establishment a representative of selective service will provide you with a copy of the survey plan and discuss with you the status of each employee on deferment with a view to making arrangements with the divisional registrar to call up such men for military training, unless there is very good reason why such men should not be called at this time. If no industrial mobilization survey has been made, you will be asked by the national selective service officer to provide a list of all persons in your employ presently on deferment, also a list showing all other male employees within the age groups and of the marital status designated under mobilization regulations.
2.	The next step to be taken should be to reduce working hours to 48 hours per week, or to the normal working hours per week for the industry if less than 48.
_ 3. Where it is necessary to lay off persons in addition to those on deferment, it is the intention that they should be laid off generally in the following order, subject of course to seniority rights where an establishment is covered by a collective bargaining agreement, or subject to the conditions of any other employer-employee contract:
(a)	Workers with agricultural experience, particularly in dairy farming or stock raising.
(lb) Workers whose services could be utilized in other essential industries in the vicinity of your establishment.
(c)	Workers whose services could be utilized by outside essential industries and who could be moved to such.
(d)	Younger workers without family obligations.
(e)	Married women if their husbands are supporting them.
(f)	Older men and women if the foregoing classes have been exhausted.
4. Wherever possible arrangements will ibe made to have national selective service officers interview at the plant the workers who are to be laid off and direct referrals to new jobs will be made when possible. This will enable national selective service to handle the situation in a more orderly manner and to offer new employment with as little lost time and inconvenience as possible.
Your cooperation in assisting our officers in dealing with this difficult situation will be much appreciated.
A. MaeNamara,
Director of National Selective Service
Deputy Minister of
Munitions and Supply Ottawa, Canada
February 1, 1944.
To Prime Contractors to the
Department of Munitions and Supply.
Re: Procedure by prime contractors when instructions are received to stop production, to reduce the rate of production of stores or to cancel certain outstanding orders.
The pattern of this war is constantly changing and the demands made on this department and on Canadian contractors will likewise change.
These changed demands will necessitate the issuance, from time to time, of instructions to curtail production on certain stores and to stop production entirely on others. Some lay-offs of labour will doubtless result from such instructions.
If and when such an event odcurs, prime contractors are called upon to take certain steps which are outlined in the attached memorandum from the Director of National Selective Service, and in my letter of instruction, also attached.
The careful observance of these instructions will enable the government to make full use of the machinery which it has set up to ensure that Canada makes the best use of all available manpower.
This communication is not to be regarded as an indication that we think the war is over. It is to be looked upon purely as a preparation for changes in war demands. Such changes and the cancellations and adjustments which follow them are a part of the business of waging *war-not a sign that the war is over.
Will you please acknowledge receipt of these instructions.
G. K. Sheils,
Deputy Minister.
Deputy Minister of
Munitions and Supply Ottawa, Canada
February 1, 1944. To Prime Contractors to the
Department of Munitions and Supply.
Re: Pre-layoff procedure to be adopted by contractors to this department, immediately definite instructions are received either to stop production or to reduce production rates, or when outstanding orders are reduced-if any of the above acts will result in an immediate or subsequent layoff of labour.
When any one of the above conditions occurs you are requested to take the following action:
(a)	Communicate immediately with the local selective service officer as no lay-off may take place without that officer's consent,
(b)	Supply the selective service officer with the names and addresses of all sub-contractors affected by the production change,
120	COMMONS
Labour Conditions-Toronto Shipbuilding
(c)	Advise the above noted sub-contractors and suppliers and request them to communicate with their local selective service officer if layoffs are to occur,
(d)	Consult with your labour-management committee or the plant representatives of your employees before notices of separation are given and advise them, as far as is consistent with security-, of the reasons for the production change and ask them to inform the other employees.
Please note that, except in so far as necessary to carry out the above instructions, any and all advices regarding production changes are confidential as between this Department and your company.
No publicity must therefore be given to the said instructions or advices without the specific knowledge and consent of the department. If, in your opinion, some publicity is desirable and would be in the public interest, you will please submit your detailed proposals with respect thereto to the director general of the publicity branch of the department who will discuss the same with all parties concerned, including the censors, and will advise you if and when and to what extent these proposals are approved. If the matter should appear to you to be urgent, the publicity branch may be consulted bytelephone or telegraph.
When a contract is about to run out and no renewal appears to be likely and such completion of contract will result in labour being laid off in the near future, it is requested that you give your local selective service officer ample notice of the said lay-off to enable him to make his necessary arrangements, also that y-ou advise the sub-contractors and suppliers concerned and request them to communicate with their local selective service officer as contemplated in paragraph (c) above.
Will you please acknowledge receipt of these instructions.
G. K. Sheils,
Deputy Minister.
Department of Munitions and Supply To: Direetors-General of Production Branches, Heads of Division,
Presidents of Govt. Owned Companies.
Superseding C.P. 8
From: Acting Co-ordinator of Production.
February 1, 1944. Re: Labour
Procedure for Production Branches and Producing Crown Companies prior to issuing official instructions involving stopping production. reducing the rate of production or cancelling orders.
The Department of Munitions and Supply is responsible for giving National Selective Service advance notice and accurate information regarding labour to be released by prime contractors as a result of production changes, in order that National Selective Service may be able to:
(a)	obtain the maximum number of men eligible for the armed forces,
(b)	procure by- transfer, workers with particular skills urgently peeded for other high priority industry, and
(c)	place released employees in other jobs with a minimum of disruption or dislocation.
i Mr. Howe.]
1.	When it is decided by the programme head1 that a change of production is necessary, whether this is to be done by stopping production, reducing the rate of production, cancellation of contracts or reduction of outstanding orders, the programme head will communicate with the contractor concerned advising him that a change in production may be required and requesting the contractor to furnish him immediately, by telegraph, information as to the number of employees, male and female, who will be released from his organization if such action is taken, and1 the approximate dates when such lay-offs will take place. (These figures are not to include sub-contractors.)
2.	Direetors-General and heads of crown owned companies are held responsible for seeing to it that this request is closely followed up and that no undue delay is permitted in securing the above information.
3.	If the contractor reports, or if the programme head considers it likely, that 50 people
' or more will be laid off as a result of the projected action, the programme head will advise the appointed officer of the Office of the Co-ordinator of Production, local 3781, room B.16G, No. 2 temporary building, forthwith bytelephone or telegram. This information is to be confirmed in writing, in duplicate.
4.	Upon receipt of the above information, this
officer will either,	.
(a)	authorize the programme head to communicate the decision to the contractor, or
(b)	request the programme head to defer action pending clearance of the lay-off with the Department of Labour through the labour liaison officer. As soon as this is done, the office of the Co-ordinator of Production will advise the programme head.
5.	When cleared with the office of the Coordinator of Production, the official instructions are to be issued personally by either the director-general, the assistant director-general, the president or general manager as the case may be. These may be sent by- letter or wire, two copies of which will be sent to the appointed officer and such other parties as are required by the deputy minister's instructions.
6.	In all such advices to contractors, the communication should refer the contractor to the deputy minister's letter of February 1, 1944, copies of which are attached.
J. H. Berry,
Acting Co-ordinator of Production.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: May I ask the minister if there was any consultation with the officials of labour organizations in this connection. I notice that all other parties interested are communicated with; have there been any contacts with laboui* organizations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. The case in point is a union shop, and the president of the union is consulted. I believe that the procedure laid down by selective service is worked out in cooperation with the unions, and within the framework of the instructions the union is consulted in the matter of lay-off.

The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: I should like again to direct a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply. Yesterday I asked, quite distinctly, if the principle of seniority rights was recognized in the shop agreements which the contractors for the department have, particularly with this company, and whether that principle is being honoured with regard to this lay-off of fifteen carpenters.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The documents which I asked with the consent of the house to have placed on Hansard set out the procedure there followed. I might have read these circulars.


Joseph Henry Harris: That is all right.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not think it is very helpful to give the procedure for one particular case when there is a procedure for general application; and the circular which will be printed in Hansard covers fully the point raised by my hon. friend.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. L. D. Tremblay 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. Graydon, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Hon. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, the preliminaries to the carrying on of this debate have no doubt been most interesting to those who have been participating, but I can say they are very disconcerting to a member who is trying to rise in his place in order to proceed with the discussion. However, I am not complaining about that; I recognize that within certain limitations these privileges and rights are extended to hon. members.
In rising to take part in this, what has sometimes been called a time-honoured debate, sometimes characterized as a useless debate, I desire to make one or two observations. There is no doubt about it that in days gone by this debate on the speech from the throne has been carried on at altogether too great length. On the other hand, I would deprecate the wiping out in their entirety of the facilities that this debate offers. There is a happy medium; and in view of the announcement which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made yesterday, that the speech from the throne does not mean an election, I am hopeful that this debate will be concluded
within a reasonable time. I suppose it is all very well for me to say that when I am through and let the other fellow think he cannot speak at all. But there is no doubt about it, in my view at all events, that the debate on the speech from the throne serves a very useful purpose, and particularly at this time. Notwithstanding the clamour in certain portions of the press for the abrogation of this debate, I should like to point out that this house.has had a recess of at least six months, that during that period of time events of great importance and moment have occurred, that we have had no opportunity to review these events, and that it is difficult to do so when one is dealing with particular proposals by way of legislation. So that I say to you, sir, and to the membership of this house, that the debate on the address affords a very useful occasion to review events which have occurred in the long recess period of six months.
It is said that parliament is the great sounding board of the nation. That I think is true. Many of us have no other sounding board. We do not control the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, like the government does; we are not allowed to go on the air when we should like to do so. We may be able, if we have the money to buy the time and place, to go on the air and talk to our constituents, but we are subject to a strict censorship. I protest . against that, and I hope that this position will be reviewed at a very early date and that there will be freedom of the air as to-day there is freedom of speech in this house and a free public press. The situation with regard to the use of the facilities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is intolerable and it cannot be allowed to stand. The sooner it is reviewed by those in authority, the better.
I come to a consideration of some of the topics which are immediately before this house and the country. I am glad to see that my colleague, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) to-day invited the government to introduce at once the measures visualized in the speech from the throne so that we may have full opportunity of examination and analysis and express our approval or disapproval. The speech of His Excellency, put in his mouth by my right hon. friend and his colleagues, covers an imposing and extensive field. I should say that stress was laid on the transitional period and on the post-war period and the problems relating thereto rather than upon the immediate objective of the nation, the winning of the war.
122	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, that is not true.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, that is my reaction. The public has been justified in assuming from the general tenor of the speech that a general election was in the offing. There is no doubt about that; for without hesitation I say to the Prime Minister that in my judgment-perhaps it is as good as his, I do not say it is better- the major portion of the speech looked like and was intended to be taken by the electorate as the basis of an early election appeal. It was an election speech; there is no doubt about that. I go farther and say that it has all the earmarks of an attempt to raise new issues in the minds of the public and to obliterate all recollection of the errors and omissions of the administration during the last four years in the conduct of the war, errors and omissions, sins of commission on the part of the administration which have turned public opinion against this government. If any proof of that fact is required it will be found in the events of last summer when the by-elections were held, by-elections which, if the administration had the confidence of the country, should in all cases have resulted in the return of government nominees; but which to the surprise and astonishment of myself, at least, resulted, in a series of crushing defeats for hon. gentlemen opposite. These by-elections indicated a lack of confidence in the administration. Some people will gloat over this defeat of the government, but to me it has brought very serious implications. I am not gloating over these defeats. In fact I may say very frankly to Your Honour and to the members of this house that I was rather appalled at the results of the by-elections.


Mr. ROWE:: So was the government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, so
was the government. That it indicated a protest against the administration will, I think, be admitted by all. But in my view it indicated very much more than that. As I analyse the result it would appear that an extremely radical and, if I may be permitted to say so, in my view at least a subversive element in this countiy had what I hope is only a momentary triumph.
I know little about the position in western Canada, but consider the two elections in eastern Canada. After the result in Stan-stead and Cartier can anyone say that Canada is a united nation? When you witness in a rock-ribbed Liberal constituency such as Cartier the election of a gentleman who is, according to all the remarks that I have heard, an out-and-out communist then I say

that is something to think about. I know the gentleman's name is Rose, but that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Can anyone say after that result in Cartier and after that result in Stanstead that this country is united? What happened in Stanstead? There was the triumph over a Liberal candidate of a candidate of the Bloc Populaire, a party with a purely nationalistic appeal. What does that mean? It means, if it means anything, disunity in this country and it is a deplorable state of affairs. In my judgment these results indicate that Canada is more disunited than it has been at any time in our history. The results axe quite clear. They are very discernible. They are the natural results which have flowed from the policies of the administration in the prosecution of the war. I do not propose to-day to traverse ground that I have covered on previous occasions. I make that assertion. I desire only to emphasize the fact that, in my view at all events, this administration has lost the confidence of the country and I do not think there is any doubt about it.
On Monday the Prime Minister spoke in what I considered to be a chastened mood. I can understand that. It was in marked contrast with past performances. He had his mechanical majority behind him but he has learned the lesson of humility. That is a fine thing for a prime minister to learn. It is a fine attribute for a prime minister to have. I have tried to cultivate that attitude myself, I do not know with what success; but I think it is a fine attribute for any public man to have. The Prime Minister took occasion to say that he wanted no general election before the expiration of the lifetime of parliament in June, 1945; but he so hedged his position, as he always does, by two qualifications, that it is difficult to be certain of his position. The first qualification was that "situations" might arise which would make it impossible for the government to carry on with the authority it should have in time of war. The second qualification which is rather similar to the first was, that some question might arise which would make it absolutely necessary that an appeal be made to the country to settle the issue. He left the door wide open. Make no mistake about that. He always does. That is part of the political strategy for which he is so famous.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Excuse me for just one moment. There was one statement that the hon. gentleman made which I think ought to be corrected. If I gathered rightly my hon. friend said I had said that I wished

The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
no election until June, 1945. I think I said I wished no election in war-time. In answering a question as to the extension of the term of parliament I said this parliament has until June, 1945 to run.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
interpreting the whole thing, the two statements together. The Prime Minister said he did not want any election before June, 1945 because by law the life of parliament will expire at that time and we must have an election unless there is an extension of the life of this parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was asked a question as to whether I wished parliament to continue beyond that period. I said, no. I do not want the impression to go abroad I had given an undertaking that there will be no election before June, 1945.


Mr. HANSON (Yrork-Sunbury):: The Prime Minister left the door wide open, and I suggest to him that he could always find an excuse. Therefore do not take this promise of no election this year too seriously. I am going to give my opinion about the matter a little later, and I am very serious about what I think ought to be done. If I wanted to be cynical I would say that the Prime Minister was from one point of view well advised in making that declaration. I am thoroughly convinced his party would be defeated at the polls if an appeal were made now or in the immediate future. That is the political angle of this question.
There is another angle to it. Personally I do not wish to be swayed by the political angle. Mere party advantage or place or the prospect of power in the immediate future certainly make no appeal to me as an individual member of this house when there is a war on. I am much more concerned about another great principle and it is this: I believe that the holding of a general election at this time or in the immediate future would be a distinct detriment to the successful prosecution of the war. I am very honest in that conviction. From the very beginning of this gigantic struggle-and I am sure hon. members will bear me out in this-I have taken the position and I have rigidly adhered to it that the supreme objective of the Canadian people, the supreme objective of the membership of this house, irrespective of party, the supreme duty of each and every one of us no matter what our political proclivities, or our point of view may be, is the winning of this war, and all other considerations, party and otherwise, are subordinated to that supreme consideration.
I was very glad indeed to hear the Prime Minister in his speech on Monday last utter a grave note of warning^ and again to-day that not only is this war not won, but it is far from being won. In fact, may I emphasize what the Prime Minister has alluded to, that war on the European front is now entering upon its most critical stage. The allied nations have invaded Europe through Italy. Further invasions are contemplated. The most exacting and dangerous no doubt will be on the western front. If we are at all realistic we must know that in attacking frontally the fortress of Europe as now dominated by the German forces the allied nations are undertaking the most courageous and herculean task in all history. Look at the map of Europe; visualize it with me, if you will. Germany dominates over half the whole continent of Europe. She is in absolute possession of Norway, Denmark, the low countries of Holland and Belgium, the whole of France, the major part of Italy and the Balkan states, while her own territory remains inviolate save and except for the destruction of her cities and her production programme wrought by the magnificent work of the Royal Air Force, the gallant Royal Canadian Air Force, and the great and wonderful contribution of the air forces of our mighty ally the United States of America.
There is the position. To say that the war is nearly over is folly and a fallacy. Nothing could be further from the truth; nothing could be more dangerous than to believe anything of the sort. To hold that belief; to relax our efforts in any degree is to invite disaster. And to hold a general election in three or six months, with the prospect of blood and carnage almost unthought of, perhaps beyond the scope and measure of our imagination, I honestly believe would be a letting down of our determination, our morale and our will to support the men at the front, and we must never do that. That is my considered view. Others may differ, but I desire to maintain that position in this house, and I think the Prime Minister might well have taken that position in the speech from the throne. However, he has repaired that omission; and speaking for myself I am satisfied, much as I have deplored the fact that at a time of such great national and international undertakings we in Canada have conducted this war on a party rather than on a national basis.
May I pause here, Mr. Speaker, to express my regret, yea, my astonishment, at the position taken by my hon. friend the leader of the Bloc Populaire (Mr. Raymond) in his recent speech in this house in which, if I understood
124	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
him aright, he took the ground that we were doing altogether too much, much more than our proportion having regard to our size, our wealth and our resources, and if I follow him to a logical conclusion he would perhaps have Canada get out of this war altogether now that the danger of invasion is over. I read the translation of that speech, and as I pondered it I could not but reflect that some people in Canada have very short memories. Has the hon. gentleman forgotten those hectic days of May and June, 1940, after Dunkirk, when nothing stood between the enemy and this Canada of ours-which I agree we both love-but the might, the power, the courage and I would almost say the majesty of the British navy, together with the magnificent will and determination of the British people under the matchless, indomitable leadership of Churchill, who, along with the British people, the royal navy, the merchant navy and the workers of Britain offered only blood, sweat and tears, and who not only saved this continent from invasion but saved civilization itself? For, make no mistake about it, the resolution, the fortitude and the bravery of Churchill and the British people did just that. Have we no gratitude in our hearts and minds for that magnificent achievement? From that has grown, with the help first of Canada and the other major sister dominions and then with the heartening aid of the United States and the wonderful contribution of the Russian people, the promising position of to-day, when, if victory is not in sight, it is at least within striking distance. In those days Britain attained the moral leadership of the whole civilized world. Standing alone she earned that position, and at great cost and sacrifice; and we as Canadians, irrespective of our racial descent, should recognize that fact and be eternally thankful. And with all kindliness and in all sincerity I say to my hon. friend that no part of Canada was more vulnerable than his beloved part. No part of Canada should be more thankful than that part of our citizenry which my hon. friend claims to represent, the people of his own province.
In the short space of time allotted to one, Mr. Speaker-and I suppose in days to come even that time may be cut down-it is extremely difficult to cover any wide range of subjects, and I am not going to attempt to do so.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: It is when you read it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not reading it. I desire to turn now to a peacetime subject which I consider to be of very great importance, to give some views with

regard to it and to ask the administration some questions. I refer to the question of civil aviation. We have made great strides since the beginning of the war. There is no doubt that the empire air training plan has been a great success; started too late, it is true, but nevertheless a great success. It will be recalled that last year the Prime Minister made a declaration of policy with respect to this question of civil aviation, and that the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) did likewise. We also had some observations on the subject in the committee on railways and shipping by the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines. I am not going to repeat what those declarations were; they are well known to all our membership and to the country generally. I do think, however, that at a very early date this whole position should be debated and reviewed. In the speech from the throne there was an omission, a very significant omission, of any reference to this great problem; it contained not a syllable about post-war civil aviation. My colleague the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) referred to' this omission in his address on Monday, at page 20 of Hansard, in these terms:
There is no single economic subject fraught with such important effects and ramifications of a world-wide character which is so vital to Canada as commercial aviation.
I agree with that statement. We have the Trans-Canada Air Lines. I am not here to-day to criticize the operations of that enterprise, which started from scratch and has done very good work. No one will deny, however, that the government has been a "sugar daddy" to Trans-Canada Air Lines. Somebody had to father it, and the government did so. Perhaps I may be excused for using the term "sugar daddy"; it is a pretty comprehensive term, and everyone knows what is meant. This was used in another connection; it is a bit of slang we have borrowed from across the boundary line. We find that Trans-Canada Air Lines is just a government monopoly. It is operated for the government under the form of a private undertaking. It is not subject to the control of this parlia^ ment. It is not subject-or at least only to a very limited extent-to the control of the board of transport commissioners. Control, in the first instance, is vested in the board of directors, who are the creatures of the government, and the real control of Trans-Canada Air Lines is vested in the Minister of Munitions and Supply. He is behind it. He kept his hand on that when he left the Department of Transport to go to the department which he now heads. I am not blaming him; having

The Address

Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
regard to the circumstances existing in the department, I think he did the right thing. But it is a monopoly. The board of transport commissioners has practically nothing to say about its operation. Judging by results, the policy at the moment would appear to be against internal expansion. There may be a reason for that; I do not know. But their policy certainly is to prevent any competition from development by private enterprise. I do not think there is any gainsaying that. And as I am a supporter of private enterprise I ask for a complete overhauling of both the policy and the actual practice.
We are supposed to have a free economy in this country, outside of war time. That may be a fallacy. We are subject to tremendous control at the present time, under the guise of war-some of which control is wholly unnecessary. Under a Liberal government one would have supposed that a free economy in transportation would be axiomatic. That should be the practice. But what have we? The initiative, the freedom to operate privately sponsored air transport is cabined, cribbed, confined and put in a strait-jacket. Even in the air a limited field has been left open to private enterprise, and allotted by government policy. If any proof is required of that statement, I can give it now. Recently application was made on behalf of a private enterprise to establish an airways route between the cities of Saint John and Halifax in the maritime provinces. The application was refused, and in my judgment the refusal was without justifiable or reasonable cause. The field is not occupied, and present facilities on the main line of Trans-Canada Air Lines do not fill the need.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What method was taken to refuse it? Has the hon. member seen the refusal, or anything of that kind?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand it is a matter of record that it has been refused. I am coming to what I understand to be the reason.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The situation is, if I am not mistaken, that a number of other applications are not being dealt with by the board of transport commissioners at the present time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: My understanding is just this-and may I say that that is no reason-that they did not choose to deal with the application. Who told them not to do so?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes. The cold hand of the Minister of Munitions and Supply is against this application. Why? The application was turned down, as I understand, on the ground of military necessity.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was turned down because we believed that valuable air franchises should be held until the return of the people who are fighting our battles overseas.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the minister propose to give- the franchise to another company, or is he speaking of employment? Because, if he is, I would point out to him that there will be lots of boys coming back who will be capable of handling the airways. I am dealing with a situation in my own province, one with which I am familiar. The minister will find there is a good deal of irritation there, because we cannot get an air communication service in New Brunswick that is worth while.
Military necessity was, I understand, the reason given for the refusal of the application. To me that sounds most unconvincing. There is no such necessity. This procedure of restricting private enterprise is dwarfing the progress of Canadian air transportation. Instead of permitting it to function and expand in a normal fashion, it is quite plain to me that the government policy is one which visualizes expansion only on the part of Trans-Canada Air Lines-and they are not expanding. It is a dog-in-the-manger policy, and one which should be reviewed and liberalized.
This government-controlled line has been allotted an absolute monopoly of transcontinental routes. That is an accomplished fact, although I believe in future there will be-and should be-room for competing services. But there is more than that here. This government-controlled company has an absolute monopoly to operate all Canadian services on international routes. But it does not operate any international routes, with one exception. That field is being taken up, not by Canadian enterprise but by United States enterprise. They have invaded this country, and they are waiting to invade it further. And, listen to this: I am informed-and I wish to be corrected if I am wrong-that this government will not allow any Canadian enterprise to approach the United States government for licensing facilities, so that they can enter the United States. They cannot even reach the United States government, because the Canadian government refuses to facilitate their application.
126	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)


George Alexander Cruickshank: You will elect us again.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Do not worry about me; look after yourself. That is as much as most of us can do.
Trans-Canada Air Lines has a transcontinental monopoly, and has reserved to itself the sole right to develop and acquire any ancillary routes of a main-line character which it may decide to operate. That is government policy. Private operators which have pioneered routes may be arbitrarily ousted and excluded. That is the position to-day.
I suggest to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Munitions and Supply that the government should not bar private enterprise from secondary, feeder or purely local routes in the domestic field, such as that between Saint John and Halifax.
Then we have before us the question of transocean routes. Services for these, also, are reserved for government monopoly after the war, or when they get around to it- whenever that may be. I point out to the house that that is not the attitude of the United States of America, as far as their postwar policy is concerned. If I understand their position correctly the government in that country is encouraging private enterprise to enter this field. I doubt, too, if it will be the attitude of the government of the United Kingdom, or any other of the free sovereign states in Europe after the war.
There appeared in the January isue of the Atlantic Monthly, which I have on my desk, an article entitled "The Future of Air Transport, A British View," written by Peter Masefield, who is described by the editor as the personal adviser to Lord Beaverbrook on civil aviation as it affects Great Britain. This article is in no sense official. But because of our knowledge of the author and his position, any views he may express must command respect and attention. I commend a thorough study of the article to the minister and his advisers, and to every thoughtful student of the subject of aviation. His opening sentence is fascinating, and I would ask permission to read it. These are his words:
Air transport, a child of peace reared in war, approaches maturity. Under the spur of war, flying has found its technical independence. It is free to start anew- in the peaceful skies of to-morrow, hound only by such artificial restrictions as the nations cloose to apply.
He visualizes three great problems. First, there is the problem of policy and diplomacy, and he tells us that it is important that these should be resolved only by international discussion conducted in a spirit of good will and cooperation. The second is the question of

operational problems, matters of subsidy, monopoly, national air routes, traffic, frequency of services and of control. The third covers the technical problems of construction and equipment, which are the least important.
Under the caption "operating policy" he states that general opinion in Britain favours regulated rivalry rather than uncontrolled competition in national and international air line operation. Mark these words, "Monopolies are not favoured or considered efficient." I suggest to the house that these words bear the impress of truth and logic as we know them. Nowhere does he suggest either government operation or monopoly.
Participation by shipping and railroad concerns will be welcomed so long as it promotes efficient commercial operation for the good of air transport in general. I have not the time to analyse his position further, but it is quite clear that he does not visualize government monopoly in Britain. Rather does he approach the solution from the point of view of regulated private enterprise. I think that is the position in the United States.
Recently the Minister of Munitions and Supply visited London with Mr. Symington, the president of Trans-Canada. I believe they sat in on the meetings of a special committee which was set up under Lord Beaverbrook to consider empire air relations and policy. I consider that it is his duty to this house and to this country to give us a report at an early day of the deliberations of that committee and the conclusions, if any, arrived at.
I now ask these important and relevant questions. Where does Canada stand in relation to the promotion of domestic air routes by private enterprise? Next, is private enterprise in the post-war period to be relegated to the limbo of the past in this sphere of national activity? If so, I protest. We want no monopoly in air transportation in Canada any more than we want it in railway transportation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You wanted it in railway
transportation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not
want it in railway transportation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Your party did.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I challenge the minster to substantiate that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Your party certainly did.


Richard Burpee Hanson: My party did not advocate it. I deny it. Recently I have heard that another party has advocated it in effect when they advocate taking over by this government of the stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway held in Britain. When you

The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
visualize the position, where the government of this country will own the Canadian National Railways and control the Canadian Pacific Railway, the amalgamation of those two roads will be just as inevitable as that the sun will set to-night and rise to-morrow morning. I wonder what the railway workers of this country think of that Cooperative Commonwealth Federation policy? Let them put that in their pipes and smoke it.


Mr. REID:: I believe it would suit the Canadian Pacific.


Richard Burpee Hanson: 
Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In income
tax or excess profits tax.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It has paid about the same ' thing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am going to deal with that. I asked Mr. Vaughan that question and he admitted it. Another question I desire to ask the minister is: Where does this country stand in regard to air transport in the field of empire? Are we for or against cooperation in this field? Where do we stand in relation to the United States? In both Britain and the United States this question of post-war civil aviation has aroused the greatest interest. In Britain the big shipping companies are eager to enter the field of international air transport. Are they to be shut out in so far as Canada is concerned because of our monopolistic policy? I say that the whole position should be clarified and liberalized. If not, we are just one step nearer to the socialist state, and the next step is fascism. I do not know how much time I have.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Thank you very much. I am obliged to the house for its indulgence. I do not want any special privilege to be granted to me that would not be granted to somebody else, but I did desire to say one word with regard to empire relations. I would not do this had the Prime Minister not gone as far as he did on Monday last. I regret exceedingly that at this time,
and for reasons which I shall indicate in a moment, the Prime Minister has seen fit to reject practically out of hand the proposals of Lord Halifax as enunciated recently at Toronto, especially so at this time when he has announced his intention of attending in the near future an empire conference in London. I pause here to say that in our view he should attend this conference when it is called and as soon as it is called and that wre on this side will facilitate his attendance and wish him Godspeed and a safe return. But since 'the proposals of Lord Halifax will without doubt be before that conference, it is more than passing strange that those proposals should be rejected out of hand in advance of the conference. I cannot understand that attitude.
I have not had an opportunity of studying the Halifax proposals in detail and therefore I am not going to discuss them either in detail or on their merits. But they were made by a responsible man; whether he made them in his official capacity or not is another matter. I suggest to the Prime Minister that they merit cool and careful study. It may well be that after examination it will be found that Canada cannot accept these proposals either in toto or in part; I do not know because I have not come to any conclusion, but have we given the matter cool and careful study? I do not think we have. There would appear to be a good deal of heat over the matter, and when there is heat there cannot be very much calm consideration.
The attitude of the Prime Minister reminds me of a situation in which I found myself as a young lawyer. With the temerity that characterizes a young and courageous counsel I once went before an old judge. He had been reading my factum and he said to me, "Mr. Hanson, have you a case?" I said, "Yes, My Lord." I thought so, and I still think so. He said to me, "I do not think you have." What an approach to a case! It took the heart right out of me, but I battered away at the old chap as long as I could. He overruled me, but I had the supreme satisfaction of reversing him on appeal.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Then you were still in the same position?


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the hon. member will just take a chair behind the curtain I think it would be better for us all. I think that is where he belongs. This is all I am going to say about the Halifax proposals until a later date.
In one particular sphere of empire cooperation I hold the opinion that at the peace con-
128	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
ference which is to be held, we hope within a measurably short time this country will cooperate with Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and all the other dominions and with the United Kingdom so that in unity there may be strength. If we do not, and it is unthinkable that we should go into that peace conference a divided commonwealth, then I say to the house and to this country that the influence of the British empire will be greatly nullified. I would deplore that, that a country which has saved civilization would be wiped out by disunity among our peoples.
I hope it will not be found necessary to have a division of opinion especially with reference to our friends in the United States. But if we find ourselves in that unfortunate position my views in that regard have not changed since last session; when speaking in this house on foreign relations, as reported at page 4639 of Hansard, 1943, I expressed these views, which I reaffirm now:
Canada has become a nation by reason of the tontribution which she has made. Britain has the moral leadership of the world, and she won it as a result of standing almost alone, yea, in (act alone, at and after Dunkirk. They are Dur blood brothers over there. On the other hand there is the geographical propinquity of Canada and the United States. Canada, it has been said, has been the intermediary between the United States and the United Kingdom, and the interpreter of one to the other. I am not sure that that has worked out in practice, though I think to a degree it is true. But if the testing time comes, and we have to choose between the one and the other-and I pray God for the sake of the general good of the world, of peace among nations, and of the great world which we would like to see afterwards, we shall not have to do that-I say, if the testing time comes, then I tell my right hon. friend that so far as I am concerned-and I would not pretend, like the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, to speak for the nation-my vote and my voice, my advice to the Canadian people in so far as it may be asked or heeded, will be, "Let us stand by the empire."
I have but a word to add. The Prime Minister nas indicated that in empire affairs his government has followed a policy of consultation, cooperation, and coordination. I say to him that if that be true now, it was not always true. If we have arrived at a stage of consultation, cooperation and coordination, we have gone a long way, and let us pursue that path to its logical conclusion, which is unity in action.


Mr. PIERRE GAUTHIER (Portneuf) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at any great length, or to show any acrimony. In the first place, I do not want to repeat iwhat has been said, or be included among the grumblers mentioned by the mover of the address (Mr. Tremblay) and also
IMr. R. B. Hanson.]
referred to by the new member for Cartier (Mr. Rose).
The speech from the throne is a complete political programme, and in spite of the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), I still believe that the foremost concern of the present Government is their reelection. It seldom happens that four by-elections held within one year mean the entrance of four opposition members in the house. In the present case, the standard-bearer of the Bloc Populaire was elected in Stanstead, two socialists in Humboldt and Selkirk and a communist in Cartier. I shall not delve further into that, although I may at some future time discuss the complaints of those who talk about grumblers.
I note with satisfaction that the Liberal members seem to have fully recuperated from the fatigue of their pilgrimage to Stanstead. However, the fact remains that among them were some who had voted against conscription in the house, who had delivered impassioned speeches and yet gave the help of their eloquence to a candidate who was all out for conscription, a circumstance which will surely compel them to explain to their constituents such a change of front.
The leader of the Bloc Populaire Canadien, in addresses broadcast on the 16th and 23rd October, 1943, has clearly defined the stand of that party as regards family allowances. On page 8 of the provincial programme he made the following statement:
Where private enterprise remains powerless, the family must resort to cooperation, to that truly democratic formula that is within the reach of, and provides such a boon for, people who, like us. lack abundant capital. Especially since 1930, as was noted by Mr. Beaulieu, the cooperative movement has had1 in this province an encouraging development. We now have credit cooperative societies-the Desjardins caisses populaires which have been so helpful to us

we have farmers', fishermen's, consumers' and builders' cooperative societies, and so forth.
Then, here is what I find on page 9:
(a)	The great agricultural problem is connected with the settlement of young people. It is a question of helping the heads of large families to ensure their children's future. For that purpose we are now studying the methods of an institution which will ensure to farmers advantages similar to those which workers will derive from family allowances.
(b)	Farmer families must be helped to secure the comforts of modern living: electricity, running water, telephone, radio, transportation. We shall help financially the organization of cooperative societies for the supply of electricity, telephone service and water.
The hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Edouard Lacroix) had already implemented, in his constituency, this policy concerning telephone co-

The Address-Mr. Gauthier
operative societies. In order to prevent certain, companies from exploiting the rural population, he supplied capital to the tax payers who organized cooperative societies and even bought some lines outright. Only recently, one of these cooperative societies was in such a financial position as to be able to repay the money borrowed at a small interest and become sole owner of the entire telephone system.
The present government-supposing some of its members read this programme, and some must have done so since the speech from the throne mentions family allowances for the first time-have omitted cooperation from their policy. Indeed, a newspaper reports the following, taken from an article by Andre Roy and published in l'Action Catholique of January 29:
Are they attempting to destroy cooperative societies?
Everyone realizes the efforts of the cooperative societies to improve the economic situation of French Canadians. Among those that have best succeeded in overcoming all the inherent difficulties of a new enterprise stands the Cooperative des Pecheurs unis de la Gaspesie (Gaspe United Fishermen's Cooperative Society).
Trusts and cartels enviously watch the growth and development of these concerns. They fear that French Canadians will some day throw off the yoke, triumph over adverse circumstances, and rid themselves of the "inferiority complex" which implies that they are not fit to engage in industrial and commercial enterprises. Indeed, they never miss an opportunity to hamper our institutions. The United Fishermen were the latest victim of these powers. The remarkable success achieved by this concern during the past two or three years has not gone by unnoticed; it netted an appreciable benefit for the fishermen of the Gaspe area, and we know the stage of technical perfection to which it has raised the fishing trade and industry in our province. The fisheries trust, however, in league with the wartime prices and trade board, has dealt them another blow: Mr. A. N. McLean, administrator of fish products, has ordered it to sacrifice goods on the simple pretext that the F. T. James Company, of Toronto, and the O'Connor Fish Company, of Montreal, can no longer obtain fillet of cod.
How did they go about it? Very simply: they only had to place the United Fishermen in a different category; they were reclassified from wholesale dealers to "processors"; this forces them to sell their product 10 per cent less, and to sell it to middlemen who will net the 10 per cent profit which belongs to the United Fishermen.
Everything becomes quite clear when it is known that the man who assists Mr. McLean in controlling the price of fish is on the board of directors of a chain company having interests in the fishing industry.
This United Fishermen Cooperative had wrested from tihe clutches of a trust human 100-9
beings who had been kept in, shameful bondage for almost a century. They were forced to sell their fish for the prices which they could get. Kept in poverty, they had to meet the demands of their masters, lest their boats or their fishing tackle be seized. They were not properly clothed for their hard work, and they were not fed adequately; as a result, tuberculosis was rampant among them.
Charitable men had urged them to unite, and the cooperative had brought a ray of sunshine in their lives; the prices of fish had risen, and they were looking to the future with renewed hope. Now, the trust, ever on the alert, has just turned everything upside down and t'heir cooperative will lose 10 per cent on the selling price to enable the trust to grab this profit.
I ask the government to remedy the situation if they have not already done so. They must certainly have received protests from someone or from certain quarters.
The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bertrand, Laurier) dhould put an end to such exploitation by the trust. It is rank injustice and an unbearable situation; these people have suffered enough in the past. Like every citizen, they are entitled to a fair remuneration for their labour.
The mover of the address, the 'hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Tremblay) has expressed his opposition to immigration, and be deserves to be congratulated. I shall go farther than he, however, and I shall add that so long as settlers have to endure hardship on uncleared lots-I do not mean all the settlers-on rocky land, so long as they have not been given the opportunity of securing lots which may be cultivated or old abandoned farms-and there are several-so long as workers in war plants have not obtained employment elsewhere-and there are some who are already out of work-so long as there is a single unemployed person, immigration cannot be considered and refugees, irrespective of their race, cannot be accepted.
I have heard the hon. member for Toronto Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) make an appeal in favour of Jewish refugees, the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Gillis) and finally the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Rose) take a similar stand. I shall be brief but to the point. Our cities are already overcrowded and their population is out of proportion with that of country areas. Therefore, only farmers could be accepted.
In 1932-33, I believe, Right Hon. R. B. Bennett had an amendment to the Immigration Act passed by this house, under which the government could accept farmers only or, at least, a large proportion of farmers.

The Address-Mr. Gauthier

There are no farmers among these refugees; if there are, the number is negligible, as it is a well-known fact that Jews are not farmers. This is obvious and true. There are two hundred of them, to-day, but there will be two thousand to-morrow.
We have been bled white in order to send gifts to much wealthier nations than we, and as intimated in the speech from the throne we have not reached the end, as evidenced by the following excerpt:
A measure to extend the .principle of mutual aid so as to provide for relief, as well as for materials of war, will be submitted for your approval.
The house is being prepared. Nevertheless, it must be borne in mind that Canada is not inexhaustible. The arrival of refugees will not add to her wealth. If other nations-and I do not make any exception-wish to be charitable, let them indulge their whim at their own expense, as we do in respect of the war, but not at the expense of our country.
And if some day we should accept immigrants, we want to select them ourselves and not accept all those who are sent.
But I am inclined to believe that this immigration plan is part of the general policy which includes defence, foreign policy, England's trade policy, and I should now like to discuss the declaration made by Lord Halifax.
In 1937, during the first discussions on increased military appropriations, this imperial defence policy was brought to the attention of the Government.
In order to prove that Lord Hamilton's policy was a policy of imperial defence and not an isolated or colonial policy, I quoted a statement by Sir Samuel Hoare, which was also quoted by Le Droit in its issue of February 11, 1937. Sir Samuel Hoare said:
All the costs, all^ the risks, all the expense entailed by the defence of the empire are at present borne by England, which is a grave injustice, for she must not be alone to arm against the enemy who will be a common enemy to the empire, that is to all the dominions, in the event of war. The dominions should outline their projects for the defence of the empire at the imperial conference. They must help Great Britain, and the sooner they7 do so the better we shall be protected.
Further, I quoted in the same speech the statement made by the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier when speaking on the Guthrie amendment to bill 21 of the 1912-13 session, page 7232 of the Hansard:
(Text)
I now come to a consideration of the fact, made manifest by one of the last speeches of Mr. Churchill, that the admiralty favours contribution and not autonomous organization. This is not a new thing: the British admiralty has always preferred a system of imperial contribution to the idea of autonomous organi-
[ Mr. Gauthier.]
zation. At the imperial conference in 1902, Lord Selborne, the predecessor of Mr. Churchill, made a proposal that we should have imperial contributions.
(Translation): Lord Halifax was rather tactless, he spoke too soon. He should have waited a little while longer, until elections in Canada were at hand, and the government would have used his statements as a rallying cry, the call of the autonomist which taught such a bitter lesson to Lord Byng of Vimy who had made t.he mistake of expressing his views in peacetime. This same cry we ourselves have uttered so often, believing that all who advocated Canadian autonomy would stand firm when war threatened. It is quite probable that the Government will resume its policy of autonomy, that its partisans will oppose, as they did for twenty-two years, participation and conscription, but only a simpleton will believe that the people can be taken in a second time.
In the past, the Conservative party came to grief for having imposed conscription in 1917; the Liberal party is now beginning to feel the ill effects of the wound, for that party also is tainted; the difference lay in the fact that the Conservatives put it into effect openly while the Liberals proceed by way of small doses at a time. Theirs will be the same punishment.
The C.C.F. made a good start, but it has given ground and fallen in step with the two imperialist parties in the house; all have voted what was needed to pursue a total and extravagant war effort. I say to its members, as to those of the other two parties, that imperialist parties will get no support in the Province of Quebec, whether they are openly imperialists or otherwise.
Indeed, the speech made by Lord Halifax *was not of our taste, but it is none the less true that it reflects an imperialist policy which has always been in existence and will not cease to operate. We all recall feelings of indignation evidenced on different occasions when tactless imperialists spoke too soon or too loudly.
England without the Empire could not radiate or preserve her European influence, not to speak of her world prestige. One even wonders if she could survive without the Empire. To think that some hon. members have asserted in this very house that the imperialism is on the way out!
During the post-war period, we can expect various imperialist crises to come to a head. It is unquestionable and inevitable; the facts are there to prove it. The present situation is obvious. Canada cannot run the risk of becoming a new Belgium. Whether we like it or not, our country is part of America.

The Address-Mr. Gauthier
Can we hope that the men who so strongly advocated autonomy, and even nationalism in time of peace, and ye.t showed their true imperialistic colours in wartime, can we hope that they will stand firm this time?
How many opposed any resistance? How many maintained the views they had held for so long? Count them and see.
The hon. member for Cartier spoke of slums; that is the best part of his speech. To the building of houses he should have added, however, the destroying of slums so that those infected areas might not be used once again. Because, for countless reasons, such as unemployment and the resultant lack of money, as well as the greater facilities for reaching the work-shops, they will again be filled if they are left standing. They must immediately be levelled down. They have contaminated too many citizens, mothers and children; they deserve to be destroyed.
That is where governments are remiss in their duty, tolerating as they do such a situation in the larger cities. Within every great urban centre which is left to itself, through negligence, ignorance or carelessness, there are inevitably wretched and unruly people as well as radicals. Some one has said-I think it was a Spanish prelate-: "Give a pretext to hotheads and an illusion to the wretched and you shall have a revolution".
Having said that, I shall now discuss socialism.
In the first place, it is recognized and history shows that socialism has never transformed any country into a land of milk and honey. Socialism has risen, in all countries and especially in France,-it did its work underground long before that,-as an aftermath of revolution. Socialism was at that time converging from England, where Karl Marx was living, and from Central Europe, then included within Germany; it has fully blossomed forth in Russia with the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks, the latter, more radical and daring than the former, have achieved the success which we all know.
They always resort to revolutions in order to usurp power. They have preached everywhere the equality of wealth, of the social classes while raising the latter against one another. Do not believe that these socialist leaders have remained poor. Jaures was a millionaire when he died. It was he who was going down into the coal mines, with a Bible under his arm, saying to the workers: "We must share our wealth. The rich must share with the poor." This is what prompted a French writer who had followed the evolution of socialism to write: "Once upon a time, there was a socialist who did not own a castle."
Lenin was by no means a poor man, and history tells us of the shady methods he resorted to in order to obtain funds for his propaganda. The socialists of Russia have for leader Stalin, the most crafty politician ever. It cannot be gainsaid that he has had the tact necessary to rouse the Russian people and to mould them into a warlike and well organized nation.
Those who believe that his decree abolishing the communist party in the world frees the nations from the menace of a world revolution must be very credulous indeed: the communist party has a new name, that is all there is to it. The cells have increased their activity due to relaxation of watchfulness on the part of statesmen and democracies. In our country, communism was declared illegal, but it has changed its name. Its old leaders head the Labour-Progressive party, however the name is different. This nefarious joke has lasted altogether too long and we shall fall victims to our credulity before long.
I read a small pamphlet written by the hon. member for Cartier, "La cinquieme colonne d'Hitler dans Quebec" (Hitler's Fifth Column in Quebec). It has a green cover and is fairly well printed. Some hon. members of this house are mentioned in it. I am not a socialist and, on the other side of this house, I see other members who, are not either. It may be that a few historical facts will refresh my hon. friend's (Mr. Rose) memory and prove to him that Hitler's fifth column is not recruited in the league for the defence of Canada nor in the Bloc Populaire Canadien, but elsewhere.
Barthou had, one day, succeeded in negotiating commercial agreements to the advantage of France. He was a Republican. He was assassinated as soon as he set foot on French soil. The man who defeated these treaties to Hitler's profit, a socialist named Bonnet, was convicted of espionage, with his wife, and was accused of this crime by all French wtiters. He was not a member of the Bloc Populaire Canadien. He was a member of Hitler's fifth column in France.
Enough said. I might be called a grumbler. Now, I come, at the end of my remarks, to the slogan coined by the Prime Minister, to the anathema uttered against the Bloc Populaire Canadien: the bloc, that is the enemy! It must be defeated in Quebec, or the party is lost. Not that way, though, not by stating that the Bloc Populaire is appealing to race prejudice. That was not swallowed in Stanstead, neither will be swallowed elsewhere in Quebec or in the other provinces where we shall have a certain number of candidates in the next federal election. In Stanstead-and
The Address-Mr. Gauthier

this was stated by the Prime Minister himself at the Liberal convention last summer-we were accused of appealing to race prejudice and expounding a destructive policy. Some members showed more cleverness and they delivered finer speeches. I notice some of them on the other side of the house and I offer them my congratulations.
How can it be said, Mr. Speaker, that the bloc populaire appeals to race prejudice, when 38 per cent of the English-speaking population joined the conscriptionist candidate Davidson against our people. They did not make their bid openly and frankly as we did ourselves, but they did it just the same. Because we. asked the French Canadians to give their support to the genial member for Standstead (Mr. Choquette) we are accused of appealing to race prejudice. Did the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix) appeal to race prejudice when he requested the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gibson) to appoint a Frenchspeaking official in the overwhelming French Canadian city of Montreal? I suppose that was an appeal to race prejudice. We are not permitted to ask our fellow-citizens of French descent to join forces, but other nationalities are permitted to do so.
When Paul Masse advocated in the constituency of Cartier the union of French Canadians who form 55 per cent of the population, not according to the spurious lists prepared by the Liberal enumerator, but according to a true census of the population, was he appealing to race prejudice? For twenty-five years the constituency of Cartier has been represented by a Jewish' member, Conservative, Union Nationale, or Liberal. The majority in that constituency is not Jewish but French Canadian, why, then, should it be a crime and an appeal to race prejudice to ask for the election of a French Canadian? Was Lazarus Phillips more entitled than we were to ask his fellow Jews in the Jewish Eagle, to unite and vote for a Jew because otherwise twenty-five years would elapse before the constituency of Cartier could be won back? They have the right to ask their people to unite, but we, French Canadians, have no such right; we appeal to race prejudice, we hinder Canadian unity. The former leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) has said a few moments ago that the leader of the Bloc Populaire had not a very good memory. He has told us about Dunkirk where the British army fought so successfully to cover the evacuation and added that we French Canadians should thank England for having stopped Hitler's march at that time. Have we blamed England for protecting that evacuation? No.

But reverting to a subject dealt with by the former leader of the opposition, I would say that, had not the French Canadians been here, in 1775 and 1812, to hold the country for the British crown he would not have been in this house to make his utterances, this afternoon.
We do not forget easily, our memory is good, faithful and well exercised. We are little impressed by the anathema uttered against us. We have a programme, we intend to realize the union of French Canadians; we shall seek this end; we have the right to do so and whenever we have the opportunity to do so and we shall continue to work with that object in view. This is clear, very clear indeed. Attempts are made to spread all kinds of rumours on the Bloc Populaire. Some say that we are secessionists, that we aim to ostracize all races in Quebec first, and later in Canada as a whole and then to hound everybody out of Quebec and Canada. This is nothing but political intrigue of the first water and we are used to it. But, I repeat, we shall go ahead in spite of all. There will be other elections in which we shall have candidates who will fight for unity among our fellow-citizens even if we are accused of appealing to race prejudice, every time we demand that the rights and privileges justly belonging to us on- account of our numbers and our ethnical importance, be respected. Such accusations leave us unimpressed; that is our right and we intend to use it.
Mr. W. F. KUHL ' (JasperCEdson): Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne indicates certain objectives which the government intends to pursue both for the present and for the future. As to the statement contained in that speech, that the winning of the war clearly remains the first of all objectives, there can be no difference of opinion. So far as the armed forces are concerned and the war machinery which has been set up, we are satisfied that the war will be brought to a successful conclusion. We can rely, as we have relied in the past, on all members of the armed forces to acquit themselves nobly. In regard to the war machinery at home, it is true that there are still many squeaks in it, some of them louder than others; nevertheless we are fairly well satisfied that it will carry us through successfully. So that the question which concerns not only the members of the armed forces but also those still at home is whether, when this awful tragedy has been concluded, parliament will have made provision for a way of life in this country which will be worthy of a nation of heroes.
I believe it was the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who said on. one occasion that if no preparation was made for the new

The Address-Mr. Kuhl
order before peace came, we should look in vain for that new order. That being so, it is the primary duty of those of us charged with the responsibility of making the laws of the nation to see that adequate preparations are made for the peace when it comes. This leads me, then, to a consideration of some of the objectives for the time of peace, as indicated in the speech from the throne.
If there was any one problem which more than another caused headaches and heartaches between this war and the last one, it was the employment and unemployment situation, and all matters relating thereto. The speech from the throne makes several references to the attitude of the government on the question of employment in the post-war era. I shall point to a few of these statements, one of which is as follows:
The .maintenance of full employment will require, in the period of transition from war to peace, a rapid and efficient conversion of war industries.
Another paragraph which refers to the three broad fields of post-war planning contains this expression-
-the reconversion of the economic life of the nation from a war-time to a peace-time basis, and its reconstruction in a manner which will provide opportunities for useful employment for all who are willing and able to work.
Still another reference is made to employment, when the matter of world trade is dealt with. The reference is worded thus:
During the period of transition, the provision of international relief will help to maintain full employment of Canadian man-power and resources.
In another paragraph, which refers to social security measures, we find this statement:
Such a national minimum contemplates useful employment for all who are willing to work.
These numerous references to the question of employment indicate the importance attached to the subject. Consequently I feel impelled to express, a few views on matters relating to employment, particularly the objectives which the government and others have in mind.
These extracts from the speech from the throne, statements which have been made by almost all hon. members thus far, and many speeches made outside the house, indicate that one of the outstanding and most important objectives in the post-war world is what is called full employment. I cannot agree or disagree with those who indicate that full employment should be our objective, until I understand what those who enunciate such an objective have in mind. I should like to know what they believed would constitute full employment. What has the government
in mind when it uses the term "full employment"? What has the Progressive Conservative party in mind when its spokesman refers to full employment as an objective in the post-war world? What has anyone either in or outside the house in mind when he refers to full employment as an objective? Does he mean that all people from sixteen to sixty must put in eight, ten, twelve, fourteen or sixteen hours a day before they are entiled to live? Do they mean by full employment that it is not possible for the people in Canada in the post-war world to enjoy the standard of living they desire unless they put in eight or ten or more hours of work a day? Or do they mean that the amount of work which all people, everywhere, will be obliged to do will be only that which the power machines are unable to do?
Before hon. members in the house, or any group of individuals charged with the responsibility of formulating policy, can make any progress in respect of this subject connected with employment in the post-war world, we must have a clear definition of our terms. One great thinker has said that all intelligent discussion begins with a definition of terms. I have yet to hear any individual, either on the government side or on the opposition benches, indicate what he understands by full employment. In my view it is imperative that those who advocate full employment as an objective indicate what they have in mind.
Even before defining the term to which I have referred, I think there is another matter we must settle in our minds and must first determine, namely, the purpose of an economic system. Why do we have an economic system? What is an economic system for? Judging from most speeches I hear both in and out of the house, the complete purpose of an economic system is to keep people at work, to keep their noses to the grindstone. As one who subscribes to what I believe is a new philosophy, I wish to dissent completely from that point of view. I have a different attitude in respect of work. I assert that the purpose of an economic system never was, is not now and never will be that of providing jobs. My contention is that the only sound, sane, sensible, logical and legitimate purpose of an economic system is to provide the maximum amount of goods and services for the minimum amount of work and trouble. I consider that a major premise upon which to base proposals for the post-war period, and I challenge anyone, either in the house or out of it, to refute the soundness of that premise.
I wish now to consider for a few moments what constitutes full employment. What
The Address-Mr. Kuhl

should determine the number of hours of work any worker in industry, any farmer, any office worker, or any worker anywhere should be obliged to perform? I would say the number of hours of work are entirely dependent upon the standard of living which the people of Canada collectively desire, and the extent to which power machinery displaces human effort. I believe most hon. members, as well as many economists and others who speak as economists outside the house, have not reconciled themselves to the fact that we are living in 1944 A.D., and not 1944 B.C. My criticism of many orthodox economists and the people who hold an orthodox point of view is that most of them were born a hundred years too late. They should have been born back in the eighteenth century. In spite of the facts which stare almost every one of them in the face every day of his life, many fail to recognize that the discovery of electricity, steam power, the diesel engine, radio, electronics and many other things, has increased man's productive capacity by abi-it forty to fifty times what it was a century ue more ago. This being so, it should follow that our standard of living to-day-I mean in the post-war period-should be forty to fifty times greater than it was a century ago. Or, on tb* other hand, if a man does not desire a standard of living any higher than what it was a hunured years ago, he should be required to put forth forty to fifty times less effort in order to enjoy such a standard of living.
This war, as did the last var, has precipitated a technological displacement of human labour much more than would have occurred in a time of peace. I believe we shall all have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that because of this technological displacement of labour we should be able to look forward in the post-war world to a work day much smaller than eight hours. All persons capable of working probably could be kept employed in the post-war period for quite a number of years. We have extensive public work programmes to carry out, but surely we are not going to complete the public works programmes for the next three, four or five generations. Surely we are going to leave something for them to do.
We need public works projects, irrigation schemes and many other things, but in considering these in the light of employment we should decide to build roads for the sake of roads and not for the sake of the jobs which will result. We ought to build roads because we want roads. We ought to provide more irrigation because we want irrigation and the resulting produce from the lands which will be irrigated.

If in the post-war world all our farmers and workers of every kind are permitted to enjoy the fruits of the machinery available, in leisure as well as in the form of commodities, I believe that the hours of work will be reduced to six, five or even four per day. If the farmer is able to obtain the prices for his commodities which will permit him to buy all the farm machinery, tractors, power, electricity and so on that he needs, the same circumstances will apply to him. We must recognize, as I believe very few in Canada recognize, that the power machine has come not only to remove the drudgery of our everyday tasks but to provide us with more hours of leisure and fewer hours of work. I believe that is the state of things which everyone in this chamber desires to see brought about. I believe that is a set of economic circumstances which everyone desires to see created.
If the truth were known I think it could be said of every one of us that we are constantly trying to get out of all the work humanly possible in order that we may have more leisure. Leisure is not a loafer's paradise; it is an opportunity for self-imposed and self-initiated .activity. When people are freed from the necessity of having to spend most of their time in order to keep body and soul together, they indulge in voluntary activities. In most instances they will expend more energy in those voluntary activities than they do in their hours of work. It is not work that anyone objects to so much; it is being compelled to work, whether that compulsion is by the government or by nature. No one wishes to be compelled to do anything. What the people want and desire is to choose their own activities.
When a government, whether it be this government or any other, seeks to compel the people of the nation to work, whether it be on public works or on work of other kinds, then that government is imposing a condition of slavery upon the people. That is the condition we had before war broke out. In many instances roads were being built with picks and shovels and wheel-barrows while the machinery capable of doing the work was rusting. I consider that a condition of slavery. To arrange our national economy so that the people may choose their own forms of activities and put themselves to work is a different situation.
I believe that the extent to which the people of Canada will be free after this war is over will be the extent to wffiich they are freed from compulsory work, whether that is imposed by a government or by natural circumstances. The work state is nothing less

The Address-Mr. Kuhl
than a slave state. From my conversations with members of the armed forces as well as with other people it is my belief that what they desire most of all when they return- those who will be fortunate enough to return -after this awful calamity is brought to a conclusion is the greatest possible freedom from compulsory labour, and the greatest possible opportunity to indulge in voluntary activities. One reason we are fighting this war is to drive from the earth the philosophy of compulsion of any kind. If our heroes come back to a work state, then much of the sacrifice they have made during the war will have been in vain. Man was made in the image of his creator, and as such he has been blessed with creative instincts. Man will never really be free until he has had the greatest possible opportunity to express those God-given instincts. The power of the mJchine and all the accumulations of inventive science have made it possible for man to-day to have a greater opportunity for self-chosen activity than ever before in the history of the world.
The real question, as I see it, in connection with employment or unemployment is not so much the question of employment as it is the question of empayment. Naturally, when one talks about a six-hour day, a five-hour day or a four-hour day, the workers reaction is: Well, if the number of hours of work is cut down to that extent, what is going to happen to my income? If the number of man-hours necessary to produce the standard of living which the average Canadian desires is reduced to six or five or four, what will be the consequence so far as the income of the individual worker is concerned? Will it be cut accordingly? That is a question which naturally arises in the mind of any worker. What happens when a machine is placed in a factory and displaces one hundred or five hundred or one thousand men is that not only does the man's job disappear but his pay cheque too. Private enterprise has been condemned for this. There are those who say that private enterprise failed before the war broke out because it did not provide jobs. There are those who are saying now that if, after the war, private enterprise does not provide jobs it must be eliminated.
I wish to say with respect to private enterprise that I do not consider it the duty or obligation of private enterprise anywhere to provide jobs. That never was the duty or responsibility of private enterprise. The only legitimate function of private enterprise is to provide goods; that is all. I say to those who are so speaking on behalf of private enterprise that they assume that the provision of employment is an obligation of private enterprise. They are assuming a situation which is simply impossible, and furthermore it is undesirable; for, after all, the only legitimate and sound function of the economic system is to provide goods, whether that requires jobs or not. If we can produce most of our essentials of life and the common luxuries as well through the use of a lot of mechanical robots, then I think we should do it.
There is a lot of criticism being made of private enterprise to-day. I do not believe that the thing which is at fault is the principle of private enterprise. The only thing which I can see wrong with private enterprise the abuse of that privilege, as well as tne deficiencies which are inherent in the system, and which are nobody's fault, but which must be corrected.
The low wages to which the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Rose) referred when he spoke last night of the Dominion Textile company paying twenty-two cents an hour, is an abuse of the privilege of private enterprise. It is not because of the use of the principle. Likewise improper working conditions, abuses of one kind or another which are resorted to, monopolies and so forth-all these are abuses of the system, and the criticism which I make of our friends, the socialists, and those who criticize private enterprise is that they are constantly confusing the use of the system with the abuse of the system. I believe it was last session that the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) on one occasion spent almost the whole of his forty minutes in making a speech in attributing all the evils of society to private enterprise. I do not consider that that is fair or just, for after all, if the truth were known, I believe that every last individual in this country, whether he calls himself a socialist, a communist or anything else, really believes in private enterprise for himself. If the abuses of the private enterprise system are corrected and its deficiencies taken care of, I believe that it is the best system that we can ever have. When the socialists and those who advocate government ownership contend that the way to deal with the abuses of the private enterprise system is for the nation tc take it over, I say that is equivalent to saying that we ought to abolish freedom for fear of its being abused. My personal belief is that it is only under a system of genuine private enterprise that we can ever have genuine freedom. Substituting state monopoly for private monopoly is no remedy for the abuses, because one monopoly is just as bad as another.
The Address-Mr. Kuhl

Just a word with regard to the deficiencies inherent in the private enterprise system. This brings me to a point which we Social Credit people have made ever since we have been in the House of Commons. It is the original premise upon which Major Douglas based his proposals. It is a point which we contend is. still true and will be still more so when the war is over. It lies at the basis of the deficiency of purchasing power which exists all the way" through our system. The [DOT]one fact in industry to which most economists and members of this house as well have to reconcile themselves is that industry is not self-liquidating. There has never been as much distributed in wages and salaries and in payment for raw materials in the process of the production of any article to equal the prices of the commodities which are offered for sale. I believe that the majority of the people of this country who think ancl speak upon economics still assume that when a thousand dollars worth of any commodity is produced, automatically there is one thousand dollars worth of purchasing power with which to purchase the commodity. They assume that when a shoe manufacturer produces ten thousand dollars worth of shoes, automatically there are ten thousand dollars worth of purchasing power in the system to buy those shoes. It is assumed by most economists that the ability to consume is always equal to production. That, I consider, is one of the major fallacies of economic thinkers. Major Douglas was one of the first to point this out, in saying that there is inherent in the system a chronic shortage of purchasing power which is never overcome.
I have here one statement which members of our group have placed on record before. I do not like to repeat facts and figures, but this is so fundamental that I think it must be repeated until it is acknowledged. The national bureau of economic research reports on the income of the United States-No. 2, pages 242 to 248-state that American industry in 1918-this is quite a way back, but we have no more recent figures, and the principle was just as true before the war as it will be after the war-paid out $45,548,000,000 in wages, salaries, dividends, bonuses, pensions, compensations, and all consumer purchasing power, and at the same time consumer goods were produced of the value of $60,366,000,000. In other words, there is a difference of practically twenty billion dollars between total income and total prices. Of that forty-five billions, about five and one-half billion dollars was reinvested in new production, so that cannot be considered as purchasing power in that cycle, and as a

consequence the deficiency of purchasing power that existed at that time in the United States of America was approximately twenty billion dollars. That is not money which was in someone's savings somewhere; it was nothing other than the prices of commodities which were not monetized. It was not represented by money anywhere. The only way ini which the people of the United States were enabled to make up that twenty billion dollars was through issuance of debt money on the part of the American government for public works, bonuses, pensions and so on. The cost of that was the increase of the national debt.
The point I wish to make is that in so far as Canada is concerned in the post-war period we shall have a very similar condition here, since it applies to all countries which operate on the private enterprise system. In that connection I wish to emphasize that the people who have the first claim on the production of any country are the people of that country. The only way in which the people of the United States could avail themselves of the sixty billion dollars worth of goods was to have sixty billion dollars in purchasing power, but they had only forty billions. Supporters of social credit say that this twenty billion dollar difference represents the cultural heritage of the people of the nation; it is that which belongs to them by reason of being citizens in this modern generation. The difference between total income and prices is there by reason of the substitution of power machinery for human effort. The wages of men were displaced by machines, but the prices of the goods continue piling up, and therefore the difference between total income and total prices is something which belongs inherently to the people as a whole, and they cannot acquire it until it is monetized. It is the duty of the state to monetize the difference between total income and total prices and distribute it to the consumers.
I do not think it requires much stretch of the imagination to see Canada, after the war has concluded, producing annually about twelve billion dollars worth of consumable goods. If we compare that production with the deficiency which existed in the United States, according to the figure I have just given, that would mean that Canadians would be short of about four to six billion dollars in purchasing power. If the Canadian economy is to be balanced, the consumers in Canada must have four to six billion dollars of extra buying power, which should not be issued either through increased taxation or increased borrowings. I notice that the hon. member for Kosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) on the

External Affairs
oceasion that he spoke indicated that there should be five billion dollars spent in Canada, I believe for public works.


Major James William Coldwell: Post-war reconstruction.


Mr. KUHL:: Post-war reconstruction. I noticed that he did not indicate where this money was to come from, whether it will be borrowed or raised by taxation or issued by the eentral bank of Canada debt-free. I wish to indicate that the only manner in which the Canadian economy can be balanced will be through the issue of five or six billion dollars, whatever is required to balance consumption and production, as a debt-free, tax-free issue of national money.


Major James William Coldwell: Through a government-owned bank.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Well, we have a government-owned bank at the present time.


Major James William Coldwell: But not a government-owned banking system.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Well, that raises the matter of chartered banks, which I have not time to discuss at the present time, much as I should like to do so. The essence of the whole thing is that there must be an addition of buying power to the extent of four to six billion dollars to balance our economy.


Gordon Graydon: Never mind the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. They just want a political bank.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Well, we shall discuss that matter, when the subject of banking is under discussion.
I should like to have concluded with a little elaboration of the ways and means whereby this four to six billion dollars could be expended in Canada, but my time is up, and I shall have an opportunity to deal with the subject at a later day. It is the principle of the thing about which I think we must be concerned. When that is done, it is my contention that our economy will balance without expropriating anybody's property. Personally I want to see a system in which the people have the greatest possible freedom, and I do not think that is possible unless private enterprise is permitted really to be private enterprise.
On motion of Mr. Bryce the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, February 3, 1944