1944-06-20

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice and to call to his attention a comment made yesterday by the Chief Justice of Ontario in the appeal court of that province in which he stated that it did not seem to be in the interest of public security to keep men sentenced to penitentiary in local gaols. In view of the recent escape from the Don gaol in Toronto, will the minister give consideration to reviewing section 49, subsection 2, of the Penitentiary Act with a view to meeting the situation mentioned by the Chief Justice?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I thank the leader of the opposition for calling my attention to this comment of the Chief Justice of Ontario. Of course, men sentenced to penitentiary are kept in local gaols only during the time when they are entitled to appeal from the sentence to penitentiary, but the question whether or not, even during that time, they should be left in the local gaols will be inquired into by the officers of the department. It must be realized that there would be inconvenience in moving to the penitentiary during that period prisoners whose sentence to penitentiary has not become definite. However, the advantages and disadvantages will be given careful consideration.



PETROLEUM PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: Some weeks ago the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) asked me to give the house a complete outline of the present fuel position. I undertook to do so,
100- 250
and accordingly, I will now give the statement on the position of petroleum products, both gasoline and fuels. I have delayed making this statement to observe the effect of the invasion of Europe, which was launched on June 6, and the effect on Canada as far as the supply and consumption of petroleum products are concerned. The Canadian position is affected chiefly in the matter of aviation and motor gasolines.
Our position at this moment may be summed up as follows: If the allies are able to win a reasonably quick overpowering victory, our position will probably not deteriorate to the point of further curtailment, due entirely to the conservation measures we have introduced and enforced. If, however, the invasion should develop into' a long bitter struggle, there is a probability that we may all have to do with less gasoline in Canada. Our only possible course is to continue to conserve every possible gallon of gasoline. Needless consumption of gasoline robs our fighting men of the fuel they will require for their planes and motorized equipment, and that we cannot permit.
I would ask you to note that the total consumption of gasoline in Canada includes aviation gasoline, the consumption of which has necessarily risen to staggering proportions. And it is this increase, with other war essentials, which has been responsible for any increased consumption shown. None of us can quarrel with any quantity of gasoline properly used for such purposes.
I will now state the position with regard to motor gasoline, and for purposes of comparison I will deal with the four yearly periods each ending on March 31, for the years 1941 to 1944 inclusive.
Motor gasoline consumption in Canada in these periods for all purposes including the armed services, the Alaska highway, agricultural, and other war essentials, was as follows: Year ended
March 31	Gallons
1941		 882,216,930
1942		 944,178,060
1943		 787,710,630
1944		 814,248,820
It must be borne in mind that in these four years we had the great growth in our war effort. We had to service the trucks and equipment for the construction of over one hundred and twenty additional airports for the R.A.F. and the R.C.A.F., many far removed from rail head. Also, the trucks and equipment for the construction of the Alaska highway and a greatly increased truck haulage of materials from our widely scattered war plants.
We had to meet ever increasing demands of the armed forces and other essential uses iden-

Petroleum Products

tified with the war. We took care of all of these demands and at the same time reduced the consumption of motor gasoline slightly under the consumption for the year 1939 which totalled 824,997,390 gallons.
Motor gasoline consumption was increasing rapidly in the immediate pre-war years, and on the basis of the percentage increase which was current in those years, we estimate that motor gasoline consumption for the year ended March 31, 1942, would have exceeded 980,000,000 gallons had it not been for the voluntary conservation campaign which was launched in 1941.
In the year ended March 31, 1943-the first ration year-motor	gasoline consumption
totalled 787,710,630 gallons, or 156,467,430 gallons less than the actual consumption of the previous twelve months, and 192,289,370 gallons less than the estimated consumption of 980,000,000 gallons to which I have just referred.
While motor gasoline consumption at the close of the second year of rationing showed an increase of 26,538,190 gallons over the year ended March 31, 1943, direct sales to the armed forces and sales of marked gasoline used chiefly in agricultural machinery increased by
10.640.000	gallons and 30,940,000 gallons respectively. There was, therefore, an actual decline in consumption of motor gasoline during the second complete year of gasoline rationing of 15,050,000 gallons.
If we assume that consumption for the years ended March 31, 1943, and March 31, 1944, would have reached at least 980,000,000 gallons-which is the actual indicated consumption for the year ended March 31, 1942- the voluntary appeal and two full years of gasoline rationing have effected a total saving of approximately 393,750,000 gallons of motor gasoline, which is about one-third of our total annual consumption at the present time. .
I point out that inventories as of March 31, 1944, were 55,000,000 gallons less than at the commencement of rationing, at which time the stocks on hand were uncomfortably low.
Before I deal with aviation gasoline, I would remind hon. members that both motor and aviation gasolines come from the same sources, sources which must supply the tremendous demands of the allied armed forces. When we consider that it requires 2,000 gallons of fuel to move an armoured division one mile, that a fleet of 5,000 bombers and escort fighters raiding Germany uses up some
5.250.000	gallons of aviation gasoline, we can readily see wherein lies our responsibility.

These fighting men must not lack fuel for one single instant because of our carelessness, selfishness, or waste.
I will now give you consumption figures for aviation gasoline supplied from Canada, and these figures will indicate the importance of aviation gasoline to the Canadian war economy. Canada could not become the hub of the world's largest air training plan without sending Canadian consumption of aviation gasoline to staggering heights. By way of example, I would point out that in one thirty-day period, aircraft operated by R.C.A.F. in Canada and Newfoundland consumed an average of 548,000 gallons of aviation gasoline per day.
The figures I have for aviation gasoline, including exports from Canada, are for the five calendar years commencing with 1939 and ending with 1943, and for the twelve months ending March 31, 1944. These figures are as follows:
Gallons
1939		 5,453,980
1940		 12,661,425
1941		 57,181,005
1942		 119,740,110
1943		 173,208,910
1944	(year ended March 31)..	176,298,570
As a further indication of what the balance of this year holds in store for us, I am advised that an estimate made before the invasion indicated that we shall have to move offshore this year four times as much aviation gasoline as we did last year. What this estimate will be now, I cannot say.
I do not think it is advisable at this time to disclose aviation gasoline inventories. Meanwhile, although Canada must provide all the fuels required by its own navy

which, as hon. members know, has expanded from 13 to more than 700 vessels; although we must fuel all the bombers leaving Labrador and Newfoundland for England and leaving Edmonton for Russia; although we must fuel aircraft operating under the commonwealth air training plan, the convoys leaving our shores, the army, war factories, agricultural machinery for food production, and essential transportation, not one aircraft, ship, or machine tool has ever been stopped because of lack of fuel. We have not failed, and we must not fail.
I have pointed out to hon. members on more than one occasion that we are dependent on outside sources for 85 per cent of our petroleum product requirements, 60 per cent of which must be brought in by ocean tanker transportation which has been in short supply since 1941. We are drawing on the same sources, inventories, and transportation facilities as our allies. Coupled with this, we now face a dwindling crude oil supply. The war-

Petroleum Products
particularly now the invasion is in full swing- is making greater and greater demands upon the crude oil and transportation facilities of this hemisphere. We have to continually review our position in order to assure our allies that we are not asking for crude oil and transportation beyond our needs. Our stocks are too far below normal to carry us any distance without replenishment. Motor gasoline coupons outstanding and to be issued are based upon our inventories and projected imports which we estimate are sufficient to honour each coupon. This is not a time for other than the most essential driving. Everyone should let his conscience be his guide in using gasoline of any kind to-day-this applies to the armed forces, the farmer, and everyone else in the country.
Let me repeat: Every barrel of petroleum products we can do without means that much more for the theatres of war and the transportation to get the material there.
I will now discuss light and heavy fuel oils used for heating by Canadian homes and for heating and processing by Canadian industries. As a result of conservation measures taken on this continent, hon. members will note that whereas consumption of heavy fuel oil has dropped slightly, the consumption of light fuel oil has risen steadily since 1940. Without conservation measures our position would have been hopeless long before this, with the likelihood that many schools, office buildings, apartment houses, and homes would have been without heat last winter.
Consumption, including exports, of light fuel oils for the calendar years 1940 to 1943 and for the twelve months ending March 31, 1944, are as follows:
Gallons
1940		 201,613,895
1941		 247,578,450
1942		 251,388,585
1943		 267,139,355
1944	(year ended March 31)..	267,166,655
Light fuel oil, such as is used for heating homes, is an important commodity in the war effort, as it includes diesel oil used for propulsion of tanks and other army equipment, as well as oil for special heat treating furnaces for the annealing of metals, and for other essential uses in industry.
Heavy fuel oil consumption, including exports, for the four calendar years 1940 to 1943 inclusive, and for the twelve months ending March 31, 1944, are as follows:-
Gallons
1940		 510,191,850
1941		 590,816.485
1942		 594,590,360
1943		 560,791,910
1944	(year ended March 31)..	587,830,460
These figures do not include heavy fuel oil consumed by oil refineries.	[DOT]
At the inception of oil control we did not have in Canada an organization comparable to the American Petroleum Institute; therefore statistics kept in 1939 make no distinction between light and heavy fuel oils, but their combined consumption in that year was 589,921,360 gallons as compared with 711,805,745 gallons for 1940, 838,394,935 gallons for 1941, and 874,383,195 gallons for the year ended May 31, 1942.
Realizing that the consumption of light and heavy fuel oils might reach a point beyond our ability to supply, an appeal was made to the public in the fall of 1941 to convert to substitute fuels, and conversion for certain large groups of users was made mandatory on September 1, 1942. To what heights-the consumption of light and heavy fuel oils might have risen without restrictions I cannot say, but in reviewing the increases over the years 1939 to 1944 it is reasonable to assume that a saving of at least 175,000,000 gallons was effected. .
Light and heavy fuel oil inventories at March 31, 1944, were 4,650,065 gallons and 17,475,500 gallons respectively higher than a year ago. Because the heavier crudes we now have to run yield larger quantities of heavy fuel oil, restrictions on the use of heavy fuel oil have been lifted in all provinces except British Columbia. The situation on the west coast to-day is more critical than it has ever been since the outbreak of the war. The petroleum product requirements of the fighting forces in the Pacific are such that the oil-producing state of California is unable to meet these demands, and heavy importations are now being made from other points in the United States to California. This, of course, affects our position in British Columbia, and we are to-day moving crude oil from Colombia and Ecuador in South America to Vancouver -some 4,200 miles, or five times the distance of our previous source of supply. This has created a serious transportation problem, and it will be touch and go whether we shall be able to care for the most essential services in British Columbia.
In the winter and spring of 1942, when the supply of domestic fuel oil became acute and I announced on the floor of the house that there was evidence that this country would be short of this commodity, a number of citizens voluntarily changed over from oil to an alternative form of heating.
While no general relief can be made in respect to the use of light fuel oil for any
Petroleum Products

purpose, we have, as a result of the mild winter just behind us and the cooperation of home owners in reducing their consumption to the minimum, built up a slightly better inventory position which will permit owners of bona fide residences who voluntarily converted when requested to do so in 1942, to reinstal oil burning equipment in their homes, provided that the equipment has been continuously in their possession. This does not permit new installations.
In closing, I wish to state once again that our position in the matter of petroleum fuels is not improving, and this in spite of the best efforts we have been able to make toward conservation. Careful planning has provided gasoline available to the public in quantities sufficient to honour gasoline and fuel oil coupons which had been issued. In that respect we are more fortunate than any other country. Possibly the fact that we have kept petroleum products available for legitimate users has led to a popular belief that the supply of these products is not a critical matter. If so, the impression is erroneous and unfortunate. I am happy to say that the misuse of petroleum products has been kept to very small proportions, due wholly to the vigilance of the government's enforcement officers. I appeal for the support of the public in preventing these abuses. With the support of the public, I am hopeful that our supply position can be maintained at its present level. Without public support, I am certain that our supply position must deteriorate. Should war consumption continue at its present level for any considerable period, it is unlikely that we can avoid further curtailment in any event.



PRODUCTION OF ALCOHOL FOR FUEL PURPOSES

Mr. BLACKMORE:: I should like to ask the minister whether any measures have been taken in Canada to increase our production of alcohol for fuel purposes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are producing alcohol to the full capacity of the available productive plants, but that alcohol is being used for the manufacture of synthetic rubber rather than for fuel.


John Horne Blackmore: We are interested in ascertaining "whether the government have taken all reasonable measures to increase the capacity of the productive plants in Canada. Have they endeavoured to build factories for the manufacture of alcohol for fuel?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think so; yes.


John Horne Blackmore: Will the minister tell the house whether or not increased factory
 .
facilities were provided in Canada in 1943 for the manufacture of alcohol for fuel purposes?


Mr. SPEAKER:: The minister may treat what the hon. member has said as a notice of question, to be placed on the order paper.


John Horne Blackmore: I will add three more years; I want to know what has been done.



INQUIRY AS TO INCREASE IN RATION FOR HOME CANNING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance or his parliamentary assistant. I am doing so at the request of my colleague from the county of Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart), whose constituency is one of the largest producers of small fruits in Canada. According to an article appearing^ in The Country Gentleman of May, 1944, the OP.A. in the United States has eased its rules for home canning this year. They allow sugar totalling tweDty-five pounds for each member of the family, and no limitation is placed on the amount of sugar that may be used for jams, jellies and preserves. In view of this change in regulations, has the government given consideration to the advisability of increasing the ration of sugar for home canning in Canada, and, if not, will it do so immediately? This matter is urgent, because strawberries are already in full production and will be followed by raspberries, cherries and so on, in rapid succession.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I am sorry I cannot give the hon. gentleman an answer before Thursday. I believe there are reasons for the difference between the systems of rationing in Canada and the United States, and I will present those reasons when I answer the question. My understanding is that our ration goes as far as our allocation will permit, but I will give a more complete answer on Thursday.



INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF ROYAL COMMISSION ANNOUNCED ON MARCH 27

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Earlier in the session the Minister of Munitions and Supply announced the appointment of a royal commission to inquire into the fuel industry in Canada and to develop a post-war national fuel policy. Is the minister in a position to inform the house what progress has been made and approximately when the commission will begin its work?

Department of Veterans' Affairs


Clarence Decatur Howe: Very careful study has been given the terms of reference. It is a complex problem, and the desire is that this commission may help in the solution of that problem. I have the terms of reference drafted, and I hope to place them before my colleagues at an early day.



VETERANS' AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the third reading of bill No. 83, to establish a department of veterans' affairs.
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some hesitation and not a little apology for injecting some further observations on this motion for third reading, the matter having been pretty thoroughly debated. I do so, however, because the committee stage passed more quickly than I had expected, and the bill was reported while I was out of the chamber. I shall take only a few minutes to raise the one point I have in mind, which has to do with veterans of world war No. 1.
If my figures are correct, there are 11,000 of these men in the active companies of the veterans' guard alone in Canada. Then there are some 6.000 veterans of world war No. 1 in the reserve of the veterans' guard. A matter which is of concern to these men and to the public is whether or not the new Department of Veterans' Affairs will give adequate consideration to the plight of those who will be veterans of a second war and who, in view of their age, will require different treatment and a different type of rehabilitation from that used in connection with men discharged in their twenties or early thirties. I impress upon the minister the necessity of seeing to it that these men who have participated in two wars, and who have done a magnificent job in the intervening period of peace, are given special consideration in any plans and schemes the minister may have in mind. If I might add just one further sentence it would be that perhaps ex-service men in the House of Commons, in common with those throughout Canada, are a little too modest in their claims in respect of what they did in the last war, in the intervening period of peace, and during the present war. Representing a group of citizens who have been denied the privilege of service in both wars, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to those men, who have not only done their duty in time of war but have also
carried a heavy load and made a great contribution in the period of peace between the two wars.
Those who are now giving a third period of service in the present war should receive special consideration of the kind I have asked, and the treatment accorded them should be rendered willingly. I am hopeful that my remarks will not precipitate any further discussion in the matter. I rose only to say what, had I been in the house, I would have said in committee.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his suggestion,
and may say that we have already taken action along the lines suggested by him. We have a special committee dealing with demobilization, and that committee is giving special consideration to veterans of the first great war. who reenlisted in this one. My hon. friend may be sure that we will give his suggestion every consideration.


Mr. NEILL:: Has this bill been reprinted?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I understand it has not. I asked just before the house met this afternoon. It is my understanding that it is the practice not to reprint the bill, unless there is special direction to do otherwise, until it passes the house. I might say that the same thought had occurred to me as has occurred to my hon. friend. But the practice is not to reprint the bill except by special order of the house.


Alan Webster Neill: That means that we shall have to carry around with us three daily editions of Hansard-big ones-which contain these amendments and deletions.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, no; it will be reprinted immediately it passes the house, and will be made available to all members.


Alan Webster Neill: It will be reprinted?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I did not have an opportunity to speak to this bill in the debate on second reading, and I am therefore doing so now. I believe most hon. members are agreed that the setting up of this new department, having for its purpose the concentration in one department of all affairs affecting soldiers, was overdue.
The minister was paid many compliments by various speakers respecting his management of the department of which he is now the head; and while I can agree with much of
Department of Veterans' Affairs

what was said concerning his attention to pensions affairs, yet I do not think his management of the department is altogether the measure of efficiency in the department. To my mind a proper measure of efficiency would be the number of individual cases coming before him. And if that is the measure to be applied, then I am afraid his department has not done as well as it might have. After all, if these matters were receiving in the minister's department that degree of sympathetic consideration they are supposed to receive, it would not be necessary for members in the house, veterans' organizations and other groups throughout the country to have to deal with individual cases. I believe the minister should be advised of this, and if he is to be the minister in charge of the new department he should see to it that a more sympathetic attitude is taken by certain officials in the department when they are dealing with veterans' affairs. I know that some of those officials are sympathetic, but I also know that others are not as sympathetic as they might be. Otherwise these cases would not arise in the numbers they do.
The matter about which I would speak particularly is the position, first, of old soldier settlers under the Soldier Settlement Act, and. second, of new settlers under the present Veterans' Land Act. I believe I have had as much experience with the soldier settlement board as any other member in the house, because I took up land under the act in 1919, and I believe I have made payments to the board in each of the last twenty-five years. I say therefore that I hold the viewpoint of those settlers who took land under the act. I know something about their problem, some of the reasons for failures and for success under that act. I know, too, some of the points which should be considered under the new act, if it is to be a success.
When the Soldier Settlement Act was first passed, much of the land sold to settlers was sold at inflated prices. I know of school lands held in trust by the dominion government that were put up for sale in 1918 and offered to the public at $10 an acre. A soldier returned within six months after that sale vyas held and offered the school lands board $10 an acre. He was told that he could not. buy the land at that price. Within three months he was notified by the soldier settlement board that under the new act the land was now available, through that board, and they quoted a price to him of $21 per acre on land which had been offered to the general public for $10 an acre less than a year before. The land was bought at $21 an acre under the soldier settlement board. Another quarter oh the same section which was held at $23

an. acre later reverted to the school lands department and was again offered for sale and bought by the same soldier settler at $15 an acre in 1927. The inflated value placed on lands at that time constituted one of the chief reasons why the soldiers under the old soldier settlement board act were unable to meet their commitments.
This may be past history; there are those who may say that that is not happening now. But it is happening; it is happening to-day. Some of this very land which was taken back by the soldier settlement board in the thirties and was being offered to the general public in 1939 is being held at twenty to thirty per cent over pre-war prices for sale to men coming back and taking up land under the new legislation. That is a wrong example for the government to set. Why land values should be increased to new settlers to-day I do not know. I say it is wrong. The original grant provided by the government for buying land and buildings was $3,600, but it was found necessary to increase it to $4,800 in order that suitable holdings might be secured. That extra $1,200 represents debt as far as the new veteran is concerned; it also represents dollars in the pockets of the land companies. Why the boys who are fighting overseas should be expected to meet this additional charge for the benefit of land companies is something I do not understand. The government should take the matter into consideration. These lands should have been taken over at their 1939 prices and held at those figures for the boys coming back from overseas; no inflated values should have been permitted on account of increased prices during the war.
The same consideration applies to stock and implements. Present prices of stock and equipment are much higher than they were in 1939, but there is no guarantee that high prices will continue during the years in which these settlers are going to be paying for their land. That is one of the reasons why I suggested in the committee that a parity clause should be inserted in the new veterans' land act whereby the year in which the land was bought should be taken as the basis, and any decrease or increase in the value of produce sold should be taken into consideration in fixing the payments to be made in the years to come. If such a clause had been written into the old soldier settlement board act, many of the difficulties which arose under that act would not have occurred.
When land was purchased under that measure in 1919 and 1920 in western Canada, wheat was over $2 a bushel, and other grains, as well as stock and equipment, were selling at proportionately high prices. There was also
JUiNE 20, 1944
Department of Veterans' Affairs
laxity in the matter of proper investigation as to suitability of the land and stock which were purchased. When I was working for a farmer in western Canada in 1919 I saw a soldier settlement board inspector purchasing for a soldier settler milch cow's which were supposed to be fresh cows but were far from being that, and the prices paid were out of line with those which should have been paid. I do not know whether, it was ignorance on the part of the inspector or whether it was collusion, but undoubtedly a great deal of stock was bought at that time at unreasonably high prices. The same thing is likely to occur again unless more care is taken than was shown twenty-five years ago; and judging by the way purchases are now being made I am doubtful whether that extra care is being taken.
It is because of such circumstances as I have outlined that old soldier settlers find themselves in their present position. That is why, some three or four weeks ago, a delegation came here to ask that these men be given clear titles to their land before the new statute comes into force. The delegation appeared before the government, or a committee of the government, who listened to their representation and said that consideration will be given to it. What consideration is being or will be given remains to be seen. But certainly those men are entitled to consideration.
In speaking to some of the departmental officials I have heard them express the opinion that if there are yet a number of settlers who have not met their commitments, it is because of lack of will on their part to do so. From personal knowledge of many of these men I say that that is not a fact. Many of them experienced sickness in their families; they had to choose between having sufficient money to provide their wives or children with medical attention, and meeting their payments to the board; and I think they were entitled to put the medical care of their families ahead of their obligations under their contracts. In many of the cases they fell into arrears because they wished to give their children a proper education. I know a number of soldiers of the last war who have families of four, five or six children and had to choose between educating them and meeting their payments to the soldier settlement board. They were making a far greater contribution to the welfare of Canada by educating their families than they would have done by meeting their payments in full to the board, because to-day many of their children are overseas fighting in our forces and able to do so more efficiently as a result of the education which they received.
These are some of the reasons why these settlers find themselves in the position they are in to-day, and I urge that the government give sympathetic consideration to their request to have title granted to their land.
Another point which I commend to the attention of the minister is the writing of a parity clause into contracts under the new Veterans' Land Act. I believe it is one of the elements most essential to the success of this measure. It does not matter much what the contract is to-day; the real question is what relation it will have to the prices of products five or ten years from now when payments have to be made. This will be the deciding factor as to whether the settler can meet his obligations. If he is purchasing land to-day at values related to the present prices of grain, live stock and dairy products, those prices should be taken into account when he is paying for his land. Unless that is done I cannot see how the settler under the new act will be in a much better position than were the settlers under the old act.
I also wish to emphasize the insufficiency of the amount now made available for procuring stock and equipment under the new measure. Our boys are overseas fighting to-day. We place in their hands a bomber costing a quarter of a million dollars or a tank to the value of $50,000 for the purpose of winning the war, but when they come home we give them $1,200 to buy stock and equipment to reestablish themselves. Any farmer knows how far $1,200 will go to-day in buying stock and equipment. It is just about sufficient for two old horses and some second-hand machinery. If that is the best we can do, after we have placed in the hands of our boys at the front equipment worth tens of thousands of dollars, it is time we had another think coming. I do not believe the boys will accept this. I am sure it is not good enough. I certainly think that the amount of money made available for stock and equipment should be increased.
With respect to the amount of money made available for full-time farming purposes, $4,800 to-day just does not buy an economic farming unit either in eastern or in western Canada. Anyone who is engaged in farming knows that in western Canada the economic farming unit must be at least one section of land, or, better still, one and a half or two sections. The sum of $4,800 will buy a quarter-section, and even if the man gets it free he still has not enough land on which to make a living at farming, educate his family and pay for proper health services. I would say that $10,000 is much nearer the sum required to purchase an economic unit for full-time farming anywhere
Department oj Reconstruction

in Canada, and I would ask the minister to give serious consideration to raising the amount of money that will be made available to these men for the purchase of a full-time farming unit. It is better to lend a man $10,000 to buy a farm that he has a chance to pay for than to lend him $4,800 for a farm on which you know and I know, Mr. Speaker, he cannot meet the payments. The larger unit is the economic unit, with the farm equipped with modern machinery.
These are just a few of the matters I wished to bring to the minister's attention with respect to the soldier settler and the Veterans' Land Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



RECONSTRUCTION


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of bill No. 82 to establish a Department of Reconstruction.
He said: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that the speech from the throne made mention of three new departments, each of which has to do with some phase of reconstruction in the broad sense of that word. One is the Department of Veterans' Affairs, which is concerned particularly with matters relating to demobilization and rehabilitation of the armed forces. Another is the Department of Social Welfare, the designation of which, by the way, I am going to ask the house to allow me to amend and have it named the Department of National Health and Welfare. I might say that the wording "Social Welfare" was selected because of the comprehensive nature of the term. It was thought that welfare included health. But there have been representations to the government, which I think have been sound, that we have had a department of health in Canada for some time past, the Department of National Health, and that to eliminate that particular designation might cause it to be assumed that the government was paying less attention rather than more attention to the question of national health. I imagine that there will be no objection to the acceptance of the amended designation of that department.
The third department mentioned is the Department of Reconstruction. The first two departments I have referred to grow, in a way, out of the existing Department of Pensions and National Health. The Department of Reconstruction is an entirely new department

of government and will be concerned with aspects of government business for which hitherto no one minister has been responsible.
In considering the Department of Reconstruction, it is necessary in the first instance to understand clearly what is meant by reconstruction. There are different interpretations given to the term. Reconstruction in the war zones where there has been a wholesale destruction of property and community life will mean the physical rebuilding of the areas that have been devastated. Fortunately in Canada we have not suffered from anything of the kind. We have not had our homes bombed; we have not had our railways and roads destroyed; we have not had our industries reduced-rather, if anything, we have had our industries vastly increased and extended as the result of the war effort of the country. We are fortunate, I say, in that particular. Reconstruction with us, and, indeed, reconstruction everywhere in the broad sense of the word, means the transforming of a nation that has been carrying on war and has been geared for war and has a war economy, back to a nation that is returning to its peaceful pursuits; to the ordinary life which the community and the nation carry on in time of peace. That broad conception of reconstruction necessarily includes much in the way of the physical rebuilding and development of the country, but it includes also matters which relate to social security, questions of health and social welfare. Of course, above all else, it includes the rehabilitation of members of the armed forces and the finding of new employment in peaceful vocations for those now engaged in war industries.
There is one aspect of reconstruction which might be termed economic reconstruction. That has to do largely with the transforming of industry from making war supplies to making goods for human consumption and with restoring and increasing the capital equipment of the nation, together with the provision of employment for those who are being transferred from the one activity to the other. It is in connection with this economic reconstruction that the new Department of Reconstruction of the federal government will be primarily concerned.
On April 17 last I introduced the resolution on which this bill is based and spoke at some length upon aspects of the proposed bill. I do not wish to repeat to-day what was said then, except in one or two particulars. I indicated clearly the need for a department concerned with the work of physical reconstruction. I should like to quote the words which I then used, which will be found on page 2085 of Hansard:

Department oj Reconstruction
The problem of reconstruction will involve the reemployment of nearly two million Canadians now in the armed forces, the merchant navy or war industry. Employment must be productive and must contribute to a rising standard of living. The great industrial plant created for war purposes must be transformed to meet peace time demands in Canada or abroad. Markets must be found and retained for our greatly increased food production unless we are not to face an agricultural depression. Railways, highways and other capital equipment which has suffered the strain of war must be reconstituted. Civilian aviation and other new means of transport and communication must be developed. Public works and conservation and development projects _ will be required, particularly while private industries are being converted to peace time operations. New housing, both urban and rural, improvements to existing housing and community planning can contribute at once to the volume of employment and the improvement of the standard of living.	_
These are merely a few of the directions in which reconstruction planning requires to be carried on. Obviously most, if not all, of these functions relate specifically to some existing department of government.
I wish first to make it perfectly clear that in establishing the Department of Reconstruction the government is not establishing a department which will be primarily an administrative department to carry on under its own immediate officials the work of -econstruction.
The work of reconstruction will necessarily be carried on in largest part, in fact almost entirely, by existing departments of government, and not merely by departments of the federal government, but by departments of provincial governments and municipalities as well. Indeeed, in changing our national economy from a war-time to a peace-time basis, almost every department of government will have some special work to do.
First and foremost there is the obligation to ensure the establishment of what may be most effective in the way of world organization for peace. That in itself is an exceedingly large task. It will involve consideration primarily by the Department of External Affairs, in so far as one department rather than another in Canada may be concerned. It is a task in which bodies, such as the League of Nations Society and the like, will be interested, a great work requiring the assistance of several agencies of government. Probably more than any other single question requiring attention in the post-war period will be the securing of wider markets and the extension of trade.
One hears th- question asked very often to-day, Why is it that we are able to do in time of war, and to do so effectively, many of the things which it seems impossible for us to do in time of peace? I should like to answer that question at once from the two points of view. The first is that in time of war, happily,
all the united nations have the same purpose and are prepared to work together toward the furthering of a particular end. There has been little difficulty, since this war began, in effecting among the united nations the most complete kind of cooperation toward a particular end. In time of peace, unfortunately, cooperation among nations has been very far from the rule. Instead of nations seeking to work together, for example, toward the expansion of trade generally throughout the world, many nations have taken the view that the way in which more employment can be obtained1 is for one country to prevent some other country from having its people employed to the extent that they should be. If, as a group of nations interested in having world peace, we of the united nations can help develop trade throughout all parts of the world we shall perhaps be taking the most effective of all steps in the direction of bringing about those conditions which, for Canada particularly, it will be necessary to establish if we are to have the development of our great primary industries carried to the extent that they should be. What we can do in the way of agriculture, the mining, fishing and forestry industries in this country will depend on the markets we are able to obtain, and the markets we are able to obtain will depend on the extent to which the nations of the world come to a correct point of view as to what it is that makes most for the prosperity of all.
We shall do well, I believe, to bear in mind that prosperity is indivisible. It is not something which one nation can have and enjoy by itself; it is something that has to be shared. We shall have to come to see that we are members one of another and that no nation livet.h unto itself. As we achieve this larger conception we shall be furthering the fundamental condition required to ensure the fullest employment for the great mass of the men and women in this country.
The second reason, why we have been more successful in time of war in doing some of the things we are unable to effect in peace, is that, under the War Measures Act, the government has constitutional authority to see that its policies are carried out. It is in a position to act for the whole of Canada in regard to the prosecution of the war. In times of peace, on the other hand, we have to strive, in carrying out any policy, to get the good will and effective cooperation of every province, as well as carrying out our own work. I hope and believe, as a result of what has happened during the past five years, and of the cooperation which the federal government has had in large measure
[Stage Direction]
Department of Reconstruction
[Stage Direction]
from the provincial governments, that following conferences still to be held between the provinces and ourselves we shall be able to work out some means whereby we can, in the period after the war, secure still greater cooperation for the benefit of all.
These two considerations, I believe, will serve to answer the particular question as to why it is that we do effectively in time of war many of the things which we seem unable to do in times of peace. But in connection with any policy of reconstruction there will be matters that relate not only to trade but also to the development of industry and transportation, the development of aviation, of merchant shipping, of irrigation, the development of all our natural resources, housing and community planning, and also many other matters which have been discussed in this house during this session. At the moment I wish to emphasize that reconstruction is not concerned merely with public works and the carrying out of new undertakings of the kind. They will of necessity constitute one phase of the work of reconstruction, and there will be great need for new developments as well as to make up for what has been postponed in that way during the past few years. But reconstruction, in the broad sense of the term, will involve, as I say, not merely what one department of government is in a position to carry out but to a considerable extent what all departments of government can do in a variety of fields.
What is true of the federal government departments is equally true of the governments of the provinces. Fortunately, in the different provinces, some provision has already been made for the work of planning and development. That work in some respects parallels what is or will be carried out in the federal field. It will be necessary, if both federal and provincial policies are to be carried on without waste and overlapping, and if gaps are to be avoided here and there, which may affect the national structure, that some central agency should have, the duty of seeing that coordination is effected in the best manner possible. That cannot be done by leaving it without special responsibility to the ministers of the different departments, each of whom is concerned with a particular work. Moreover, what is the concern of all is very often apt to be the least concern of any. It is desirable, therefore, that there should be in the administration at this time, as the country begins to look forward to reverting to an economy for peace, some one minister who will have constantly before him the duty of seeing that what is necessaiy in

the formulation and the carrying out of policies of reconstruction, is effectively undertaken.
The purpose of this bill, which is now before the house for second reading is, as stated in tihe explanatory note:
. . . to establish a department of reconstruction under the direction of a minister of reconstruction who shall be responsible for preparing and coordinating plans and projects for reconstruction, and making provision for carrying out such plans with the authorization of the governor in council.
Personally I should have preferred to see that explanatory note worded somewhat differently to bring out the full intent and purpose of its provisions. I should like to have it read:
The purpose of this bill is to establish a department of reconstruction under the direction of a minister of reconstruction who shall be responsible for seeing that reconstruction plans and projects are prepared or formulated and coordinated, and that provision shall be made for carrying out such plans with the authorization of the governor in council.
As the explanatory note reads, it might be assumed that the minister himself had to make all the plans and administer them. That is not the intention. It will be the minister's duty to see that plans are made. It will also be his duty to see that plans having to do with reconstruction are carried out. But these duties will be carried on in cooperation with his colleagues of other government departments.
In this particular, the present bill follows the example that has been set by the government of the United Kingdom where one minister of the crown has been appointed minister of reconstruction. As hon. members know, some seven months ago Lord Woollton was appointed Minister of Reconstruction in the United Kingdom. When he addressed the House of Lords and described his functions he began by saying that he had no office or permanent staff; that it was his intention to perform the major part of his duties by thinking over the many problems that had to be worked out and presenting suggestions to his colleagues, discussing them in cabinet council with the committee which would be there for the purpose of assisting him in that work. Lord Woollton has carried on very largely in that way. He heads no department of government; he is not the head of a ministry. He is simply the Minister of Reconstruction. He has associated with him experts on different aspects of reconstruction. He consults with them and with a committee of the war cabinet, of which he himself is a member. Plans are then presented to and discussed by the war cabinet or the cabinet as a whole, and work to be carried out is assigned to the appropriate departments of the government.
JtJNE 20, 1944
Department oj Reconstruction
It is the intention under this bill to appoint as Minister of Reconstruction in Canada one of the ministers' of the crown who holds office at the present time, and who heads one of the departments of government. He will continue to administer the department of which he is now the head, but he will also have the special duty of meeting with experts on reconstruction, of meeting with a committee of the cabinet which will be composed of ministers who will also be expected to give their time and thought to the formulating of plans related to reconstruction, and to seeing that these plans are carried out. As part of his duty there will be also the obligation of keeping himself informed with respect to what has been and is being done by the provinces and municipalities, and, as far as it may be possible through consultation with them, and in other ways, of seeking to combine in the most effective way the work of reconstruction of the federal government and of the provincial governments and municipalities.
The difference in scope and in procedure in the present bill from the British procedure where it exists arises out of the difference in our own country from Britain in the matter of jurisdiction with respect to legislative powers. In Britain the central government has charge of pretty nearly everything, except . what the municipalities may be charged with. As an example let me make mention of education. As all hon. members know, education in Canada is one of the subjects specially assigned to the provincial governments. I shall not enumerate the different duties of the federal and provincial governments, or what is reserved to one or to the other. As we know, there are instances where, both dominion and provincial governments have jurisdiction, for example, in matters relating to agriculture, public works, and immigration. In all of these fields there is jurisdiction in which both the provincial and federal governments share.
In the reconstructing of the nation from a war-time to a peace-time economy, it is important that departments which are doing similar work should work together in harmony as largely as possible, not only as between the dominion and one province but as between the dominion and all the provinces, and between the provinces themselves. Obviously no minister of the crown could by himself be expected to take that work of coordination completely in hand. He would have to have associated with him not only experts but a considerable staff. He would have to have a deputy minister who is in a position to communicate authoritatively with the governments of the provinces, with municipalities,
with business organizations, professional organizations, private industries and individuals. For that reason the present bill contemplates the establishment of a department with a deputy minister and with such staff as may be essential for the carrying on of that class of work-not a large staff, because it is not contemplated that this department is going to last for all time. The department is being set up at this time for a special purpose related to special conditions, just as certain departments of the federal government were set up at the beginning of the war to do war work. For example, the Department of Munitions and Supply was set up to carry on an important phase of war work. When the war ends that department will fade out; but, with the preparation for peace and for developing the national economy to further the pursuits of peace, it will be necessary to have some one department that will be specially charged with that all-important work. The Department of Reconstruction will have that particular duty.
I do not think I need to enlarge upon the duties of the minister or the staff. Questions may be answered in detail in committee. I should however like to say a word immediately with respect to the comment that one sometimes hears to the effect that the government is late, in setting up this department. Well, I take complete issue with that criticism. First of all, may I say that in its main task, to do what is possible to ensure full employment in the country, the need for this department is not likely to be felt to any considerable extent for some time to come. During the war, as we all know, full employment has developed in the industries essential for carrying on the war. But the war is not over yet. We do not know how long the war in Europe is going to last, and when the war is over in Europe no one will venture to say how long the war' against Japan may continue. Certainly this country will continue to do its full share towards an all-out war effort until the war is won both in the orient and in Europe. There is likely to be a very large demand for war materials as long as that period continues; but once the war is over there will be a new kind of demand for materials and services and supplies, which will be very great. That demand will arise in the transitional period from war to peace in the countries of Europe, as well as in our own, and in all countries that have been affected by the war.
The relief and rehabilitation of the peoples of Europe are certainly likely to create a demand for commodities of different kinds which it will be difficult to meet. We all remember what took place at the end of the last war.

251J
Department oj Reconstruction
[Stage Direction]
The end of the last war was followed by a boom. There has not been on this continent at any time the same sudden increase of demand for supplies, services and labour, as there was in the years immediately following 1918, the years 1919 and 1920. In other words, a boom situation was created, but it was followed by an appalling depression. That is one of the things that we must certainly seek to avoid in dealing with the post-war period. We have the experience of that time before us, and, fortunately, we have the benefit of the careful research that has been carried on in all parts of the world as to its causes, so that to-day we have the knowledge of the action needed to prevent the recurrence of that sort of thing. There again, if this kind of disaster is to be prevented, it seems to me desirable that there should be some member of the government who will have a special responsibility to see that measures to avoid periods of depression and unemployment are carefully thought out, studied in advance and, as far as possible, given effect. The Minister of Reconstruction will have as part of his obligation to see that in planning a long-range view as well as a short range view is taken. Of necessity, immediately the war ends and people begin to be transferred from one employment to another, some men and women will be out of employment for a short time. There will continue to be occupational causes which will tend to throw men out of work at certain seasons of the year. Unemployment of that kind will necessarily occur. But broadly speaking, looking at mass employment as it presents itself over a period of months and years, the period immediately following the close of the war should be a time in which there will be a large demand for labour. The danger will come after that, and the only way it can be met is by careful planning now and in the period of transition, by seeking to effect that kind of cooperation between the provinces and the dominion in our own country, and between our country and other countries, which will help prevent a period of depression.
Another reason why, up to the moment, it has not seemed essential to have a department particularly concerned with reconstruction, a reason perhaps the stronger of the two in its immediate application is that almost since the very beginning of the war a careful study has been carried on by the government, followed later by committees of this parliament, by provincial governments, municipalities, societies, organizations, business and private interests, of matters pertaining to reconstruction in all its phases. I might give the house, in quick succession, the names of
{Mr. Mackenzie King.}
some of these committees and make mention of some of the things which already have been done. The war had scarcely begun before the present administration realized that the demobilization and rehabilitation of the men serving overseas would inevitably be an important question that could not receive attention too soon, and a committee of the cabinet to consider this problem was formed before the end of 1939. We in Canada had a committee on the subject of demobilization and rehabilitation before the British government appointed any such committee. Hon. members will recall that Mr. Chamberlain was Prime Minister of Great Britain at the beginning of the war. He was succeeded by Mr. Churchill, and it was not until after Mr. Churchill had been in office for a short time that the British government appointed a committee of the cabinet to study these problems and to prepare policies which would help meet them. On December 9 the cabinet in Canada appointed a committee on demobilization and reestablishment.
John Horne Blackmore: In what year?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: On December 9, 1939, a government committee on demobilization and reestablishment was set up. Members of this committee soon realized that demobilization and rehabilitation was only one of the great aspects of the problem of reconstruction. Subsequently the scope of the committee was enlarged, under an order in council dated February 17, 1941, to include all phases of reconstruction, and at the same time an advisory committee on reconstruction was set up on an informal basis. As hon. members will recall, this advisory committee was headed by Principal James of McGill university. The government was anxious to have associated with it, altogether outside the administration, advisers who would go carefully into the problems of reconstruction. On September 2, 1941, this committee was given formal character by order in council. I need not take time at the moment to speak of the work of the James committee, though up to the present far too little reference I think has been made to it. As hon. members are aware, the committee has published a number of valuable reports. The main report, on reconstruction, was published on September 24, 1943. Then there was a special report on the conservation and development of natural resources; a report on publicly-financed construction projects; a report on post-war employment; a report on the post-war problems of women, and a report on housing. These matters have been studied as well by officials of departments of the government during the past year or two, and

Department of Reconstruction
the government has had the benefit of their reports and reports of the James committee to guide it in its work.
In addition the government recognized at an early stage the service that might be rendered by members of both houses of this parliament in the study of these questions and in a considering of recommendations which might come from any source in any part of Canada. On March 24, 1942, this house established a committee on reconstruction and reestablishment. That committee was reappointed in 1943 and again this year. In 1943 a senate committee on economic reestablishment and social security was appointed. I should like to pause for a moment to thank hon. members of these committees for the assistance they have given and to say, on behalf of the government, how deepfy indebted we feel particularly to the special committee on reconstruction of this house, of which the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Turgeon) was chairman. That committee was composed of members from all sides of the house. It is generally acknowledged that the chairman discharged his duties to the entire satisfaction of the committee, and that the committee's work has been not only comprehensive but constructively helpful in the fullest meaning of that term. The fact that the house has not discussed at length the various matters referred to in these reports does not mean that the reports themselves have not been useful and of great service to the government. As a matter of fact they have been of the greatest help; they have served as guides to the ministers in charge of the different departments in taking up some of the subjects, and have been helpful to the government in planning its programme. Indeed, one of the recommendations made by the committee of this House of Commons had to do with the establishment of the very department of which I am speaking at the moment. That recommendation was made a year or so ago. The new department has not been set up until the present for reasons I have given already.
I have mentioned only some of the reports that have been made to the federal government by various bodies connected with it. There has been an advisory committee on economic policy appointed on January 23, 1943, composed of senior officials, under the chairmanship of Mr. W. C. Clark. This committee has since been continuously investigating and studying the post-war problems. At that time the James committee became directly responsible to the President of the Privy Council. It presented its final report on September 24, 1943, at which time the advisory committee on economic policy took over its work.
Since the James committee completed its work the advisory committee on economic policy has also taken over the work formerly carried on by the James committee.
If it were needed to specify the extent to which the reports have served as a basis for legislation, I could refer to many matters which have been discussed in the house already, conspicuous among the number being the bill which received third reading only this afternoon, namely the bill establishing a department of veterans' affairs. There has been a full discussion on that measure during the last few days. There could be no better evidence that the government has not been neglecting the question of reconstruction than the measures already enacted pertaining to war veterans' affairs. We began with the most important of all, namely, those matters which pertain to the demobilization and rehabilitation of the armed forces. I think the house must now be convinced that not only was a very comprehensive programme outlined, but that already in the main it has been enacted and is now in force.
What is true of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and the work concerning war veterans, is true to no lesser extent of some of the other work of the government pertaining to reconstruction. I might refer, for example, to matters pertaining to the expansion of trade which have been a special concern of the departments of external affairs, trade and commerce and finance. Many of our war policies have been and will prove to be of the greatest possible assistance in connection with the post-war effort. In fact, in shaping all our war policies we have had the post-war situation very much in mind.
Let me deal with some of these policies. We have been seeking not to build up intergovernmental debts between nations. It will be recalled this was the first obstacle that confronted the nations once the last war was over. Our aim there, in concert with other nations, has been to prevent an accumulation and combination of obligations. The system of Mutual Aid has for its object the avoidance of unwieldy debts between governments, as well as helping to effect an all-out war effort, and give maximum employment to our own people. Exchange control and price control policies will also help in trading relations of the future. The work in connection with UNRRA, which has to do with relief and rehabilitation in the devastated areas and starving populations of Europe, is a great work which has been established in this period of war, but all of which relates to the post-war period. It will have much to do with maintaining a high
Department of Reconstruction

level of employment in Canada for some [DOT] time to come. All of this will have to do with increasing our production-production in agriculture, mines, fisheries and forests. On the orderly resumption of external trade and its expansion, the prosperity of agriculture, the forest industries, mining, fishing and many of our manufacturing industries depend. So that it is folly for'anyone to say that, up to the present time, little or nothing has been done by way of reconstruction, just because one particular department bearing that name, and having the purposes in view I have mentioned, has not been established until now. The establishment of the department is only the latest of a long list of measures designed to further the work of reconstruction.
There have been discussions on monetary matters. We have not waited until the war was over to have those matters explored; they *are being explored at the present time. I cannot say how successful they may be. At any rate, wherever in the past experience has shown failure, we have tried to anticipate a similar situation and to meet it before it occurs again. The government will assist wherever it can in the development of international arrangements concerning currency and trade, the government intends to join in a progressive freeing of world trade from the whole network of quotas, payment agreements and other similar restrictions and a progressive reduction of tariffs.
Several measures have been introduced at .this session, or are about to be introduced, which relate to reconstruction in the post-war 'period. They are based in large part upon studies which have been carefully carried out either by government officials or by committees of the house, or have come to the government from other sources. For example, there is a measure to guarantee or ensure export credits, to which reference was made in the speech from the throne. That measure will be introduced shortly. Then there is provision for the expansion of the trade commissioner service, which was also forecast in the speech from the throne.
Hon. members *will recall that the house is discussing in some detail matters respecting civil aviation and aeronautics. These are measures which relate to the post-war rather than to the war period. For two years past an interdepartmental committee has been at work on civil aviation. The government's policy-a complete plan-was outlined to the house a year ago. A draft international agreement has been put forward by Canada. There is an interdepartmental committee on merchant shipping actively at work considering post-war shipping policies which will be required.

In connection with the work of industrial conversion, hon. members will recall that in November of last year a crown assets allocation committee and War Assets Corporation Ltd. was set up by order in council. Only the night before last, a bill respecting the disposition of surplus crown assets passed the house. That bill dealt with obsolete and unused war materials.
An industrial development bank bill was introduced in February of this year and has since been passed. There has been a constant study by different departments and agencies of government of the general problems of reconversion of industry. These matters have been considered specially by the Department of Munitions and Supply, the wartime prices and trade board and the advisory committee on economic policy. Later, as forecast in the speech from the throne, there will be some tax modifications to encourage industrial conversion, and also there will be an expansion of research.
Only this afternoon an hon. member referred to the government's promise to appoint a fuel commission, to consider problems of the coal industry. That commission has not yet been established; but it- will be. Its work will have relation to matters pertaining to the post-war period in that great industry.
I might mention another very important measure already passed, namely the Unemployment Insurance Act. Hon. members may forget that measure was enacted since the war began. It was passed by this parliament in July, 1940. We were not waiting until the war was over to take steps to prepare for possible conditions of post-war unemployment.
Similarly, we have taken action with respect to an employment service, and hon. members know that national selective service has been developed. It will have to work in reverse when we reach the close of hostilities and the return to the pursuits of peace. Much has been done by way of war-time vocational training, which is providing experience and organization for post-war technical training.
The promise was made in the speech from the throne-and it will be implemented, as all the other measures so promised are being implemented-for a floor under farm prices after the war. Again, the government is not waiting until the war is over to make provision for the post-war. Provision is being made for agricultural credits, through the Bank Act as revised, and a farm improvement credit bill which has been introduced-
Similarly, provision for credit to fishermen is being made in the Bank Act, and special study is being given to the post-war problems of the fishing industry.

Department oj Reconstruction
I should also mention one of the most important pieces of legislation namely that respecting housing. As yet, that legislation has not been brought in, but lion, members are aware that for the last two years the govern meat has been giving special consideration to the housing problem, and has been carrying on active work in that connection. On may 11, a preview was given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) of some features of housing legislation. Recently a national adviser on community planning was appointed by the Minister of Finance.
I could speak further about the public works development and the valuable recommendations of the House of Commons committees in the past two sessions and of the James committee which are being or will be implemented. As I already said, the new Department of Reconstruction will have the duty of formulating policies and coordinating activities of various federal departments and agencies; also the vital task of working out cooperation with the provinces which, because they control natural resources, are largely concerned with this field.
By a further step, we hope to ensure more effective cooperation between the provinces and ourselves through holding, before long we hope, a dominion-provincial conference, to take up some of the questions which must be squarely faced, if conditions in the postwar period are to be adequately met.


Gordon Graydon: Is it the intention of the government to wait until this session is concluded before holding the dominion-provincial conference, or is it intended to hold it before?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot say as to that. What I do say is this, that I hope when that conference is held it will be held under circumstances which will permit of the attendance of representatives of all the provinces-not only of a certain number. Meanwhile extensive preparations for the conference are already under way. I also hope that it will meet at a time when it can do effective work. I am not at all sure that, if it were a choice between waiting until parliament had risen in a month's time and having a conference then, that would not be preferable to holding the conference before an adjournment. On the other hand, if parliament is going to continue in session until December I certainly think we ought to have the conference a considerable time before then.


Gordon Graydon: I hope that that is not
one of the government's objectives.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, indeed not.


John Horne Blackmore: Will the Prime Minister permit a question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: Can he tell us whether any one or all of these committees on reconstruction acting together have suggested to him any source of money with which to do all these things, other than debt or taxation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that I do not contemplate difficulty in carrying on reconstruction work, during the period of reconstruction, on the score of being unable to raise the money that is necessary for it.


John Horne Blackmore: Without increasing
our debt?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will put it this way to my hon. friend. In this period of war we have been able to raise money through loans and taxation, for what purpose? For the purpose mainly of spending the money on destruction, on the destruction of property, the destruction of community and national life, and human lives; all of which indicates that instead of having our taxes serve a useful constructive purpose, they are serving, of necessity-it is not our fault, it is part of the penalty of war-the needs of destruction. When the whole picture is reversed, and it comes to be a matter of carrying out constructive work, work for the rebuilding of communities, for the supplying of homes, and the needs of homes, the necessaries and conveniences of life, many of which have been absolutely prohibited in the period of war, there is going to be a demand for employment the like of which has not arisen at any other time, and as one want is satisfied another want is sure to be created. My hon. friend remembers, I suppose, the little fable of the man who cut away at a tree and every time he took one chip out two appeared in its place. That mythical tale has always seemed a bit of a mystery to me, but I think I realize what was meant. I think it applies to human need -or human greed, if you wish it. The minute you satisfy one need or want you create two more.
I will illustrate. The moment a man is fortunate enough to get a house he immediately wants to have the house properly furnished.


Gordon Graydon: He wants a wife.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a want that may be satisfied as far as some hon. gentlemen are concerned; I hope it will be in the case of others before too long a time expires.
Department of Reconstruction

If he gets a wife, if he is fortunate enough to have a wife, she will have half a dozen demands that he will never have thought of.


Mr. BRUCE:: You are o'ptimistic.


Mr MACKENZIE KING:: If they are fortunate enough they will have a small family after a time, the needs and wants of all of whom will have to be supplied. And so it goes on. When a man has his house and his grounds and the rest of it he will want to travel by motor car, and when he has travelled by motor car and is free to go where he pleases by motor he will not be satisfied with that; he will want to go to another country and stay at some fashionable hotel, and so it goes. That is the way progress is made, through demands which arise from conditions of peace and prosperity; and where you get demands of the kind which lead to the fuller employment of labour I do not think my hon. friend need fear about the increase of the public debt or taxation to accomplish these things. If we can get a sufficiently large demand for labour through an increasing demand for goods and commodities and things which are constructive and serviceable, I believe the nation can go ahead with the great work of construction and reconstruction and at the same time reduce its taxation and reduce its debt. That at least is what I would hope to do if this government is in office when that period comes.


John Horne Blackmore: Were not all these demands in operation from 1930 to 1935? If they were, why did they not result in an increase of production?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will answer
my hon. friend in a wrord. This government was not in power at that time.


John Horne Blackmore: It was in power
from 1935 to 1940.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope the
hon. member will remember that and that the people will remember it when they come to think over the cause of depression and what makes for prosperity. However, I answered a moment ago my hon. friend's question in that regard. I have given him already the explanation, that in large part it has been the mistaken policies of nations believing that one nation's prosperity could be secured by lessening in some way the prosperity of other nations; if that kind of thing is repeated in the world, we certainly are going to have periods of depression again. But I do hope that new ideas, liberal ideas, are gaining ground throughout the world, and

that they will have their effect in helping to remove some of these impediments to progress which have been encountered so far.


John Horne Blackmore: I am looking for
one of these ideas.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have perhaps gone further afield than I intended to. The success of reconstruction generally will depend primarily upon the achievement of a high level of employment and production, that is so far as reconstruction in the narrower sense of the word is concerned; these things relate largely to economic reconstruction: but it will depend also to a large extent upon adequate provision for the health and welfare of the people, and their insurance against major social and economic hazards. If we are fortunate enough to succeed in getting through this measure which relates to economic reconstruction, I shall hope . to bring immediately forward another measure which I trust will be effective in making some further provision for the health and the welfare of the people, and for meeting some of the social and economic needs of our time.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) read over the explanatory note he suggested that it would have been better if it had had a few extra words. With that I agree. If I remember, the Prime Minister said that after the word "plans" something like the following should be added, "are prepared and coordinated and must be carried out." I believe that if that suggestion of the Prime Minister is acted upon by the coming minister of reconstruction, something worthwhile will be done.
Before proceeding with what I propose to say I should like to make a short reference to the parliamentary reconstruction committee. I have not sat on any previous committee of which the members, irrespective of party, were as nearly unanimous in suggesting a plan and a programme and more ready to listen to plans and programmes than were the members of this committee. There was no conflict between them. The witnesses who came before the committee were as a whole earnest, capable men and women of high calibre, and some of our advisers may fairly be described as brilliant. I ought to say, too, that we had an excellent chairman. I might say more if he were not sitting in this chamber. He was an indefatigable worker; he must have been sitting up all hours of the night making plans and preparations to invite before the committee those whom the steering committee and himself thought would be best capable of making helpful proposals.

Department oj Reconstruction
I am glad that the government has accepted the recommendation of the committee and is now setting up a department of reconstruction.
I believe that the first report of the committee that asked for the setting up of such a department was tabled in this house on June 23, 1943. The committee's recommendation read:
In view of all the foregoing, your committee recommends that the Canadian government give immediate consideration to your committee's strong opinion that the government should take the necessary steps either by the establishment of some body, to be organized under ministerial responsibility, or otherwise to provide for the carrying out of works such as those contemplated in the preceding portions of this report.
Then in its fourth report tabled on January 26 the committee through its chairman presented similar recommendations. I rise, Mr. Speaker, to support the motion for the second reading of the bill which has just been introduced by the Prime Minister to establish a department of reconstruction.
Six provinces in all appeared before the committee. The three other provinces have since, I believe, set up their own reconstruction committees. Each one of the provinces that appeared before the committee advanced very constructive proposals for after-the-war rehabilitation of returned soldiers and of those employed in industry. Perhaps I should say a word about the proposals of one or two of the provinces that appeared before the committee.
I did not happen to be present when the maritime provinces appeared before the committee; I had to be away on that occasion. The province of Saskatchewan appeared before the committee and made very constructive suggestions, the carrying out of which would mean a great deal to the province itself and would provide much employment. There is no reason why such a large programme should not be carried out. The Saskatchewan programme covered such matters as public works, universities, schools, roads, the improvement of the telephone system, reforestation, a fire prevention programme, parks, mapping and so forth. The whole programme was estimated to cost between $175,000,000 and $200,000,000. The carrying out of a programme of that magnitude could not, of course, be done within a year or two. I have forgotten the length of their programme but I believe it was to take five years or more. I hope that when the representatives of the Saskatchewan government come down here after the war to ask for assistance in carrying out the programme which the recent government of that province submitted they will receive support from this parliament.
The same thing might be said of the Alberta proposals. I shall give just one example of after-the-war rehabilitation proposals that were submitted by the Alberta government, because I do not want to go into too much detail. The Alberta government did submit a programme of which I personally am strongly in favour, namely an irrigation programme. They set out the programme in detail for irrigating one million acres not now irrigated. Anyone who has travelled through southern Alberta and has seen, as I have seen, the tremendous results that accrue from a policy of irrigation-it is a self-liquidating project, paying for its cost by the returns-could not but support the irrigation programme submitted by the Alberta government. They pointed out that their programme would mean
9.500	new farms receiving water from the irrigation canals, farms which would produce crops such as are now produced on irrigated land in southern Alberta. If that programme were carried out it would mean an increase in population of some 50,000 people in the province. Think for a moment of the increase there would be in employment from the opening up of 9,500 new sure-crop farms. It would mean 9,500 new homes, with all that pertains to the construction of a home and all that is installed within a home, and all the equipment necessary to operate a farm. As was proven by the Alberta submission, and as those who study irrigation know, irrigation projects liquidate themselves by the returns that come from each irrigated acre. The programme of the Alberta government is one that to my mind would provide not only large employment in Alberta but also very considerable employment in factories down here in Ontario, in Quebec and in the maritime provinces. One cannot conceive of an increase of 50,000 in population and the construction of
9.500	new homes and the opening up of that many new farms without realizing the tremendous ramifications of employment that would result from such a programme, extending not only to Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia as well as Alberta but all across Canada.
These are two examples of the programmes submitted by different provinces that appeared before the committee. Each province had its own problems and programmes, and perhaps before I sit down I shall perhaps make a recapitulation of some of them. I have no doubt whatever that, whoever the new minister of this department may be, he will be seized of the importance of expanding the irrigation systems in Alberta and creating new ones and making available the necessary water as a means of providing a vast amount of
Department of Reconstruction

surveying but of compiling their statistics. I cannot believe that there will be any unemployment after the war if we use our heads, if we all work together and make certain that in this country, a land flowing with milk and honey and with incomparable resources, the like of which no other country in the world has, with opportunities to produce power and everything else that is required, opportunities are afforded to take advantage of our resources, there would be no unemployment in Canada.
We had representatives of labour come before us. We found them very satisfactory and in earnest that there should be no unemployment after the war. If labour cooperates with everybody else, as honest labour always does, they will help materially. Labour has many good sane leaders. I do not know any who are not in that class. With good sane leadership labour can and will assist in seeing to it that there will be no unemployment in this country after the war. We also had representatives from the department of the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar). I was about to say that those representatives dealt with not a big matter, but one that is filled with a good deal of hope. They came before us to explain the building up of the fur industry which the minister himself has been initiating during the last two or three years. That will result in a lot of employment among certain classes of people who do not get much employment. I was greatly pleased with what the representatives of the department told the committee with respect to the proposed fur production programme of the Department of Mines and Resources and how it would result in giving employment. I cannot touch on many items; I mention them as they come to my mind. The one I have just mentioned is only one of many such programmes that were submitted to the committee.
We had the coal men before us. I may say that the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) was a great help to us in elucidating the programme presented by the coal people. With a national coal programme in Canada after the war there is no reason why we should not be able to give thousands upon thousands more of coal men work in the coal mines of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Alberta, British Columbia and wherever else there are mines. If we would only use our heads, Your Honour, there would not need to be any unemployment in this country. If we all work together, thinking only of Canada, we would prevent an unemployment problem in Canada after the war.
I should like to refer to one gentleman who came before the committee, a humble, capable 
man	from Alberta,	from	my	hon. friend'sconstituency of Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw), Mr. David Hayes. I hope that the new minister will study carefully the proposals made by David Hayes of the Canada Land and Irrigation company. This man has given splendid service to this country in that dry belt. With the expenditure of a few million dollars he could continue his present irrigation	programme up	to	the	environs ofMedicine Hat. Anyone who wanted to see what a dried-out area is needs only to go west from Medicine Hat. I went over the area very carefully last summer. It would break one's heart to see the abandoned houses and barns and to think of the effect that it must	have on that	fine	city	of MedicineHat.	What an effect	it would	have if those
works west of Medicine Hat were completed and, instead of there being 200,000 acres of non-irrigated land growing nothing, they were irrigated, as they could be and made productive if the Canada Land and Irrigation company were given assistance. A non-productive area adds nothing to the national wealth of the country. But an area producing all sorts of crops that could be produced with the help of irrigation water which is available if we would only store it and convey it, means additional national wealth and much employment besides.
I must hurry along. The Canadian Manufacturers' association made a submission to the senate committee. Their submission asked several important questions. I think the Prime Minister alluded to the sum and substance of them. I shall place them on Hansard. No. 1 was as follows:
To what extent will other countries abolish import and exchange restrictions and quotas and reduce their customs tariffs? There has been some talk of this but as yet no action.
2.	To what extent will exchanges be stabilized? For example, what might be the effect of the comprehensive proposals announced recently by the British and American governments for the stabilization of exchanges?
3.	Many of our members have greatly increased their exports through imperial preferential tariffs. What is to be the future of these preferences?
4.	To what extent will the system of lend-lease be continued after the war?
Therefore the Prime Minister was quite right in referring to conditions that might take place after the war. The members of the Canadian Manufacturers' association submitted those possibilities, and of course everything is predicated upon what can be done. I understand that the two to three thousand manufacturing plants in Toronto have already made plans for about $95,000,000 worth of additions in buildings alone, but to equip those buildings

Department oj Reconstruction
as they should be equipped will mean the investment of another $225,000,000 in machines and tools. Just fancy what that will mean after the war to the tool manufacturing companies throughout eastern Canada, which to-day are running full blast on war production. I have said before, but it is worth repeating, that if we all get together and do our part to see that men and women obtain employment after this war, by developing this country, there need not be any unemployment.
I should like to speak for a moment or two on one other matter. In addition to new buildings and equipment and the development of natural resources, there are in all parts of the country projects which I could name, if it were not for wearying the house, which would provide employment for hundreds of thousands of men. I could mention projects from Cape Breton right across the country to Vancouver and Victoria, east to west and south to north for a thousand miles; just lying there, waiting for the work to be done which will not only provide employment but open up this country. That is what we want.
I wish to say a word about the human element. I was greatly struck by an editorial which appeared in the Toronto Star of May 29. According to the Star it might be inferred that the magnificent performance of the Russians in driving the Germans back from Stalingrad, and the Russians' marvellous feats of fighting, could be the result of the physical training thev were given before the war. I am going to suggest that the new minister of reconstruction bring in a programme of sports and physical exercises, and I do not mean sport just for the fun of it but sport for the development of the physique of Canadians, so that they may receive the benefits of good physical training. According to this report, in 1914 the Russians had only 250 sports clubs with about 30,000 members; but as they saw the marvellous contributions made to the life of their nation by strong men and strong women, they introduced physical culture classes into their universities; they began to train instructors, and by 1940 they had 50,000 sports clubs of one kind or another, fifty technical schools training instructors, and physical culture classes in universities. As a result they have been able to do things we never conceived they would be able to do when war broke out. We in Canada can do likewise, and in so doing create a great deal of business. I do not know if we have been told how much business and employment a huge physical programme would give, but just think for a moment what would result if we had 10,000 clubs in Canada training young men in all kinds of good, healthy sports, such as baseball, football,
hockey, running, and so on. Think what that would mean in equipment. I saw some figures on this matter, but unfortunately I do not have them with me. In addition to the monetary side of the picture, however, I am sure the country would greatly profit from the development of the physical life of our people.
Then, just to give an idea of what can be done, a short time ago I had the privilege of visiting a very great friend of the Prime Minister, Jack Miner. He suggested a programme of rehabilitation which I have not heard mentioned by anyone else. The work he does at Kingsville, Ontario, in connection with wild life conservation brings thousands of tourists and creates a good deal of employment. He said to me, " Why could we not have all over Canada sanctuaries such as I have here; in Alberta, in Saskatchewan, in northern Ontario, away up in Athabaska, and so on?" That would provide employment; that would give training to the people, and1 I thought it was a very happy suggestion.
Mr. GRAYDON [DOT] He is in a class by himself.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, I can tell my hon. friend that Jack Miner is one of the greatest men living to-day, in any country. I have in my hand a pamphlet published by the national association of manufacturers of the United States from which I should like to quote two or three sentences in conclusion. The pamphlet is entitled "Jobs-Freedom-Opportunity" and reads in part as follows:
By jobs we mean regular employment at productive work for everybody able and willing to work-jobs which provide good working conditions and pay fair wages for the work done, jobs which produce those things and give those services which people need, jobs 'which we select of our own free will and are free to change if we wish-in a word, jobs which create the welfare and prosperity necessary to protect ourselves, our families, and our nation in the years and generations to come. . . .
By freedom we mean the right to live under a government which is the servant, not the master, of the people-without fear that a dictator or his henchmen will control us, watch our actions, listen to our words, tell us what to read, where to live, what to buy, where to work, whom to marry, who our friends can be. Freedom, the freedom for which we are fighting, is the freedom which enables us to choose for ourselves, to make our own decisions. . . .
By opportunity we mean the chance to work and get ahead under our own steam, the chance to plan for our own future, to raise our children with assurance that they can grow and learn and live with that self-respect which is the right of free men.
That is the right of free men. Jobs of a hundred and one different kinds must be available. That is why I rise to support the proposal to set up a Department of Recon-
Department oj Reconstruction

struction. I hope the minister of that department will follow out the suggestion which has been made, that of coordinating his plans, and getting things under way now. Let him engage engineers and draftsmen of one kind and another to have the plans coordinated, so that when the war is over he will be able to send men here and there and everywhere. That does not mean that he must take men from Ontario and sen/i them to the west. No; that would not be necessary. Let him give the west a chance to live. If a number of things are done, one of which I have mentioned-and I shall mention others later on, on another occasion-and if the west is given a chance, the people of the west will become buyers. They will send to the east-to here, there and everywhere throughout Canada-orders which will provide thousands of men in the east with jobs in factories.
Let us give every part of Canada a chance to live. I am one who says that we have not given the west a fair chance. I shall not say anything further on the point at this time. May I state briefly that I am behind the proposal to set up a ministry of reconstruction.


Mr. J. G. TURGEON (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, speaking to this matter of reconstruction I would be untrue to myself if I were not immediately to put on record some of the thoughts already expressed by me to audiences outside the House of Commons respecting the manner in which the committee on reconstruction and reestablishment has carried on its work.
As has been said before, the members of that committee come from every geographical division of Canada. They are representative of practically every school of political thought in the land; and yet at no time did party politics ever intrude, or cast its shadow across our discussions and deliberations. As chairman of that committee may I express to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) my appreciation not only of the words he used to-day when referring to the committee, but of the manner which he, as Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council, and his government have given consideration to the various recommendations contained in the reports of that committee.
When the Prime Minister spoke he referred in eloquent terms to the nature of the work accomplished by the expenditure of money during a time of war, and he contrasted the expenditure of money in war time with the expenditure of equal or necessary sums of money for peace-time purposes. In view of what he said I should like to read part of [Mr. MacNicol.l
one paragraph from the report of the committee, which was tabled by me in June, 1943. We said:
When war is over some other definite aim must take its place as a motivating cause of national economic activity. Thoughts of those who return to us from the field of battle and of the dependents of those who die, and of what they fought and died for, will supply the aim. Your committee is certain that the means of doing so will be found in the conservation and proper utilization of our natural resources, and in the decision that markets will be sought for our production by governmental intervention where necessary from time to time. In this respect we welcome the conclusion arising from the united nations food conference that never again will food be destroyed simply because people have not enough money to buy it.
A little later in the few minutes during which I shall address the house-because I intend to close at six o'clock-I shall make reference to the manner in which money may be procured, if emergency should arise. Before doing that, however, I would turn to some other matters, and would deal first with a further statement appearing in the report of the committee in January:
Your committee feel that it is well within the power of governments and industry to maintain full employment for all Canadians during the period of transition from war to peace-time activities.
Then we went on to deal with the provisions which must be-I was going to say "ought" to be, but I believe "must" is the better word- made for the returning veterans. In that connection I would call the attention of the house to paragraph (e) of section 2 of the bill, where we find the definition of the word "reconstruction". It says:
"Reconstruction" means the reestablishment in civil life and reemployment on demobilization of the men and women of the armed services, of persons released from war industries, and the reorganization of industry, in order to provide maximum production and full employment during and following the change-over from war-time production of industry to peace-time production, and includes every undertaking by dominion, provincial or municipal authority or by any corporation or other person which may contribute to such reorganization.
I agree with the Prime Minister as to the change he suggested in the explanatory note, but it would be difficult to give to the department duties of a more general or more onerous nature. This, therefore, is a recognition of the fact that the government realizes and is determined to carry out every step necessary to maintain economic activity in the days of peace. The definition includes the two phases set out to-day by the Prime Minister, namely, those of domestic and international economies, depending upon trade and

Department oj Reconstruction
commerce which, in turn, depend upon the relations between Canada and other nations of the world.
The Prime Minister made a brief reference to the fact that the conduct of Canada during this period of war has been a sort of preface to the work which must necessarily be done by Canada in days of peace. I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members the truth of that statement. We have debated, and there has been discussed in the country, the question of mutual aid, and all it implies. I shall not go into details in that matter. This mutual aid policy has built up in favour of Canada an extremely good feeling among those allied nations in the company of which Canada is fighting this war against Germany and Japan-and formerly against Italy.
Then we must consider the conduct of the war, as it is carried on partly by civilians, governmental officials and others, and especially by the youth of Canada who to-day and for some years past have been fighting the battles of those of us who must remain at home. The nature of the struggle they have been carrying on is such that when, the war being over, a minister of the crown or a government official comes to deal with officials of other nations with a view to bringing about trade and commerce or any other interrelation, he will have had the way paved for him by the courage and determination of our young men and women who are fighting our battles overseas to-day and who in the future will be fighting on the Pacific against Japan.
While trade and commerce are absolutely essential to the maintenance of a full economy, I believe that, regardless of the good relations we hope and feel assured will be ours when the war is done, we can never be certain of the nature and course of entangling alliances when the war is over. We hope for the best, and so long as the present Prime Minister is at the helm of affairs those relations will be of the best. My point is that, regardless of what we may attain by international trade and commerce, it is the supreme duty of the government and this house to make certain that in any event our domestic economy will be in proper condition from the time this war ends, and for all the time following.


John Horne Blackmore: Hear, hear. Now you are talking.


James Gray Turgeon: Although industry in
many lines is essential, the proper development of our national economy depends on the welfare of the foundation industry of agriculture. I sincerely hope, and I feel positive not only from conversations with the Prime Minister and his ministers but from the wording of this bill, from which time will not permit
me to quote much, that the government of Canada are determined that the moment the war is over, at long last they are going to give the agricultural population of Canada that for which they have been striving for generations. The evidence of that is to be found not only in this bill, but in the Farm Improvement Loans Act, in all the facilities for credit for agriculturists, in the determination that from now on those who are engaged in agriculture in all its branches shall be put in the same position as men who gain their living in other branches of our economic system.
In speaking of agriculture I must not neglect to say a word for the branch which is concerned with cattle and live stock generally. I throw out this strong warning-if I may use that word-to the Prime Minister, that as soon as the war in Europe is over

by which I mean that we must reach this point before we have finished the war with Japan-this government must act with dispatch and with energy to make sure that the cattle-men of Canada are once more given that free access to the markets of the United States which the Prime Minister, through his own work, secured for them in the late fall of 1935 and renewed in 1938. Those cattle-men have not this market to-day. They are accepting the situation because of the conditions of war, but we must make certain that that market is returned to them at the earliest moment when war conditions are such that there is no reason why the United States boundary should be closed to our live stock producers.
Another thought occurs to me in connection with agriculture; it relates to secondary industry as well, but for the moment I am dealing with farming. A budget is now in course of preparation. I am making no definite recommendations with respect to it, but I call to the attention of the Ministry of Finance (Mr. Usley)-and I do so now because in this bill we are preparing for the days of reconstruction-that farmers generally, but perhaps cattle-men especially, have paid a severe ratio of taxation. The period before 1935 was a time when they had no markets; their market in the United States was opened in 1936; and the period of three or four or five years immediately before the war included some very lean years, when they were selling cattle in my Cariboo country for one to one and a half cents a pound, while at the same time we were paying seventy-five cents to eat a piece of that cattle-meat in the way of steak at a meal. The amount of money which our farmers have on hand-or have not on hand-* to put into their business is going to make a huge difference to the way in which they can enter the era of reconstruction.
Department oj Reconstruction

I have mentioned the ability to finance those things which must be done. We all know that we cannot properly build up agriculture without the expenditure of money; we cannot maintain industry at a high level without the expenditure of money either by private industry or by government. So that I shall not be misunderstood, may I state quite definitely, although I do not think it is necessary, that I am not a socialist; I am a believer in free enterprise. I realize, however, that free enterprise is meant to embrace the ordinary common man, whether he be a small business man, a farmer or a fisherman, as well as the operators of big business enterprises and those who derive their profits therefrom. The profits which some of our small business men, some of our fishermen and some of our farmers have obtained from their operations have not been commensurate with what they have put into their businesses. That is particularly true of the farmer, because the farmer not only puts money capital into his business, but he puts into it his whole life and the lives also of his wife and children, and the profits-I use the word advisedly, because those who engage in business must have profits-accruing to the farmer are not commensurate with the work and the capital which he puts into his operations.
In dealing with expenditures of. money I have said on many occasions-sometimes I have been laughed at for saying it; sometimes not-that if in the future we were at any particular moment faced with an emergency which would bring about a lack of production and a shutting down of industry through the creation and operation of fear in the minds of the people who are running industry, under our present banking system-and I am not saying anything for or against the banks-if an emergency of that kind threatened in the days of reconstruction, through the operation of the central bank we could without any trouble bring about an expansion of credit which would take care of the situation and drive the emergency from us.
When we bring about that expansion of credit, whether we should accompany it by heavier taxation and heavy borrowings such as is being done during the war would be determined by the circumstances of the case. The thought I am giving out is this, and I am doing so from my place in the House of Commons because I am convinced that there is in the minds of many, many thousands of the people of Canada a dread that when the incentive of war has left us, the conditions that confronted us ten years ago will be back with us again. Many of us who are here know that that will not take place again, but it is
[Mr. Turgeon.l
one of our supreme duties and responsibilities to make certain that the people of Canada, and especially those of our youth who are overseas in our armed services, know that we have determined that it never shall happen again, and know at the same time that -we have at our disposal the means which our good will can put into force to make certain that their fears in that respect will never be realized.


John Horne Blackmore: How do we know?


James Gray Turgeon: We do know.


John Horne Blackmore: How?


James Gray Turgeon: My hon. friend is a
farmer or lives in a farming district-


John Horne Blackmore: I have lived there all my life.


James Gray Turgeon: He knows that for generations we have brought about an expansion of credit every season when the western wheat crop is harvested, and taken to the elevators, and transported by the railways to ocean steamers which carry it across the Atlantic to Liverpool. All that is facilitated by an expansion of credit, because sales of wheat are not made as a rule until the wheat reaches Liverpool. I do not hold that out as a perfect analogy, because the comparison is not complete. While it is not a perfect analogy it does point the way to what may be done and can be done if an emergency should come upon us. The harvesting season is an emergency, because the farmers must harvest their crop within a short time. Is it not also an emergency when people are faced with starvation?


John Horne Blackmore: Exactly, and it was
so in 1932.


James Gray Turgeon: But the appropriate
measures were not then taken.


John Horne Blackmore: It was not done then.


James Gray Turgeon: I am not talking of the
past but of the future. The Prime Minister touched on this matter wThen he addressed the American Federation of Labor convention in Toronto a year ago and said that we had learned lessons from the experiences of the war, that we now know what we did not know of some things that can be done to avoid a recurrence of such times. I am pointing out now what can be done, provided that those in authority have the will to do it, and then we can rest easy because we have the means at our disposal.
I have not many minutes left, Mr. Speaker. There are several things of which I wish to speak, but I shall mention only two. There

Department oj Reconstruction
has been some discussion to-day of the federal-provincial conference dealing with reconstruction. A conference is a necessary step, and here I want to give a word of warning to the heads of all governments in Canada, federal and provincial. I do so as a citizen and as a private member of the house who through his work on the reconstruction committee, has come in personal contact with many hundreds of men and women from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I warn all governments in this country that they must not let constitutional difficulties, clashes between jurisdictions and ministries, stop them from properly carrying out the work of reconstruction. The people of this land will no longer permit conflicts of jurisdiction between governments and clashing of ideologies to interfere with the people's attainment of a proper living atmosphere.
Just a word on housing. I think the national housing legislation which has been in operation for some time, and particularly before the war, did a great deal of good, but the good which it did was confined largely to the big cities where the lending institutions had their offices or agencies. There were innumerable towns and villages distant from the big cities that did not get much benefit from that housing legislation, because the lending institutions did not have their agencies established in the rural areas. Therefore I hope that when the legislation which I *understand is now in preparation comes down it will contain provisions empowering the government to make certain that the good arising from the operation of the National Housing Act will be extended also to families that live in towns and villages in rural areas where the lending institutions do not maintain agencies.
My last thought relates to a matter which I dislike to bring up, but it must be considered and my viewpoint upon it must be given. I am thinking now of the Japanese, and this touches a very important part of the whole problem of reconstruction. I do not intend to say much about the Japanese themselves, except to repeat what I have already said in this house, that I am utterly opposed to the return of the Japanese to British Columbia and I am in favour of sending them to Japan when the war is over.
May I speak in complimentary terms of the government and of the House of Commons and of the Senate for the provisions of the Veterans' Land Act, which was given to us two or three years ago through the operations of a committee appointed by this house, and whose chairman (Mr. Macmillan) I see sitting to my left near the Speaker. The Veterans' Land Act provides that the veterans of this war who desire to go into
fishing may receive financial assistance in the same measure as those who wish to go into farming. At the end of the last war an amendment was moved in this house making that very suggestion. It was an amendment to a report from a committee, but that amendment was not accepted. I am proud to say that the mover of that amendment was Colonel Cy Peck, of British Columbia, a Victoria Cross, man, then member for my neighbouring constituency of Skeena, and the seconder was my father, from the province of New Brunswick, who in spite of his age is still watching the proceedings of this house. The point I wish to make is this. Had that amendment been accepted and the veterans of the last war been given financial assistance to go into the fishing industry we would not have had in British Columbia the tragic situation of having the fishing industry almost entirely under the control of the Japanese at the time the attack on Pearl Harbor took place; and we would not have had the further circumstance that when Pearl Harbor was smashed the Japanese naval authorities had as much knowledge of the Canadian western Pacific at that time and for a couple of years following Pearl Harbor as our own naval authorities had. I leave this thought with the members of the government and the members of the house, that good attains its own end and brings its own reward. If twenty-five years ago we had given more assistance to the soldiers of the last war we would not have had that tragedy on the Pacific coast of Canada. If during the period between the last war and the beginning of this war we had thought less of money and taxation and more of human, values and the welfare of the veterans of that war we would have been in a better position, spiritually and morally as well as industrially, to meet this war when it began. But I know that no further urging is necessary because the ministers and the members of the house are desirous of doing everything they can for the veterans. But when we think of reconstruction the supreme goal must be the welfare of those men and women who have been fighting our battles for us. When I say welfare I do not mean charity. I mean that we must see that upon their return to us, those who do not die in this war will be able to secure employment suited to their ability and their skill, that they will have a decent standard of living, and that those from whom the rigours of war have taken away the ability to work will have the same standard of living through the continuance and the improvement of the system of pensions and allowance which we now have.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
Department of Reconstruction

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. W. F. KUHL (Jasper-Edson):: enemy in war time but cannot pay it to ourselves in peace time I say that he is guilty of the grossest inconsistency.
The national dividend is not something for nothing. It is a dividend, a dividend on the profits of a solvent and successful trading community, Canada Unlimited, of which every citizen is a shareholder by birth. The national dividend is payable in addition to whatever income people now enjoy. The national dividend is payable to all and is the same for all. The national dividend is payable whether a man works or whether he does not work, and anyone who cannot make that concession does not believe in freedom. To those who suggest that a universal dividend would demoralize I can best reply in the words of Desmond MacCarthy, who said:
They do not love liberty who fear licence.
It is just as absurd to suppose mankind on the whole uniformly bad as to suppose it uniformly saintly. The evidence is that the more you give people decent conditions of living, the more likely they are to behave like reasonable citizens. To claim that human beings are essentially vile and can be kept within bounds only by .being kept so busy that they have no time to get into mischief is positively a pagan conception of life and should not be tolerated in a country calling itself Christian.
The struggle to overcome difficulties is most ennobling, but we have reached the stage in our economic history when it is no longer necessary for man to consume most of his energies in the mere struggle for existence. Rather than cause harm and injury to society the national dividend will grant Canadians their first opportunity to reach the highest possible state of civilization, which any nation can attain, namely, a leisure state. The leisure state is a physical possibility in postwar Canada. The leisure state is not a loafer's paradise; the leisure state is the opportunity of opportunities for man to give expression to his God-given creative instincts without any coercion by either nature or man. When a man is free to choose his own form of activity he becomes a man of leisure. When a man is compelled to work, by governments or others, he becomes a slave. Because man was made in the image of his Creator the only important business he has on earth is to create. If he is cheated of this opportunity he goes bad; in time the society which contains him goes bad. Nothing compensates human beings for being maimed in this way. The essential task of a stable and healthy society is to produce conditions in which the creative instinct will have the fullest play. This, not TMr. Kuhl.J
the finding of employment, should constitute the major task of Canada's statesmen in the post-war period.
The whole purpose of the power machine is to save work, to provide us with more goods and more leisure. The power machine is God's gift in response to man's quest. Let us beware how we mishandle it. In thinking on this subject one writer has said:
To refuse to allow the machine a free hand is to wantonly throw away the fruits of man's victory over the forces of nature, and he guilty of the foul and heartless blasphemy of flinging the bounty of the earth back into the face of Him who is the "Giver of all good things."
I grant, Mr. Speaker, that it is not possible to enter the leisure state overnight. I am as much aware of the need for a transitional period as are any other hon. members. I am quite aware that we shall be obliged, before the transitional period is over, to expend a good deal of our energies in assisting in the rehabilitation of those countries which have been overrun by the enemy. I quite agree that there must be a transitional period. Nevertheless I insist that the leisure state should be made our objective, and should be attained at the earliest possible moment. The proper use of leisure naturally will be preceded by appropriate education. This involves a complete change in our notions of a proper education. Our present methods of education have one aim, largely; that is, to fit children to earn their living. But our present system of education does not give any attention to the training for leisure, the reason being that it is expected of the greater number of the children 'that , they will not have much leisure. The whole of our life suffers from a lack of balance in our civilization. Because the benefits of the power machine are not distributed we suffer from anxiety, the fear of losing our place in the fierce scramble for jobs, the fear of war, the fear that with age we shall be forced out of the race. Few of us lead lives in which work well done alternates with periods of relaxation. We work all the time, and our work brings us no deep satisfaction. Factory hands are no more than hands; the activity of their minds is stunted and killed off. Those who are mental workers neglect the proper care of their bodies. Once the people of Canada have received the appropriate education they will, in their ample leisure, do those things for which their long education has prepared them. They will build cathedrals, compose music, write books, paint pictures, join in acting plays, carry out scientific research, cultivate their gardens, explore jungles, invent a new type of aeroplane, learn to fly, weave rugs, and learn languages. Every human being brought up in conditions of free-

Department oj Reconstruction
dom and taught to use his mind and body has something to contribute to the common culture, to be handed on to future generations.
The reason why the ancient civilizations of Babylon, Egypt, Crete, Greece and Rome attained such cultural heights was that the citizens were free from the necessity to work for a living. True, these civilizations rested upon a foundation of slavery, and without this economic foundation none of those ancient civilizations would have been possible. All the menial work, the unskilled work and much of the skilled work was done by the slaves. Thus the citizens were set free for service, both military and civil, for the cultivation of the arts and philosophies, for the dignity of the soldier, the magistrate, the artist or the thinker. The fruits of this system are to be seen in the glory that was Athens, which is the wonder and envy of the modern world. Through the incident of war many of our service personnel have had the privilege of witnessing at first hand some of these achievements. In our own day slavery as it was known in the past is gone, and man is nominally free. He has political freedom but not economic freedom. In these days of mechanical power the machine is fulfilling the function of the human slave of olden times. Just as slavery lifted the burden of toil from the backs of the free citizens of that day, so should the machine do now for all the people of Canada as well as the people of every other country in the world. Not only should the people of Canada be able to attain a state of culture comparable with those ancient civilizations; they should be able to surpass them. It is only by reasoned use of our resources to give all men security, leisure and the power to use it to keep themselves in mental and bodily health and balance that we can be saved. When we do this we restore to life a spiritual meaning; we make reverence for life the principle of our common effort.
Such is the condition of society which exservice men and others ought to be permitted to enjoy in post-war Canada. Such is the condition of security with freedom which a social credit economy offers as an alternative not only to what Canadians have been subjected to in the past but also to the possible socialistic, communistic or fascist totalitarian state of the future. The way of life which I have pictured in my remarks is not a utopia, unless of course a utopia be defined as a condition of security with individual personal freedom. I have depicted a way of life which is physically possible in the Dominion of Canada. Its realization is not dependent upon factors which are yet to be determined. The modern slave-the power machine-stands at
the threshold, awaiting our bidding, to provide all I have alluded to. The national dividend is the ticket of admission to the land of promise, the land which others have beheld from afar, but which is ours for the taking. It is the dividend or chaos; the leisure state or the slave state.


Mr. J. M. DECHENE (Athabaska):: Mr. Speaker, in asking for the privilege of speaking to-night from my place in this house, I do so because I am deeply conscious of the possibilities of a part of the country to which I wish to direct the attention of the new ministry of reconstruction. If after the very many able adresses I have heard to-day my remarks appear to be confined to a local issue, may I remind hon. members of the fact that the section of the country I represent is a vast territory in itself, one which has great possibilities and which, furthermore, is the gateway-to the great northland extending for a thousand miles or more to the Arctic ocean. A bountiful Providence has filled that area with immeasurable wealth, as a challenge to our young men when they return and to those who have been unable to go overseas, but have contributed their effort through their activities in the war industry of Canada.
I am deeply impressed with the fact that, although my remarks may be considered to be those respecting a certain region in Canada, the possibilities of that region are such that they make matters affecting it a national issue. There can be no doubt that the wealth which can be derived from that great portion of Canada which extends from the city of Edmonton to the Arctic ocean is, indeed, of national importance.
In justifying my mentioning place names whicih may be unknown to some hon. members, I direct their attention to the fact that every day since the beginning of the war we have learned about new places on the map, places which heretofore were unknown to us but which, because of the advances of our armies, have become vital spots in connection with the winning of the war.
I am impressed by the further fact that, unfortunately, the ordinary private member is unable to acquaint himself, as he might wish, with all parts of this great dominion. Very few of us have the means to travel throughout the length and breadth of this vast territory, in order to become acquainted with its peoples and its possibilities. Therefore I believe I may be pardoned if in the course of my remarks I mention places which may be unknown to some.
In his speech the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) covered the ground to such
Department of Reconstruction

my heart and in my love of the north country, that country in which I have lived so long. It is inspired by love of its people, so able and courageous, by love of the boys and girls who are now representing us so nobly and heroically on every field of battle, and who will come back to that great north country. Those young men are going as high in the sky as man can reach. From peaceful Canada, which a few months ago did not have a fighting aeroplane, they are now giving odds to the Luftwaffe. Our sailors traversed the seas in winter, when undersea beasts were lurking everywhere, when their ships were covered with ice. To-day the boys of the army are fighting at the doors of Cherbourg, and to-morrow they will be fighting at the doors of Paris and other cities. Do you think that those boys will be afraid of the challenge to go up north and help us develop that great country? It is to be hoped that they will not have been affected by the idea which, unfortunately, some people in this dominion are scattering around, that we are not doing anything, that we are not preparing to take care of those young men. I say this by the way, but I believe those will stand condemned who for political expediency, for the sake of gaining a few votes, attempt to discourage the man who is giving everything he has, who is risking his life, whose bones, it may be, will lie forever in the soil of Europe because he has sacrificed his all for the sake of his country. Let us do nothing which will deprive such men of encouragement. Let us tell him, as it is the truth to tell him, that this country is prepared to do everything on his behalf, and has been so prepared for some time, and that there will be in this country every opportunity for such young men when they come back from overseas; their experience will be invaluable.
Consider what lies north of Fort McMurray. I mention a spot on the map, but I again remind my hearers of the vast spaces which lie there. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that it is farther from Fort McMurray to Fort Norman, where the Americans built that pipeline into Whitehorse, than it is from Winnipeg to Edmonton Do you know that up there in the north of Canada there is an empire in the making? There are no better people in this world than our strong men of the north, meeting the challenge of that great country. The time will soon come when the tremendous water powers of that great region can be harnessed for the service of our country. I have seen the Chaudiere falls and have been told by some hon. gentlemen of the tremendous volume of water that flows down the Ottawa river. But it is but a drop in the bucket compared with the mighty Athabaska

river, the Peace river, the Clearwater river, with all their tributaries eventually falling into one tremendous river dropping hundreds of feet at Fort Fitzgerald. The power is there waiting to be developed in quantities sufficient to meet the needs of all peace activities in the west. It is now lying dormant, but it will not remain dormant long.
I want to congratulate the government upon taking steps to form this new Department of Reconstruction. I know, as the Prime Minister has said, that a lot has already been done on reconstruction. The provinces have all been working on the problem too. The province of Alberta has presented, as the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) told the house this afternoon, a very fine programme to the committee on reconstruction, and that province will cooperate in every way with the federal government. Before a committee at Edmonton representations have been made for a bridge across the Athabaska river, at the town of Athabaska, to open up that great north country where already about 1,000 people are living and are at present served only by a ferry to get in and out. Another great bridge has been proposed over the Saskatchewan river at a point south of Elk Point. These projects are before the government of Alberta and will be submitted when the time comes for the governments to consider their reconstruction programmes.
I w'ish the hon. member for Davenport were here. I admire him very much for the able address he gave to the house this afternoon. He mentioned the word "unity". He emphasized how it was necessary for us all to get together both now and after the war. That appeals to me, as it does to every Liberal. It is the one thing we have preached ever since the party existed-unity, unity. We may differ with our hon. friends opposite as to the best means of accomplishing our aims, but there is no need to quarrel or fight among ourselves. There is no need for bitterness. We can all get together with one common aim and purpose. I am too humble a backbencher to pretend to give advice to this honourable chamber. There are too many able men here for me to presume to give them advice. But perhaps I may draw from the experiences I have had, and I would say, Mr. Speaker, that while we might have a market for our wheat at perhaps two dollars a bushel, while we might find a market for all our surplus stock and for all the production of our forests and everything we produce, unless we have that unity which we have been preaching for so long, unless you and I have one common aim and purpose, one love and one love only, the love of the soil of

Department oj Reconstruction
Canada, we cannot have true progress. Surely we should be prepared to spend everything we have to keep the soil of Canada sacred, unsullied by the foot of the enemy. Some may criticize us for spending so much money on the war and for sending our men and women over there, but I wonder how they would feel if the fight were taking place on this soil we love so much. Therefore, let me repeat, let us have one common aim, and one common ambition, the love of our country, no matter whether we were born here or came here and learned to love it. There is one place where we can show our unity, and that is in this new department which is shortly to be organized. I hope that our common aims will be fulfilled one hundred per cent m the reconstruction undertaken under this new department. Again I wish to compliment the hon. member for Davenport upon the noble thoughts he expressed so ably this afternoon when he spoke of unity.
Perhaps I have said enough, Mr. Speaker. It is not very often I take advantage of such an august audience as I have listening to me to-night. I may not be long for this world; we do not know. I may not be long for this house because surprising things happen in politics. We have had a surprise quite recently. But as long as I have the honour and the privilege to sit in this house I shall speak for those who sent me here and give everything I have, every energy and every talent I possess, to this representation.
I have already spoken of the railroad, of the highway, of the power possibilities of the far north. I shall not speak of the gold mines of the north. I am sorry that so few members have visited this great north country of ours. When the war is over and travel is again possible without the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) scolding us, may I invite the members of this house to visit us, to come to the northland, to the great Athabaska valley and sail down the great Mackenzie river. What a sight that will be for hon. gentlemen! What wealth of knowledge you will acquire; what a knowledge of the possibilities of Canada! Most of us are unaware of the possibilities and the wealth that is to be found in that far north country. Come and visit us. It will be a more enjoyable trip and better for your health than visiting any other place in the world. Do not go and see the battlefields, which would only remind you of every drop of blood that has been shed there and of the quivering flesh of our boys fighting in the struggle for freedom. Come to the peace of the great northland.
May I conclude by saying that I once heard a great orator in western Canada. Some of
the old-timers here may remember him. I think the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Ross) will, and perhaps the hon. member for Davenport, because he came from Toronto. Apparently many good things come out of Toronto. This great orator once described the beauties of our Alberta rivers and valleys. I shall not attempt to give his exact words, but what he said went something like this: The Beneficent Being who threw the world into space and created the sun and the moon and the stars and the planets and sent them all on their orderly courses, in the presence of which marvels we must all feel so humble, after having taken six days to create this beautiful universe decided to take a rest. And having cast a look upon His work He declared Himself satisfied. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that He had at that moment overlooked one of the great valleys of the Athabaska river or the Peace river in the northland of Alberta.


Clarence Gillis: As a member of the reconstruction committee I feel it incumbent upon me to express my opinion on this matter. Listening to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) this afternoon, when he introduced the bill, I think the most significant part of his statement was very brief. He made it when he was answering a question of the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), and in doing so I believe he struck the kernel of the whole problem. He stated in that answer that during the process of fighting the war our economy was so organized that many things were possible which might be considered impossible during the days of peace, the reason for that being that all the nations had a common objective while prosecuting the war. I hope that those who will be administering this legislation now before the house, in the period of reconstruction, and similar legislation in other countries of the united nations, will also have a common objective in those days of peace. If we have not a common objective in the reconstruction period, then it is an admission that we are not all fighting the war for the same thing. There is not a reason in the world why in the days of peace we should not carry out the many slogans we hear advanced to-day as regards the reasons for the sacrifices which every nation is making in finance, in materials and in human resources. If those slogans are not realized in the days of peace, then I am afraid that the time is not far distant, in the aftermath of this war, when we shall start another conflict.
To my mind this problem, while many hon. members have advanced different theories which are confusing, and which lead one to

Department of Reconstruction

believe that the road ahead is difficult and that we have many impasses ahead of us, offers no insuperable obstacle. I have no misconception along these lines because in my opinion the problem is very simple. I believe that if to-day we have difficulties in reorganizing our economy on a peace basis, those difficulties are man-made. They will be difficulties owing to the failure of those in control of the nation and of its resources to recognize the impossibility of returning to the conditions that existed in 1939. The mistakes that will wreck the nation will be the -mistakes -made in an endeavour to go back to an era that is already dead. I believe that the war has brought one fact very clearly home to all of us, and that is that the reason why we are locked in battle to-day on the continent of Europe is to be attributed to the failure of the leaders of nations, in the period between the two wars, to recognize the inevitable results of trying to hang on to the old machine without making the necessary democratic and social changes which would have brought relief to the people of all the different nations and so averted armed conflict.
In my opinion the world to-day is lined up in two camps and two camps only. On the one side we have the totalitarian nations which represent the era of the past. They are endeavouring to stop the forces of progress, to turn back the pages of history 500 years by giving us dictators. The democratic peoples of the world who believe in moving forward into freedom within the framework of democracy, and making democratic social changes, changes of the kind that would have made a fundamental difference in the structure of every country in the order of society, are the nations which are lined up on the other side and which are fighting to roll back the forces of retrogression. I believe that is true, that on our home front, on the battle front and on every front to-day where people are free, the issue is not the maintenance of the status quo but the bringing about of fundamental changes in the order of society, which will guarantee to every one of the united nations those social objectives for which we are fighting.
If our boys in Europe are dying for anything it is not for a return to the conditions of 1939, and if we are to avoid such a retrogression then those who will handle the problems of reconstruction will have to make drastic changes in their thinking and bring about the necessary changes in the statutes of the country. They will have to change them drastically in order to achieve the social objectives for which, in my opinion, we are fighting this war. If that analysis is true, the only thing necessary is honesty on the part of those

who will be implementing the reconstruction programme in the aftermath of the war-no selfishness, no thought of political gain, but merely one desire to give effect to the social objectives for which we are fighting this war.


Mr. McNIYEN:: Is that what you told them
at Estevan?


Clarence Gillis: Yes, definitely.


Donald Alexander McNiven: You told them it was a capitalistic war.


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member can make his own speech, Mr. Speaker, while I am speaking as a member of the reconstruction committee, I desire not to be interrupted. If the hon. member wishes me to say what I said at Estevan and if this house is prepared to give me the privilege of saying it, I am prepared to repeat it. However, as I pointed out a moment ago, we must have a full recognition of these social objectives. Those who desired to maintain the status quo, those who feared social changes more than they feared Hitlers, are responsible for the war.
As a member of the committee, I had the privilege of sitting in at almost all the meetings since its inception, and I wish to pay a compliment to the chairman of the committee. I found him fair, impartial, capable and endeavouring to do the best kind of job he could with the machinery at his disposal, and I found the committee as a whole nonpartisan, studying the whole problem of reconstruction from the point of view of the evidence presented to it and in the light of what was best for the nation. I have only this criticism to offer. Hon. members will recall that when the committee was set up I said in the house, on the resolution for the constitution of the committee, that in my opinion the machinery provided gave the committee one of the most important jobs delegated by the government to any committee and that that machinery was totally inadequate to handle the problem which they had to undertake. I suggested at that time that there should be coordination between the work of the James committee and the work of the economic advisory committee and the interdepartmental committee on pensions and national health which was handling certain matters pertaining to reconstruction. There should be made available to the general reconstruction committee, as it was to the parliamentary committee, a secretariat through which the evidence presented to the committee could be sifted and a precis given to the members. We could have then perhaps brought in fuller and more explanatory reports and thereby made a greater contribution to the department that is now being set up than we did.

Department of Reconstruction
I think the machinery that we had at our disposal was inadequate. I know the chairman of the committee was placed in a position where he had to make a digest of the reports himself. Reams and reams of evidence were presented to the reconstruction committee. In my opinion some of it was the most valuable data that any committee in Canada could get. We met every section of society, from the bankers to the trades unions. We met the provinces. All of that evidence is on file. We have it. There is so much of it that it is impossible for the average member who attends to his work in this house even to read it, much less make a digest of it. I think the committee did' as good a job as could be done with the machinery provided for it.
When this bill becomes law I hope that the minister who will administer the department will not fail to take the reports presented to this house, short as they were, and study them. Certain definite recommendations were made with respect to works programmes necessary to the nation in the different sections of the country, programmes that would provide considerable employment in the period after the war. I hope that these reports presented by this committee will be one of the main pieces of evidence that that ministry will study when they are making their recommendations for a programme of works across the country. I am all in favour of setting up the department. I think this is the department that will have most of the headaches in the period of the war. I hope that the machinery will be adequate for the job.
There are many opinions on this matter of post-war reconstruction. I do not pose as an expert on any of the different schools of thought, but I am going to say that I do not agree with those who express the view that all the post-war problems of Canada are dependent upon international machinery that will regulate the economy of this country. I am not in favour of any machinery set up outside Canada that has anything to do with telling the government of Canada what their post-war plans are to be. I think that is the prerogative of tire Canadian government and the Canadian people. The government of Canada should organize and arrange the internal affairs of this country in accordance with the wishes of the Canadian people from whom they will receive a mandate to govern in the post-war period, whatever government that happens to be.
I am a little afraid of the school of thought that states that international machinery is to be set up for the purpose of deciding on a
monetary unit to regulate international trade, and that a supergovernment is to be set up somewhere which is to arrange the flow of materials from nation to nation. If that is followed through to its logical conclusion, all that it adds up to is the kind of thing against which we are fighting to-day, a dictatorship from the outside superimposed on the smaller nations that are fighting the war at the present time. I am afraid of that kind of thing, and I do not think that, while we are fighting a war, with the picture as it is as between nation and nation, when the war itself overshadows everything, when the future is beclouded, Canada or any other country should commit itself to international machinery that will be able to dictate the internal policy of this country after the war. I agree that during the time of fighting the war, for military reasons, it is the prerogative of those who are handling the military affairs of the nation to sit in conference to develop the machinery necessary to win the war; but when that war is over, the duty of arranging the internal economy of the different countries belongs to the peoples of those countries.
Take this matter of foreign trade. Certainly we need foreign trade; certainly we shall have to sell goods, but I think the foreign policy of any country is merely the reflection of its internal policy. Our job is first to put our own house in order. Nations export only their surpluses, and they import to the extent that they do not develop their own economy or to the extent that they have a shortage in certain commodities. The first thing to do is to put our own house in order, to determine what our surpluses are, what we have to import and what we have to export, to establish a standard of living for the Canadian people. When that is done we are in a position to go to other countries, sit in on international conferences and make the best bargain possible for the people of our own country in cooperation with other nations.
I am a little afraid of those who are rushing headfirst into international agreements without a mandate from the people of this country or the peoples of the other nations who are fighting the war. I do not think anyone has the right, regardless of his military position, to sit in a conference on which we are not represented and about which we know nothing, and decide that certain things are to be done with respect to this country and the other country in the period after the war. It is the prerogative of the Canadian people to advise the Canadian government if and when we get the job of fighting the war off our hands.
I am not going to take advantage of this opportunity to go into all the ramifications of
Department oj Reconstruction

reconstruction, but I wish to say this with respect to my own province. The premier of Nova Scotia made a presentation to the reconstruction committee. In that presentation he did not paint a very pretty picture. He was very realistic about the problems. We hear talk about cooperation of province with province. The limitations of the British North America Act is often mentioned. I merely wish to ' say this about the British North America Act. If a constitution that was written seventy-six years ago retards progress in this country, then that constitution should be changed to make for progress. The premier of Nova Scotia pointed out that in so far as he and his government were concerned-and it is a Liberal government in that province- cooperation was a thing that was very hard to get. He suggested that if there is any solution for the problems of the maritimes in the postwar period, decentralization of industry will have to take place. He deplored the trend that is taking place during the war of further milking the maritime provinces of established industries, and that has gone on within the last year or so. He pointed to the closing down of the steel plant at Trenton, the scrapping of the shipyard at Pictou, the closing down of the sugar refinery at Dartmouth, and the closing of the Clark Ruse aircraft plants in Dartmouth and Moncton. If that is to be the trend there is not very much hope for the maritime provinces. Unless there is some definite declaration on the part of the government in the post-war period with respect either to the continuation of the industries that I have just mentioned that have been taken out, or to some programme of creating subsidiary industries in the maritime provinces, then we are only wasting our time and fooling ourselves when we are talking about reconstruction. The time has arrived when we should show our people that we have those plans and that we intend to do a certain amount of work.
Another factor that was brought clearly home to us in the three years that the committee sat was the matter of finances. Province after province" made a presentation referring to wonderful works programmes, striking at the basic problems in each province. Each of the premiers wound up his statement with the same plea: "This is all contingent upon the federal government making available to each province the finances necessary to carry this through." The construction industry and other industries made presentations, all winding up with the same statement: "This is all contingent upon the federal government making available the necessary finances." What does it all add up to? In my opinion it shows that the trend

to-day is toward greater responsibility on the part of the federal government in the matter of finance, in the matter of developing our natural resources. If those natural resources are to be developed by the federal government, as was suggested by various agencies that appeared before the committee, then there is great necessity for some control by the federal government over currency and credit. In my opinion that will be one of the main points in the post-war period; unless you have some say over currency and credit in the country you will not be able to expand the economy of the country. If the chartered banks are to say where the money is going, and in what volume, that will strangle your post-war development. I am not going into that matter; we have discussed it in the house already, but I am leaving that thought with the government. It has been made clear to me that this will be one of the limiting factors in the development of our resources in the aftermath of this war.
When this bill is in committee I intend to discuss it clause by clause, but for the moment I merely wish to leave this suggestion with the Prime Minister and the government. Everyone I hear discussing the problem simply creates more confusion. We hear many platitudes; we are told the things that cannot be done and the limitations that exist. As I said in the beginning, there are no limitations except an honest desire on our part to see this programme through. I have in my hand a newspaper clipping which I wish to read; it is very short, but I think it points the way for us if we are not afraid of social change, if we are not afraid to make the necessary fundamental changes in our order of society, if we are not scared by the name socialism. I said that the old machine had broken down; it is dead, but it refuses to be buried. Personally I believe that the war means the funeral of the capitalist system. I am going to read this newspaper clipping for the benefit of the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McNiven), because it happens to be from the Regina Leader-Post of May 28, 1944. I do not think anyone would ever accuse the Leader-Post of being a socialist organ; I have read a few of its editorials, and I should be inclined to believe that it was rather capitalistic. I read this because I suggested that definite, fundamental changes must be made, not just patches,, palliatives or platitudes. They are not going to change anything. We are living in a world that is real. The problem is an economic problem. The war itself is not theoretical. It is practical; it is real; it is there. It is a problem with which we must grapple, and we are grappling with it. We

Department oj Reconstruction
are fighting it on the battle front. Unless definite social changes are made before the war is over and the eight hundred thousand odd service personnel, the forty thousand women and the million and a half war workers come back to us; if we do not make transitional changes now in a democratic way, while we have the chance, someone will make them for us in a way we may not like. Society will change whether we like it or not; the change will be either evolutionary or revolutionary. While we are wondering, wandering, grasping, debating theories and so on, one country points the way. That country is New Zealand This little clipping, under the date line Vancouver, May 27, reads:
New Zealand's socialist government is a world leader in social legislation, taking care of its citizens from the cradle to the grave, Hon. David Wilson, New Zealand high commissioner to Canada, said in an address to a service club here Friday.
Benefits were in operation for old age, for sickness, for unemployment, for prenatal and maternity care. Cost of living increase of thirteen per cent during the war time was the smallest of any country involved in the present struggle, 'he said.
Then he went on to give a list of the services now being given in that country. All the machinery we have on paper; our social security, our health bill, our reconstruction department, which are merely in the preliminary stages in Canada to-day, are working in that country. If we honestly want to do these things, to bring about such changes, and I believe we do, then we require technical advice on how to go about it. Why, then, is not someone from that country here or someone from this country there making an examination of that programme? All the people of this country want is an honest demonstration that we are not repeating the performances of 1914-18. The slogans we are giving to our people to-day are not new to me. I heard them in 1917 and again in 1919, and during the twenty years between the two wars I travelled with a lamp searching for the implementing of any of those promises. You are not going to maintain an order of society that gave its people three wars in one generation- the Boer war, the war of 1914-18 and the present war, together with a depression the like of which the world had never before seen. You cannot keep that up. That has to be changed, and you are not going to change it on paper, by writing bills or resolutions, by broadcasts or through the Canadian press. You have to give a practical demonstration that you mean exactly what you say.


Mr. MITCHELL:: How?


Clarence Gillis: By setting up the machinery.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) That is what we are doing.


Clarence Gillis: I do not admit that. We are building machinery from the top, but you do not solve any problem from the top; the machinery must be built from the bottom. If I were the Prime Minister and wanted to be political about it one of the first things I would do would be to establish an old age pension in this country that would offer security to everyone over sixty years of age.
Mr.. MACKENZIE KING: At least I made a beginning, by starting old age pensions.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, but when we established old age pensions we set the age limit too high. W'hat you get at seventy years of age is not an old age pension; and when you have to declare yourself a pauper in order to receive that pension I think it is an insult to the aged people of this country. I am not going to quarrel with the Prime Minister about that; he established the principle, with the cooperation of the then hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Mr. Woodsworth, and the then hon. member for Winnipeg North, Mr. Heaps. This little group takes some of the credit, without going into the history of the thing. My objection now is that the age limit is too high. A man has not long to live after he gets it. Many people do not live long enough to enjoy it. And then before you get it you have to will your second pair of shoes to the premier of the province in which you live. One of the greatest things that could be done1 at this time, one of the greatest political gestures that could be made by the Prime Minister-though I am not suggesting for a moment that he would be political- would be to establish an old age pension for every person in this country over sixty years of age. The first charge against the wealth of any nation should be the care of the aged; those who built the nation; those who gave us the institutions under which we live, those who raise families which fight wars for us, and come back and work in industry for us.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In regard to
old age pensions, did not the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) make clear that the government was quite prepared to cooperate with the provinces to bring the age down to sixty-five?


Clarence Gillis: They are always prepared to do it, but they always throw up a straw man so that we cannot get through it, with the cooperation of the provinces. You hide behind the British North America Act.
Department oj Reconstruction


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but he has referred to New Zealand. I wonder if he has brought out the point that they have only one government in New Zealand, a unitary government, which is able to do things. If there were only one government in Canada the lower age of sixty-five would now be in force.


Clarence Gillis: I appreciate that. I think
we also have one government in Canada. We have a national government in Canada, and that national government passes Che basic laws of the country upon which the provinces can base enabling legislation. There is nothing in the world to stop the federal government- since the outbreak of war, for example-from passing an order in council with respect to this matter. They have passed about 65,000 of them for other matters, and there is not anything in the world to stop them from saying: "Due to the war emergency, when it is necessary to relieve the minds of older people of the burden of continuation of the war, and because of the misery they are going through, we will relieve their minds of the problem of future security; and in that connection we are passing orders in council, and advising the provinces that we are prepared nationally to advise them to drop the age in each province to sixty, and that that pension should be given to every citizen of this country, by right."
We have not a pension by right to-day in Canada. You go before a board and if you have accumulated anything at all-it is a programme of indolence, the way it is administered-you cannot own anything, and you cannot earn anything.
It is absolutely necessary to have that pension at the age of sixty. In the post-war period there will be thousands and thousands who will be coming back and claiming employment. At that time many who have already done their duty should be relieved.
I have been in industry for a long time, and I say it is a sad thing to see an old man crippling out to work-yes, crippling out to work, and I say that advisedly-at five or six o'clock in the morning, and then coming in around five o'clock at night, scarcely able to drag himself home. During the bad years he may have had two or three boys, twenty-four or twenty-five years of age, who were lying around the house, with nothing to do.
Those old men should have been on pensions, and the boys should have been working. Insecurity in old age is one of the greatest detriments of any nation. I am reasonably sure that a large percentage of the people across Canada who are in industry are work-

ing in fear of insecurity. That is one of the things they have in mind-the matter of an old age pension, and knowing that they are not going to wind up their later years on the streets, or in institutions or living on the charity of a son or a daughter, or in the care of friends or relatives.
I am sorry I got into this discussion about old age pensions, but I feel very strongly about the subject. I have seen so many people in the twilight of their lives, people who have made contributions to the nation, left dependent upon charity. Any man who has worked all his life and contributed a family to the nation is a proud man. The workers are proud; they are independent. They do not like to be dependent upon anyone, and they should not be dependent.
We get up and say glibly that the banks are entitled to certain profits by virtue of their making investments with their funds. We say glibly that interest has a right to profits because they sit in their offices and clip coupons. But the worker who goes into the coal mine, or the worker who goes to sea, or the worker who farms the land, and who has put everything he has, including his family, into that work, and who has produced the wealth of the nation, is not entitled to anything. He is not entitled to seek a bite to eat when he is no longer able to work.
You see, that is the trouble with the capitalist system. And all the laws are designed for the capitalist, and to protect him. Nothing protects society itself. That is the difference between socialism and capitalism. Socialism seeks to protect society.
I am sorry I got into this discussion, because I had not intended to do so. I hope that the Prime Minister will pay some attention to and will make some analysis of the thoughts I have tried to express. I am absolutely in accord with the setting up of the department. As a member of the committee on reconstruction I am going to interest myself in that phase of the work; and anything I can do in the post-war period to implement the ideas, recommendations and suggestions which have come out of that committee, I shall consider it my first duty to do.


Mr. PAUL MARTIN (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house will agree that next to the prosecution of the war no matter is as important as the problem now under discussion. I was not a little surprised, however, in listening to the speech which has just been delivered, to note the suggestion that the reconstruction of the world should proceed upon the primary consideration of giving to

Department of Reconstruction
each country full supremacy over its economic life. That certainly is not in harmony with the speeches the hon. member, himself, has delivered in this house. Certainly it is not in harmony with the speeches of his leader. Nor is it in harmony with the speech delivered in the city of Ottawa by Mr. Nash, the representative in AVashington of New Zealand.
Certainly the kind of doctrine advocated to-night is the very kind of doctrine which provoked, and did more to bring about this war than any other circumstance apart from the mischievous intentions of Hitler himself.


John Horne Blackmore: That statement is
complete nonsense.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure that upon reflection the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), for whom I have the highest regard, and with whom I have discussed this matter on many occasions, will consider that possibly he was given to enthusiasm to-night, rather than to serious consideration of all aspects of the problem; for let us not to ourselves or to our people raise panaceas which -we know cannot be properly fulfilled.


Clarence Gillis: Shirk our own responsibilities by passing them on to someone else!


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would ask my hon. friend to give me the same attention which I gave to him. Undoubtedly this country must, by its own effort-through the effort of this parliament, and the efforts of the various provincial legislatures-do everything humanly possible to give the kind of security of which the hon. member has spoken to-night, the kind of security which every member in the house, interested in the subject, would want to see our people receive.
But let us look at the realities of the situation. We are not living in a Canada of 1867; we are living in an interdependent world, a world which has contracted almost beyond conception. It is a world where one point on the globe is sixty hours from not more than the farthest point. It is a world in which this particular country, traditionally, to the extent of thirty-five per cent of its income, has been dependent upon what it could sell to other nations in the world.
In the face of this situation I am sure the hon. member would agree that the only satisfactory guarantee of real reconstruction in Canada is predicated upon the most successful measure of international political and economic collaboration.


Mr. COLD WELL:: No one denies that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member was not in the house when his colleague spoke.


Mr. COLDAVELL:: I heard. I was behind
the curtain.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: A fine collaboration. Tell us what "collaboration" means.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The leader of the C.CJF. group has said he agrees with that.


Major James William Coldwell: Surely.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Undoubtedly that is the situation, and I am not saying this in any political sense. I have talked this sort of thing for twenty years and in some quarters I have been humiliated for doing so. But we have reached the stage in the development of human history where unless the great powers and small powers can arrive at some understanding, not only in regard to political but as well to economic matters, not only shall we not be able to provide at home the kind of security for our people that we want, but we shall set in being again the kind of situation which has provided insecurity and war. Let there be no mistake about that. And this government, not without having made its mistakes, has as its Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) a man who recently gave expression in London, at a time and under circumstances which were by no means easy or unanimous, to the conviction that as far as this country was concerned it intended in the projection of its foreign policy to contribute the fullest collaboration in both political and economic matters.
Long before that, in our contribution at the food conference in Virginia about two years ago, in connection with the interim food organization which in consequence has been set up, and in regard to the united nations relief and rehabilitation administration, we gave evidence that not only do we want to have security for our people at home but we recognize our obligation in providing security for other countries and other peoples, realizing that in doing so we are at the same time giving a full guarantee of security for our own people. Recently, at the twenty-sixth meeting of the International Labour Conference at Philadelphia, the government of this country, in cooperation with workers and employers, subscribed, along with the united nations and associated powers then assembled, to the kind of policy which my hon. friend has been speaking about to-night, the desirability of giving to the undeveloped areas of the world in addition to the more fortunate nations the kind of social standards and social security which we in this country want and which, I believe, regardless of political interests, we ultimately shall have; recognizing however there, as we did-not only Canada but the forty-three nations assembled -that we wanted to provide a minima of security, and if that could not be obtained by
Department of Reconstruction

resorting to measures which were traditional, then measures which were untraditional, measures which were not part of the status quo, must be resorted to in order to provide people with the opportunity of full life.
I am sure that the hon. gentleman, on reconsideration, will recognize that he overstated the ease or stated it in a way that he really did not intend.
The problem of reconstruction, it seems to me, falls into two broad categories. First, measures for making the transition from war to peace, when the time comes, as rapidly and smoothly as possible and with the least possible social cost. With regard to this transitional period the government has been alive to the problem. First, we have resorted to the very technique which hon. gentlemen opposite have suggested, for many years-the technique of preparation, the technique of planning. The war had no sooner begun than the James committee and ancillary committees were set up to deal with the problem factually, to understand what that problem was. That technique was in harmony with the kind of planning which hon. gentlemen opposite so often espouse and suggest. The time has come, of course, when these studies, these factual presentations, must be borne in mind and implemented. That is exactly what we are doing to-night in the setting up of a ministry to coordinate, to centralize, to harmonize the action of municipalities, of provinces and of the federal government, based upon the studies which have been made. What better, what sounder, what other sensible course could possibly be resorted to?
During the war, with regard to the problem of transition, the government has had in its very war policies this kind of problem in mind. Its war-time fiscal policy, the price ceiling, controls over production and the allocation of commodities-all have been directed to making an orderly transition possible. They have had the effect, in conjunction with unemployment insurance and the fiscal policy, of building up very great reserves of purchasing power to meet the needs of this period. When you consider that the unemployment insurance fund, now a little more than $200,000,000, built up since 1941 on contributions from the state, employers and workers, will provide in this period of transition, when undoubtedly we shall be faced with the difficulty of keeping men in gainful employment, as we must do, a very useful cushion and one which we shall be pround of having set up.


Clarence Gillis: And it will last for about
six weeks.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It would if everybody went out of work.


Clarence Gillis: If you went back to the
conditions of 1939.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, if everybody was out of work. Of course it is only an insurance fund.


Clarence Gillis: That is the programme.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The programme is not one of having men out of work. My hon. friend should be serious. He laughs. I do not want to laugh about this thing, and I am sure he does not. This government is setting up a reconstruction ministry. It proposes to set up measures which the hon. member had in mind when he spoke earlier. To suggest that the unemployment fund will not last six weeks is to suggest that everybody will be out of work, which obviously would not be the case. All I am saying is that this fund, of which we all should be proud, will be one of the cushioning factors in the transitional period. I have said no more about it and no less. Then the work of the Department of Munitions and Supply in bringing about arrangements for the termination of contracts and for eliminating delays in industrial reorganization is all part of this policy. There is the provision for the disposal of war assets, for the Industrial Development bank, for our employment services. Our greatly extended arrangements for the retraining of military personnel and civilian workers which have been undertaken under the Vocational Training Act will be of tremendous value in this transitional period. One contemplates, Mr. Speaker, that over 300,000 people have thus far taken advantage of our vocational training. One considers in that amazing record-excelled, incidentally, by no other country of the united nations-the great possibilities of that kind of training to fit men for particular jobs in industry, both in the transitional and in the long-term period.
So that it is not fair, it is not true to say that this government has not, during the war itself, prior to the setting up of this ministry, devoted itself to the fullest consideration of this problem. Only this afternoon I was reading a publication issued by the Fortnightly Review, an analysis of the work of the various governments of the world with regard to this problem of reconstruction. The Prime Minister held up for our scrutiny to-day the publications of the various committees which have been working on this problem, and these publications have received at the hands of the

Department oj Reconstruction
Fortnightly Review in its summary a tribute that no other studies were as complete or as penetrating or as far-reaching as these.
The job, I quite agree, is to go beyond the period of study, to implement these recommendations, and that is the sort of thing we are dealing with here to-night, and with which I want to have something in a very special way to say.
Before doing that, let me say that I recognize that the second phase of reconstruction is the putting into effect of long-term run measures on the need for which public opinion has crystallized. There I agree with the hon. gentleman, as I think every member of the house does. That was reflected clearly at Philadelphia when forty-three nations representing various governments and various shades of public opinion gathered together, and where underlying the deliberations of that conference as undoubtedly representing public opinion of the peoples of the world there was the thought that what we have been able to do during the war in providing a high level of employment must be done during the peace. But it will not be of any help to say that the problem can be done simply. It cannot be done simply. But it is one that must be done. To say that it is simple is to overlook all the international entanglements and difficulties in a country like Canada with its currently inefficient constitutional distribution of powers. But that it must be done I fully agree. One of the things that must be done is to recognize, as the hon. gentleman has recognized and as I do, that under the present distribution of powers in this country, powers extended to the provinces on the one hand and to the federal government on the other, there do not reside in this parliament at the moment the powers that are necessary for giving us the opportunity of dealing with some of the problems that will have to be faced.


John Horne Blackmore: I challenge that statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member is a better constitutional lawyer than I am. All I can do is to give my humble opinion. But this government has not overlooked the desirability of taking unto itself powers that now reside elsewhere. It attempted that in 1941, the first real attempt ever made in this country, by having a conference with the provinces in this very chamber, to try to bring about some of the recommendations of the Rowell-Sirois report, with the idea of stream-lining, if you like, our legislative machinery, with the idea of rendering our legislative powers more efficient. Then, not having succeeded in that conference, it is now
proceeding to another; and as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said to-day, steps and preparations are now under way for the holding of another conference between the dominion and the provinces.
While it might be constitutionally possible for us to change the constitution right here and now, one has to consider many other factors. One has to consider that we are a federal state, and if these things can be done by way of cooperation and by way of courtesy, that is the effective way of bringing about the necessary changes. We had a good example of that last December when the dominion Department of Labour met with the provincial departments in a conference, as a result of which certain labour regulations were promulgated. That conference, properly timed and properly prepared, resulted in a great deal of understanding and a great deal of good between the provinces on the one hand and the dominion on the other. I believe that following that model, placing before the provinces the difficulties as we see them and as they undoubtedly see them, it will be possible to arrive at financial measures without which many of these things cannot be done, and at the same time to endow the federal authority with undoubted and undisputed power to deal with matters affecting the social security of our people. That will undoubtedly be one of the matters which will come for the consideration of the future minister of reconstruction.
I should like to say something arising out of my connection with the Department of Labour. I have recognized, as I believe this house will recognize, and I have recognized all during my time in this house the need for a better understanding between labour on the one hand and management on the other. We have recognized officially in this country under the aegis of the War Measures Act the desirability of telling employers that their workers are entitled to sit down with them and to bargain in their own interests. Surely that question has now been removed from the Canadian scene. Any employer who takes the position that he will not bargain with the men who work for him is not only running counter to the law but running counter to what is now the sound social judgment of this country. The disputes connected with union recognition, collective bargaining-all these things I trust are now matters of history.
But there is an opportunity for industry,
and in this it seems to me a ministry of reconstruction will have something to do and something to say, or should have. No longer can anyone look upon industry as simply a profit-motive organization. That is not the view of this government. That is not the view of the

Department oj Reconstruction

Prime Minister of this country, the leader of this government. I doubt if you will find any better definition of the place of industry in modern society than the statement made by the Prime Minister in this house two or three years ago when he said:
Industry is, or ought to be, in the nature of social service. It is not merely a system whereby capitalists may increase profits, or workers find the means of gaining a livelihood through wages. There is the right of the community which makes possible the carrying on of industry and it is reasonable to expect to have the interest and well-being of the community and its members considered in the rewards of industry. In other words, industry exists to serve a social end, as well as to serve the needs of individuals.
That statement represents my feelings as fully as any statement I can find.


John Horne Blackmore: What does it mean?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It means simply this, that industry does not exist and must not in the future be considered to exist as merely an opportunity foT providing profit for those whose interest is in the investment class. In other words, it means that industry exists for the production of goods and for the providing of income and satisfactory standards of living for all of those who share in its operations. That is why it seems to me that a ministry of reconstruction should undertake in conjunction with the Department of Labour, which is now in the process of doing that very thing, to extend the principle of management-labour production councils into a greater democratization of industry. There is no reason why the workers in my own community, for instance, in an industrial city, should not have the privilege of sitting down with management to discuss matters that concern not only the workers themselves directly but matters with respect to the operation of industry, with regard to the fixing of prices of this commodity or of that, and going beyond that, in respect of a more satisfactory income, a greater reward for labour because it, too, makes its contribution to the operations of industry. Some may say that that is going very far; others may say that it does not go far enough. But in my personal judgment it is one of the next steps that we shall face, and I am glad to think that in saying that industry represents a partnership, not only in terms of labour and management but in terms of the distribution of the income of industry, I am expressing the view which my own leader, the Prime Minister of this country, expressed and for which he was for many years severely criticized. I feel that we should extend this principle of the partnership of industry to many of the things we do.

I had dinner to-night with a prominent trade union leader from my own city, a director of one of the biggest trade union organizations in this country. He laid before me the plans of his union, plans that are now in process, with respect to the post-war possibilities of a particular industry with which he is connected. It was not an emotional thing. It was not the approach of an amateur. The union had enlisted some good economists, some experts in the field of taxation, experts in the field of export trade, who are helping the union in trying to devise ways and means of improving its lot in the post-war period and making sure that the men work every day, eleven months in the year, allowing possibly for one month of retooling. That is the constructive approach, and I trust that this ministry of reconstruction, along with the Department of Labour, which is now trying to encourage that sort of thing, will find it possible, not merely in one particular plant, but duplicating the same thing throughout the country, to encourage the employers to sit down with the workers, having before them a carefully prepared document on post-war possibilities for industry. The curious thing is that in this particular case the industry went to the University of Toronto to engage certain economic experts to do the very same job, only to find that the union had beaten them by seven months. I mention this only to indicate what I firmly believe to be the function of government in regard to this matter. The ministry of reconstruction, alive to its job, can encourage that sort of thing, and the benefits would be incalculable.
There are other directions which this ministry of reconstruction can take. What will be the situation when hostilities have ceased? We shall find plants now engaging thousands of men cut off from war contracts and faced with the problem of a heavy surplus of labour. These men will have to be given work, and if work cannot be provided for them in the community in which they happen to be located at the moment; if work cannot be provided through the system of selective service and other agencies, then these, men should be given opportunities elsewhere, wherever they may be, through a policy of decentralization of industry such as my hon. friend has spoken of, through possibly the industrialization of rural life by means of chemurgical opportunities, and so on. Whether these things are imaginary or not, they are bold enough to capture the imagination and to invite the future Minister of Reconstruction to approach the problem with that kind of desire behind his every act. The job will be not only to give men work but to make sure that they work for a sufficiently long period in the year.

Department oj Reconstruction
With the technical skill which we have developed in industry, working for a short time in the year will not be tolerated by the people of this or, I believe, of any other country. That is one question which will have to be dealt with.
Then there will be the question of the transfer of surplus labour and the encouragement of industry from the point of view of location. At present, if an industry wants to come into a particular city it goes and sees the chamber of commerce and discusses the matter with the member of parliament or the mayor. It seems to me that in a properly developed community, a community in which proper and adequate preparation has been made, the ministry of reconstruction would be able to give advice to an incipient industry as to where it should locate, where it would be of the greatest economic value to the community and to the country at large, always of course bearing in mind the question of costs. These, however, will be details which I am sure will be borne in mind by the vigilant ministry of reconstruction which I envisage and which will be established.
The new ministry will deal with other problems which will be of vital importance and which will challenge the imagination of the man who happens to be minister. First of all, there will be the necessity of dealing with such questions as the educational and occupational background of the members of the armed forces, because that information will be essential. We are going to give the members of the armed forces that place in our economic society to which they are entitled. Secondly, the ministry will have to consider information as to the workers likely to be laid off for any length of time in the dismantling of war industries. The Department of Labour at the moment is engaged upon some important surveys in that respect which are proving illuminating and which, carried on more extensively, will be very helpful. In the third place, the ministry will have to consider the probable number and occupational distribution of older workers likely to be retired at the end of the war. It will have to determine the question of labour requirements. It will have to consider the use of government plants for peace-time purposes. It will have to consider the adoption of programmes for post-war employment, such as the building industry. It will have to take action with respect to the demobilization of war industries, guidance and the training and employment of disabled veterans, the planning of public works and so on.
So that the man to whom is entrusted this tremendous task will be faced with a challenge, but he will also have a great opportunity.
I believe that in the minds of every member in the house is the sincere desire to be able to contribute in some way to the bringing about of what is called full employment or a high level of employment in the country. I am satisfied that no longer will our people go and receive a dole without at the same time receiving work for which they will be remunerated. Our people will not want to subscribe to the doctrine of the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Kuhl).


Mr. HANSELL:: How do you know?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Our people believe in the dignity of work. They do not want to be idle. They want to have an opportunity to work so that they can develop their own personalities and help in the development of the personalities of those who depend upon them.


John Horne Blackmore: So you gave them
box-cars. They rode the rods.
Mr. MARTIN.:	The hon. member speaks
of riding the rods. I am arguing against riding the rods. If the hon. gentleman will learn the art of patient listening, I have just stated that our people are not opposed to work. We believe in the dignity of work; and no government, no matter what its political affiliations, will stand for one moment unless it is able to provide the kind of work for our people to which they are entitled.


John Horne Blackmore: What happened before the war?


Paul Joseph James Martin: But that does not mean maintenance of the status quo. The hon. member for Cape Breton South seemed to suggest that we on this side stood for the status quo.


Clarence Gillis: Not all of you.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I certainly do not, nor does this government.


John Horne Blackmore: What change are you making?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Look over the record of
this government since the war and you will find that we are not the champion's of that form of so-called free enterprise, which has not existed for eighty-five years. We are in the midst of a form of society in which there is a great measure of free enterprise, but there is also a great measure of collective action. To suggest, therefore, that we are status
Department oj Reconstruction

quo'ists, is neither, truthful nor accurate What we honestly believe is this. We believe that we must provide our people with security of employment. If that means the destroying of old labels, then we will destroy old labels. That is the thing. And the very course that we have taken during the war indicates that this government is not tied down but is prepared to experiment boldly, as few countries in the world have experimented, in a manner that surprises many people in the country.


John Horne Blackmore: Plunging into debt,
though.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It seems to me that what we must be prepared to do is to have a very carefully and well planned, well thought out system of public investment working alongside private initiative, taking up the slack where necessary, so that in the days when employment will not, because of its own effort, be up to the highest point, the men and women of the country will be given an opportunity to work, whether it be on the basis of the kind of projects contemplated by the national resources planning board in the United States, or whether it be on the basis of other schemes. I for one, as a member of parliament representing thousands of men, who represent thousands of little children who live in homes that sometimes are not fit to live in, know this. I know they will not tolerate any government or any society that is not prepared to do that.


John Horne Blackmore: What will they have to do?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This government is prepared to do that.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: They showed it last August.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member insists upon being political with a man who is not inclined to be political. This government is determined-and its actions to-night in proceeding with this bill indicates that-to take steps which perhaps ten years ago would have branded the Prime Minister as radical and dangerous. I am not unmindful of the fact that the present Prime Minister of Canada has been branded before by many men in high places in this country, who look upon him as a kind of dangerous Liberal who is inclined to interfere with conditions as they are and as they would prefer them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. members may laugh. The leader of the C.C.F. party, who is
[Mr. Martin. 1
generally responsible in these matters, would I am sure subscribe fully to what I have just said. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in bringing to. a close what I have to say may I observe that in this parliament and in this country we are faced with a challenge. That challenge can be met if we have the same vigilance, the same initiative and the same incentive that during these four and a half years of war have characterized the actions of our people and of all hon. members. We must persist in that. If we want to justify the tremendous sacrifice of men, treasure, and of property that is now taking place in Europe and in other theatres of war, then nothing but the fullest determination to bring this sort of situation about will satisfy. I believe that this government is taking the first step to-night in implementing a programme which it has been considering and planning for many months. The validity of that programme will depend upon the way in which it is attempted to be realized. I have every faith that that implementing will take place. If it does not take place, then, of course, the judgment of the nation will be definite. But on all of us, regardless of our political affiliations, is imposed the most terrific responsibility ever placed upon the shoulders of any legislature, the recognition that in the doing of these things we may be tearing with the past, tearing with things that we have cherished; but nothing is to be gained by taking a doctrinaire attitude and saying that only by resorting to this particular form of government, only under this particular theory can these things be brought about. By providing, through experimentation, by providing for a willingness to change, if the old methods will not do, can these things be brought about.
I believe that there is much in our society that has to go and is going. I do not believe that it is all bad. I believe that we want to try to preserve much that is in it; but all that I am really concerned with is to see that the job is done. I would trust that whoever the Minister of Reconstruction may be, his one objective will be not to be tied down by labels, but to be tied down by one desire, and that is to give to the people of this country, in collaboration with the other nations of the world, those measures without which the full life is not possible.


Major James William Coldwell: When I came into the chamber a short time ago I had no intention of speaking to-night, but having heard the last two speeches I thought that perhaps I should like to comment very briefly upon them.
As I listened to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) to-night, I thought that

Department of Reconstruction
the sound of the Prime Minister's voice of some twenty-five years ago echoed from this chamber. I distinctly remember going to a meeting in the city of Regina in 1919, I think it was, sitting in Westminster church and listening to the first speech I heard from the right hon. gentleman who is now the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King). At that time he was enunciating to the country the recently adopted programme of the Liberal party. It was immediately following the first great war when in men's minds there was the thought of change and the people thought that the war had been fought for democracy. I distinctly remember that programme. I remember the promise it gave to the young people; I remember the promise it gave to the aged; I remember the promise it gave to the workers and others throughout the country, and I wish to say this, that to-night after twenty-five years most of those promises, as far as social legislation is concerned, remain unfulfilled.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not true.


Major James William Coldwell: Remain unfulfilled.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Major James William Coldwell: We have old age pensions. And as my colleague, the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) said to-night, the reason why we have old age pensions is that the late leader of this group, the then member for Winnipeg North Centre, the then member for Winnipeg North, Mr. Heaps, and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) fought for them in this house. One of the treasured possessions of this movement is a framed letter which hangs in our national office, sent by the Prime Minister in 1926 in reply to a query presented to him and to the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, who was then the leader of the Conservative party, as to what they proposed to do with old age pensions and unemployment insurance. The present Prime Minister gave Mr. Woodsworth the assurance that if'he received the support in this house that would enable him to carry on the government, old age pensions would be introduced at that session and that unemployment insurance would be considered. We have that letter hanging in our national office. The reply of the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen was not as satisfactory and history records what happened. We got unemployment insurance in 1940, years and years after unemployment insurance was overdue in every country of the world; and moreover because I believe the revenue was valuable to the country at that time, the contributions made
by the individual workers to the unemployment insurance fund were to be not only a cushion when the war ended but one means of withdrawing from circulation the wages that would help to reduce the purchasing power of the nation.


John Horne Blackmore: A new taxation
scheme.


Major James William Coldwell: With regard to international trade, I am in complete agreement with those who believe-and we all are- that we must have trade between the nations of the world which is to be. But I would point out that the level of world progress is the level of the sum total of the progress of the nations of the world; consequently, my colleague the hon. member for Cape Breton South is perfectly correct when he says that we ought to be endeavouring to control our own economy in order that we may raise the levels of our own standard of living and thus contribute to the progress and the Welfare of the world.
This bill is to set up another department, a department which will be valuable in the future. But what is that department going to do? It is merely going to coordinate; it is merely going to encourage the production of plans of whom; of individuals, of corporations? Mr. Speaker, I wish to say to-night that unless we are prepared as a nation to integrate our resources, to plan our economy, to plan our economic ventures, if you like, then we shall not achieve the objective which we have, which is full employment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I followed my hon. friend aright, he said that the department is only to deal with matters that are put before it by individuals and corporations. He stopped there.


Major James William Coldwell: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He did not say that the purpose of the department is to deal with government departments in national planning plans made by the government itself-


Major James William Coldwell: I do not think I said exactly what the Prime Minister says I said; but what I had in mind was that it was a coordinating department. [DOT]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is more than that.


Major James William Coldwell: What I have in mind is this: It is not a department of government which will organize the development of our resources, to plan our economic activities and
Department oj Reconstruction

to carry them out in the interests of the nation. We still have to rely on private enterprise.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. This is a department to get all of the departments of the government to work on anything and everything that will further reconstruction and development.


Thomas Miller Bell: Of course; but the government is not going to take steps to see to it that we develop our resources ourselves, and I will give a concrete reason for making that statement. Yesterday this house passed a bill to dispose of certain war assets, certain factories, machines and equipment, when the war ends, giving a group of individuals the power to get rid of these things. That was the representation made by the chamber of commerce to the reconstruction committee. As I recall their brief-and I am speaking entirely from memory, because I did not intend to speak to-night-they urged upon the committee that when the war ends, the equipment we have gathered together should not be allowed to interfere with the normal activities of industry in this country. Three years ago I sat in the war expenditures committee and heard an outstanding leader of industry in this country suggest that we should set up a committee to see to it that these things were disposed of in such a way that they would not interfere with normal business enterprise in this country.


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend will
permit a question, he would not dump that nine billion dollars worth of equipment on the market at one time?


Major James William Coldwell: I would not dump it on the market at all. Anything that can be used to develop our resources or to manufacture goods of value to the Canadian people I would have continue to operate under government control, supervision and ownership. That is what I would do with it, but instead it is proposed once more to deliver ourselves and our economy into the hands of the private enterprisers who led us into destruction following the last war and who were responsible for the years of depression through which we went subsequently. It is all very well to say that to-night the government is penitent, that to-night the government intends to turn over a hew leaf and do something in the future; but what is the record of this government? Look back at that record over the years. I remember that in June, 1939, my hon. friends to my immediate left rose in this house and asked that $200,000,000 of money be issued to give work and food and relief to the workers

and farmers. I saw that the house was not going to accept that amount, and I moved an amendment suggesting $100,000,000. What reception did we get? We were told that the budget had just been passed, that we had made a large appropriation for the nation's finances, and that we could not afford another $100,000,000. I was looking up the debate the other day, and I remember saying that if war came in the next two or three months we would not find one hundred million dollars but many hundreds of millions of dollars in order to prosecute that war, and we have had to do that. We shall continue to do it until this war is won; but let me say, as the Prime Minister said this afternoon, that what we did in war for destruction we shall have to do for construction when the war is over. Do you mean to tell me that those surrounding the Prime Minister to-day, the orthodox financiers and the orthodox enterprisers, will tolerate an argument of that sort when the war ends? I hear from various sources and I read in the newspapers the continuous demands that even in this budget the excess profits tax must be removed and the income tax reduced, in order that industry may accumulate something for the post-war period. That is the propaganda; that is what the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Essex East and all the others are surrounded with at the present time. I see no disposition on the part of the government in this bill, or in any other bill before this house, to grapple with this basic problem. As my colleague said a few moments ago with regard to conditions before the war, I repeat that a government must be judged, not only by its general philosophy but by its actions in the past, as to the sincerity of its intentions in the future.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. gentleman
permit a question, just so that the record may be clear? He has said that this government is surrounded by orthodox financiers.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not aware of any,
except possibly my hon. friend to the left-


John Horne Blackmore: The Minister of
Finance (Mr. Ilsley).


Paul Joseph James Martin: I ask my hon. friend if it
is not a fact that it was this government which imposed the excess profits tax and raised the income tax to the highest level ever known in this country. This government, which is supposed to have orthodox financiers as advisers, did that, and my hon. friend should mention that fact to be fair.

Department oj Reconstruction


Thomas Miller Bell: I agree that that has been done, under the necessities of war, but I was saying that the whole propaganda at the present time is to remove those taxes in order that industry may proceed in the normal way. If my hon. friend wants to know whether or not the government are surrounded by orthodox financiers, let him attend the banking and commerce committee and he will soon find out that what I have said is perfectly true.


John Horne Blackmore: Not a glimmer of intelligence.


Major James William Coldwell: We have to reckon, when this war is over, with a situation which, as the hon. member for Essex East has said, will challenge the intelligence of every hon. member of this house and of every party within it. The boys who are in the armed forces, the boys who are overseas to-day, are not going to come back to the kind of Canada we knew before. I have just been through an election campaign in which the paraphrased slogan of the friends of the government was: "Put the retiring premier back in office to give you the same kind of administration in peace that he gave you before and during the war." No, Mr. Speaker, that is. not what the young men in the armed forces are expecting of us. I am tired of picking up magazines and reading the propaganda they contain; pictures of boys in foxholes saying, "Gee, I hope Canada will be the same kind of Canada that I left." I say quite reverently, God forbid it. That was the kind of Canada we had under this government from 1935 to 1939, the kind of Canada we had under the preceding government from 1930 to 1935, when boys asking for bread were giving tear-gas bombs; when boys who were in this city in February, 1939, asking for bread were described in this house by members of parliament as yaps, as ne'er-do-wells, and as spineless.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And there were Liberal members who opposed that sort of thing.


Major James William Coldwell: That kind of thing has to stop, and what I fear in this bill is that we have another paper organization which will not do anything about it. On behalf of those associated with me, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that there is no possibility of full employment; there is no possibility of doing what- I believe the Prime Minister wishes to do, and at the some time maintain the profit and free enterprise system. To-night we have heard a great deal about New Zealand from my hon. friends to my left. The hon.
member for Essex East knows what that country has done. He knows that the gentleman who was made president of the I.L.O., Mr. Nash, was elected largely as an appreciation not only of what he had done but also of the leadership his little country has given in the realm of social and economic reform.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But it is not a socialist government; it is not a government of socialism.


Major James William Coldwell: Is it not? It is a socialist government, and you cannot tell Mr. Nash that it is not. Of course it is a democratic socialist government, just as we ourselves believe in democratic socialism. Do not tell the New Zealanders that they are not socialists; they simply will not believe you. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I say that this falls far short of what is expected of the government at this time. I should like to see a plan produced under which we could use this 8800,000,000 worth of machines and equipment for which this nation has paid during the war. I should like to see a thorough attempt made to develop the resources of this country, and to prepare plans for their development in the public interest.
Why, when we look across this country to-day and see what is waiting to be done, and no plans to do it-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not true.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, it is true.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is not.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, it is true. Can
you tell me of one plan for highways, or to irrigate, or to electrify the country, or for farm homes?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hundreds of plans.


Major James William Coldwell: Just one plan; have you one plan?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: You have not one plan to do it-not one plan.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely the hon. member-


Major James William Coldwell: You made your speech; I am making mine. I say the government has not one plan to develop any of these resources.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And I say that is not true.


Major James William Coldwell: The only two things up to the present time that are offered to the country are a land settlement scheme-


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.
Department of Reconstruction


Thomas Miller Bell: A land settlement
scheme for returned veterans, with an amount of money entirely insufficient to establish young men on the farms, and the other thing is an educational plan. It is an educational plan which I welcome, and I endorse it at the present time. It is not enough to educate our young men; it is not enough to give them technical training. What are they to do when they have had their technical training? Are they to be dependent upon some employer who will say whether they will employ them at a profit, or not? Are they to be dependent upon corporations, as to whether those corporations will employ them or not-and only if they can make a profit out of their labour?


Mr. DUPUIS:: They surely do not wish to be regimented.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member for
Essex East said a moment ago that the controls which had been put on by the government would be maintained. Is that the kind of regimentation he is talking about?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not say that.


Major James William Coldwell: Not the kind of controls that we have to-day.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not say that.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member said "controls".


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the hon. member wish me to say what I did say?


Major James William Coldwell: To maintain the controls that we have, as long as necessary.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the hon. member wish me to say what I did say? When I was speaking he was going in and out, back and forth.


Major James William Coldwell: No, I was not going in and out, and back and forth. I came in from behind the curtains, and sat in my seat.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I misunderstood my hon.
friend, then.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, you misunderstood.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was suffering from an
illusion.


Major James William Coldwell: That is quite frequent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What I did say was that
we were not tied to any labels, and that we recognized the need in this day of making great changes in our society.


Major James William Coldwell: What did the hon.
member say about controls?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That in order to effect
those changes it would be necessary to have a system of public investment in private enterprise, with private initiative, and I wished
the government to maintain a measure of control by which that could be sustained.


Major James William Coldwell: My hon. friend, like many others, referred to control as regimentation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not even mention the word "regimentation".


Major James William Coldwell: No, I know the hon. member did not. But that is the interpretation placed upon the controls. People across this country are criticizing these controls. If we are to have controls-and undoubtedly we shall have to have some controls-let them be democratic controls, not the controls of the kind we have to-day, with dollar a year men at the top assuming the responsibility in connection with these controls, men appointed by order in council. Let us have controls through the democratic organization of the people's representatives. That is something we do not have have to-day.


Vincent Dupuis: That is our policy.


Major James William Coldwell: But, sir, what I really rose to say was this, that in spite of all the fine words we have heard-and we have heard them before; we heard them in war time before, and we heard them for a second time to-night-we want to see some action. We want action, rather than words. If there is no action, then we face a period of great difficulty. We face a period of chaos.
I do not wish to see chaos. Rather, I wish to see orderly progress. But that kind of policy which the government has pursued in the past, and is pursuing to-day, does not give me much hope that we shall emerge into an era of peace within our country, or an era of prosperity for the common man. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the government in setting up this department will go far beyond what they are prepared to go to-night, and will see to it that the great enterprises which we have built up during this war for the people of Canada are preserved and are used by the nation to give opportunities of life and of work to the great masses of people in this country.


Mr. ADAMSON:: I did not wish to interrupt the hon. member when he was speaking. However, he did make reference to a plan. I would point out that there has been a major plan in connection with complete town planning for Toronto. I know the town planning

Department oj Reconstruction
organization has worked on it for three years, and it has been accepted, and is on view in Toronto.


Major James William Coldwell: I was thinking of a plan for the whole country. A plan for all Canada would be more fitting than that. However, I do appreciate, of course, what Toronto has done.


Mr. B. M. HILL (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, my point of view with respect to this bill is different from that expressed by most hon. members to whom I have listened to-night. I took a great deal of interest in many of the proposals presented to the parliamentary committee on reconstruction, and while I found many of them were provincial in character, a large number were national in scope.
Those briefs presented by provincial governments, which had been prepared by departments of public works, departments of agriculture and departments of lands, mines and forests in the provinces, were national in outlook. Also the briefs prepared and presented by the associations of engineers and architects were national in their outlook.
To-day we have heard hon. members discuss labour problems in connection with this bill. However, I believe that discussion might better be had under the Department of Labour than under the Department of Reconstruction. We have heard the statement that the prosperity of the country depends upon the prosperity of the primary industries. That is true. However, that has been taken care of by a guarantee of a price floor on products of the farms and fisheries.
One hon. member mentioned that the success of our country after the war depends upon our exports. Here again, in my view this depends upon the Department of Trade and Commerce. As I view the bill, it would be my opinion that it should have been called, "An Act to Establish a Department of Reestablishment and National Development." I have hopes that this new department will develop into a department of national development.
It appears to me that the development of Canada, so far as national development by the federal government is concerned, stopped about thirty years ago with the completion of the railways and canals construction in the country. I feel that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) should appoint an able man at the head of this new department, one who has a wide national outlook. He should have as his assistant an able man to plan what should be done by the departments. In my view, plans should be prepared for a wide national development. ' In the first place, I
feel that we need several more transcontinental highways, running from coast to coast, and I believe that it is the duty of the national government to provide them. This should be completed in the interests of the devolpment of this country. Lateral highways paralleling the Alaska highway should be extended to the north for the development of all that section in the west, because it certainly cannot be regarded as a provincial obligation. Then there are the flood controls of our great rivers. We have just had a report of a disastrous flood in the northwest territories. This danger will increase as the country becomes more settled, until the yearly damage will run into millions of dollars. In the United States, where more development has taken place, flood damage every year amounts to billions of dollars. The problem is a national one and should be dealt with by this department from the viewpoint of national development.
There is also the matter of protecting our forests. Our federal government derives large amounts of revenue from forests in the various provinces, and it is in duty bound to assist, by building roads and patrolling, to provide fire protection in all the forest areas. The development of our airways must also be undertaken.
As I visualize this department, it will be a permanent organization and over the years will spend billions of dollars on national development. I look upon it as providing the means in conjunction with the Bank of Canada to control and stabilize national income and national employment. If a scheme is prepared envisaging expenditures upon development to the extent of several billions of dollars over the next few years, then, as private enterprise is unable to provide employment, the wheels of progress can be put into action by this development to give employment and raise the national income. So long as private enterprise is able through the demand for its products to stabilize the national income, the department's work can be tapered off; when the demand for the products of private enterprise diminishes, this department can take up the slack by proceeding with a great programme of national development. The one thing necessary is that the minister as the head of the department shall not lose sight of the object for which it is created and must not go on with his development programme when full employment is otherwise available and provided.
Immediately after the war, I assume, the piled-up demand for civilian goods will allow private enterprise to supply all the employment which is called for in the early years.
Department of Reconstruction

When that demand is satisfied the department must come in and take up the slack and build up the national income, and do it on a uniform basis. If, as I have said, the department is properly administered it can, along with the Bank of Canada, iron out the high spots in our national economy and smooth out the low spots, so as to maintain a good average national income with steady employment. If whoever is in charge of this department takes that point of view he will have an opportunity of taking care of any depression which we may run into immediately after the war, and, indeed, for many years afterwards, and can foster, over the years, a steady progress which will protect us against periods of depression and avoid periods of excessive employment.
I would urge upon the Prime Minister that this department be established as soon as possible. We know to-day that with the impact of mechanized equipment, powerful armies fade away in a very short time. This war may come to an end very quickly through the collapse of the German army, and we shall then need this department to take care of the difficulties in the immediate post-war period. Unless whoever takes charge has at least six or eight months in which to prepare his plans and to gather around him an able body of administrative assistants, we shall again be facing what we were confronted with in the first year of the war, when we were not at all prepared, and floundered around without getting any results.


Mr. G. E. WOOD (Brant):: It was not my intention to speak on this matter to-night, but I have been prompted to do so because of what has been said by some hon. members with regard to the setting up of this new department. I should first like to draw the attention of the house to the comment made by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) in trying to chastise the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for having been somewhat slow and cautious in bringing down these reforms. I think I have heard speakers of the C.C.F. admit, in exposing their particular philosophy, that it will be some time before they will be able to implement their "pie in the sky'' for the people of Canada. After all, even twenty years is not long in the lifetime of a nation, and far more progress has been made in this country under the leadership of our present Prime Minister in the matter of advanced social legislation than has been made in any previous time; also it will compare favourably with that of any other country.
In passing, I would suggest that we try to get a proper perspective in relation to some of the arguments of the C.C.F., because if we

take them in their literal sense they are somewhat misleading. The leader of their party to-night was emphasizing the advanced position of New Zealand in social legislation. It depends upon what measuring stick we apply to advancement. I do not believe Canada needs to take second place to New Zealand as regards high standards of living. I have acquaintances in New Zealand and have asked them about this, and I know that their standard of living is not comparable with that of Canadians.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: From the health point of view?


George Ernest Wood: I am not in a position to tell you how many automobiles there are in New Zealand. I have the record in my desk.


George Hugh Castleden: Have you the health record?


George Ernest Wood: I know, speaking of Canada, that in Ontario, every fifth person drives either a truck or an automobile. You could load on these vehicles every person in the province, and you would need to put only five in each vehicle and they could all get out in one procession.


George Hugh Castleden: It might be a good idea.


George Ernest Wood: I believe that to get the same result in New Zealand you would have to put twenty-one persons in each car. Of course it does not follow that the automobile is the only measuring rod of standards of living, but undoubtedly it indicates the purchasing power of a nation, because it is a product which is highly desirable and much in demand.
I should like to commend to the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), who wants to bring about fundamental changes, the good old book. Perhaps the best politician in the Bible is King Solomon, whose wisdom is shown in the. Proverbs. The Proverbs show that the people of those days experienced some of the same difficulties that we do. I do not look with such misgivings upon this new world so long as we have human beings in it because, in spite of all our difficulties, we have registered a great deal of progress already.
I am one of those who may be considered to have been born in the horse-and-buggy days, but I should like to say that there are some things in regard to reconstruction which it would be well for us to keep in mind. An old philosopher once said that it may be a good thing to have what money can buy, but that it is a tragedy to lack what money cannot buy. There are many things in this

Department oj Reconstruction
life to contribute to the happiness of people which money cannot buy, if we will only get the right philosophy and the right spirit.
The Prime Minister in his introductory remarks this afternoon said that the government had been successful in enlisting the cooperation of many organizations and of many governments and getting their advice in regard to our reconstruction programme. But I still believe that he overlooked one thing, namely, the spiritual life of our country. Much as I commend the chairman of the reconstruction committee I sometimes wondered if it would not have been better to have before that committee some of the leaders in the spiritual life of our country, to see if they were not in a position to make some contribution to the happiness of society. That is one of the things that should not be overlooked.
I have said that I was born in the horse-and-buggy days when the kerosene lamp was the light of the home and the rag carpet adorned the living room floor, when we had three square meals a day and gave thanks to the Almighty for them. The day's work was preceded by reading a chapter of the Scriptures, followed by a supplication to the Almighty for guidance and direction during the day. I would say to my hon. friends of the C.C.F. that when that supplication was made to the Almighty we always gave thanks for the things we had and were not continually asking for more. I commend that to my hon. friends of the C.C.F., who are feeling more enthusiastic to-day than they did a few short days ago. I would commend that philosophy not only to them but even to the other members of this house. Those were the days in which the mother contributed to the family life and when the whole family would gather around the hearthstone at night. Those were really happy days. I was not brought up to be idle. Idleness was not forced on me. At sixteen years of age I had to do my chores and contribute to the family larder in my own small way. I am not so sure that the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Kuhl) made any impression on me by his argument that a living can be made by working only four hours a day and only four days a week. I wonder what would happen to my poor old cows under that system. What kind of cow can he invent that will go three days without milking? These things run through my mind when I hear that particular philosophy expounded by the C.C.F. across the way.
I read an article' in the Globe and Mail recently about a man by the name of Krugg who said that if a dollar had been invested at the birth of Christ it would be worth so
many billions of dollars to-day by virtue of compound interest and to expend the proceeds we would all have to buy 1,500 Ford cars a year. That is the sort of thing that happens when a man goes all out for mathematics and theory without using common sense. My hon. friends over there have the advantage of a great deal of education, but if I did not have an education myself I would far rather have common sense. You can make any kind of argument on theory. But we have to face facts. I rather enjoyed the attitude which the Prime Minister took when he said that in all this reconstruction expenditure the money must not be expended just for the sake of making work but that we want some results from it. I think the money ought to be expended cautiously so that it will finally bring returns.
When the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) was condemning the capitalistic system I wondered if he thought of the extremely high standard of living which we enjoy under the capitalistic system. Perhaps we have not gone as far as some would like us to go, but we have gone far from the days of the kerosene lamp until to-day when by pushing a button my whole home is filled with light from Niagara falls. To-day we have radios in our homes. Can the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar tell us how many radios there are in New Zealand? He will find that there are only about half the number there that there are in Canada in proportion to population. We can hear the greatest celebrities on the radio in our homes to-day, and it is always a pleasure to hear our Prime Minister while we are sitting around our own hearthstone. This has been brought about under the capitalistic system and I would commend that to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. It is all right for him to argue his philosophy, but it has never been tried out, and if he ever happens to try it out, I should like to have an opportunity of sitting in opposition ten years afterwards and reminding him of some of the great and glorious promises he is making to the people of Canada to-day and of showing the horrible disappointments that had come during his regime.
We may not have all the social security measures that New Zealand has, but we do have wages. Our labouring men are enjoying the highest wages that were ever paid in the history of Canada, and by virtue of that we are having to-day an outbreak of what I call Toryism among the working classes. You make a man wealthy and immediately he becomes a Tory. The labour men to-day are organizing in this country as they never did before and are exerting their influence in
Department oj Reconstruction

politics. It is only another form of Toryism. The Liberal party has always taken the middle of the road course by trying to give to the middle classes the satisfactions of life, and they have been successful. They went down to defeat on reciprocity in 1811, in trying to give to the farmers a market for their products, and went down to defeat again in 1930 when they were fighting against high tariffs and a restricted trade policy. We told the country what would happen if those policies were put into effect and exactly what we prophesied came to pass. I assure hon. gentlemen that the middle of the road course is the course that the people of Canada want to take. If they experiment again as they have done in the past they will experiment only to their sorrow and they will come back to the middle of the road course. The Canadian people are not socialists but individualists. They come in the main from pioneers who never asked governments for help, but who were prepared to stand on their own' feet. This country has been developed' on the principle of free enterprise. It has been developed under what the hon. member sees fit to brand as the capitalistic system, but I challenge him to show any other system that would have registered in the last twenty-five years any achievements parallel to the progress registered under that system.
I should like to have spoken longer, Mr. Speaker, but I have purposely refrained from making some comments on this bill which I thought of putting before the house. However, when the bill is in committee there are one or two things which I shall take occasion then to say.
On motion of Mr. Claxton the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, June 21, 1944