1945-09-10

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

Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to refer to a matter affecting the privileges of parliament and of myself as a member of parliament. This morning, citizens who sought to interview members of parliament were stopped outside the entrances to this building-not within the precincts of the building, but on the outside near the doors. Among those who were stopped were the premier of Saskatchewan and a member of the legislative assembly, who were required to show some evidence that members of parliament wished to see them. I want to refer this to you, Mr. Speaker, as custodian of the rights of members of this house, because I believe that inquiry should be made and we should be informed under what authority and by whose direction this very extraordinary procedure was followed.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I must inform the hon. member that this is the first time I have heard about the matter. I will confer with the Clerk of the House, and the Sergeant at Arms, whereupon I shall be pleased to give an answer to the hon. member.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: May I say a word as well in reply to my hon. friend? I am obliged to him for bringing up this matter. It is the first intimation I have had that anything of the kind had occurred, and I shall be happy to join with his Honour the Speaker in having the matter carefully looked into.


Major James William Coldwell: Thank you.



DIVORCE

[Stage Direction]
JURISDICTION OF COURTS IN PROVINCE OF MARRIED woman's DOMICILE
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 2, to amend the Divorce Jurisdiction Act, 1930.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Canadian Armed Forces


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: May I be permitted to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence (Army) arising out of a telegram I received this morning. I sent a copy of it to the minister and therefore I will not quote it. It has reference to the closing out of army camps across Canada. Service personnel doing maintenance work and living in camp or barracks with their families are now being evicted, and in the section to which the telegram refers there is no available living space. These people are not able to get quarters. Can the minister inform the house what the government's policy or attitude is in a matter of this kind?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services):: As my hon. friend has stated, he was good enough to send me a copy of the telegram. I do not know the particular area to which he refers or the particular camp he has in mind, but the general policy is that in the case of rented premises watchmen are retained until such time as the premises are returned to the lessor. In the case of premises owned by the government, or premises constructed on leased land, watchmen or maintenance people are retained until such time as the premises are turned over to another government department or declared surplus and turned over under the Surplus Crown Assets Act to be disposed of by the war assets corporation. It is clear, I think, that it would not be possible for the Department of National Defence to retain the services of watchmen or to continue to provide accommodation for them after the particular premises have ceased to be administered by the Department of National Defence. If my hon. friend will give me the particular case he has in mind I will look into the circumstances, but that is the general policy so far as army premises are concerned.


Clarence Gillis: It is in Sydney, Nova Scotia, the Royal Avenue barracks. Four families are affected.



DISCHARGE OR RELEASE OF PERSONNEL DESIROUS OF ATTENDING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. A. KIDD (Kingston City):: 
Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know whether anything can be done to speed up the existing procedure. As my hon. friend the member for Kingston City knows, the policy was announced a week or ten days ago whereby university students can obtain discharge from the army upon producing evidence that they have been accepted for the university or other educational institution which they propose to attend, and upon making application and producing that evidence they will be discharged immediately, subject always to the general conditions that, if they are performing some work in which it is essential that they should be retained for a short time, the application might have to be refused. I know of no case in which discharge has been refused. That policy has been in force only a week or ten days, and I am advised that it is operating fairly satisfactorily.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: Does this apply in the same way to the forces of the Pacific command now in training at Fort Benning, Georgia?


Douglas Charles Abbott: These instructions have gone out to all commands.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: By leave of the house, will the minister allow a supplementary question? Does this rule apply to service personnel who desire to enter collegiates, intermediate schools? The reason I ask the question is that a number have been refused discharge who desire to enter collegiate rather than university.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend refers to collegiates. We have not that expression in my own province. I may say that it does not apply to high schools. The ruling is university or equivalent educational institution, which would be a technical school. It contemplates higher education as distinct from secondary schools.



NATIONAL WAR SERVICES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: I would ask the Prime Minister to clarify the situation respecting the Department of National
National War Services

War Services. Do we understand that this department is now obsolete? If so, I would point out that there were certain branches that came under that department-I refer to the national filta board and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Under what department do they now come?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The department of war services remains under the Minister of National War Services until this parliament repeals the act establishing the department. The department will be abolished by a bill to be introduced into this house this session, and which, I presume, will be passed by both houses. Until that time the several agencies that are now under the war services department will remain there unless transferred under the transfer of duties act to some other department. If and when they are transferred the house will be advised, as I have advised it to-day with respect to some other transfers of governmental functions.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: I wish to direct to the Prime Minister a question, notice of which I sent him earlier to-day. What consideration has been given to the request from the heads of a number of railroad unions for the establishment of a royal commission to investigate the matter of the reinstatement of the pension rights of Canadian Pacific employees who were involved in the general strike at Winnipeg in 1919? The Prime Minister indicated at the close of the last session that consideration would be given to this request. Can he now state whether the commission is to be established?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend inquired about this matter in April last. I am informed by the Department of Labour that one of its senior officials has been appointed to explore the situation. The official has been seeing the organizations concerned and has made an interim report to the department. He has indicated that he wishes to proceed further with his investigation. That is all the information I can give at the moment.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ALISTAIR STEWART (Winnipeg North):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction. Is it the policy of the government, as a condition of sale for crown plants, that union agreements at present in effect be honoured so that employees will be rehired on the basis of seniority?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction) :: Such a policy is obviously impossible of general application. For example, a plant which to-day is engaged in the electrical industry may be sold for a totally different industry which would qualify it for a union covered by another trade. There is no general application of such a policy where a plant is sold for continuance in the same industry. Indication is given to the buyer that we should be glad to see him adopt the same union and follow the same seniority practice as was followed by the previous owner, but that is not made a condition of the sale.



PRODUCTION IN WESTERN CANADA TO MEET SHORTAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture what steps are being taken to restore hog production in western Canada in order to meet the present shortage situation in Canada and in the devastated countries?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: The question as submitted to me
deals with all Canada. I presume the hon. member for Yorkton refers to all Canada, although he said western Canada-


George Hugh Castleden: I so stated in the
question.


James Garfield Gardiner: He asks what steps are
being taken to restore hog production in Canada to meet the present emergent shortage of meat in Canada and in the devastated countries. There is no shortage of meat in Canada. We have a very great surplus of meat in Canada. There is only one year in our history when we had a greater surplus than in 1945, and that was 1944, so that it is scarcely correct to say that there is an emer-

Civil Aviation
gent shortage of meat in. Canada, but there is of course a shortage of meat in the' devastated countries, and the amount that Canada is asked- to provide to supply that shortage is about six per cent of the requirements. We are making every possible effort to get a production in Canada which will meet that requirement. The main provision to that end is the making of agreements in advance under which we can state to farmers across Canada the price they will be able to obtain for their product, at least twelve months in advance, or, as has been the case- recently, twenty-four months in advance. They know when they are breeding and' putting in stock for feed exactly what they will secure for them.



CIVIL AVIATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):: I
addressed two questions to the Minister of Reconstruction this morning. I do not know whether I wrote the wrong department or not. Is the minister aware that air service from Wrangell, Alaska to Telegraph Creek, B.C., has -been discontinued because the air service operator formerly operating from Wrangell has been unable to obtain permission to cross the Canadian border?


James Horace King: The hon. member is not
permitted to read a telegram or make a statement; he must just ask the question.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member is
reading a copy of the question he sent to the minister this morning, Mr. Speaker. It is not a telegram1; the- place is called Telegraph Creek.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Residents of Telegraph Creek, an isolated community without any other means of transportation have petitioned the air transport board-, but without result, even in grave emergencies affecting life and property. Will- the minister give- his immediate-
Mr. SPEAKER. Order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is all right; I shall answer it.


James Horace King: I must remind the hon.
member that he has not the right to make any statement or to give any explanation, but just to put his question, and put it briefly. That is the rule of the house-.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Will the minister give his immediate attention to this situation? The matter is urgent.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The question involves a service with headquarters in the United States. By agreement between Canada and the United States an application by a United States company to operate into Canada must be filed with the civil aeronautics authority of the United States. That authority approaches Canada, and Canada either permits the service to operate or not. Thus by mutual agreement each air line must deal with the country of which it is a national. If the company in question will -apply to the civil aeronautics authority, and the civil aeronautics authority communicate with Canada, we shall be very glad to give serious^ consideration to the matter. In the meantime I may say that Telegraph Creek is served regularly by a Canadian company, and I feel that the situation is not as grave as has been represented to the hon. member.



RADIO RANGE STATIONS AT SMITHERS AND TERRACE, B.C.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harry Grenfell Archibald: What department takes responsibility for operation of radio range stations at Smithers and Terrace, B.C., and is the government going to operate them now that the war is over?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The department of which I am the minister has that responsibility. The radio ranges mentioned were operated as a war service when traffic was heavy. They are not warranted by ordinary bush service. They have been closed down and dismantled.



THE WAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: plications. It will be necessary to have those implications carefully examined before an answer is made. I am giving the hon. member the statement at once in case he may wonder why a reply may be delayed.


Mr. ROWE:: It is not going to be too soon this time.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, September 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. M. Benidickson for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, for the first time in six years we are meeting here to-day in the atmosphere of a world at peace. After six years of conflict we find ourselves freed from the attack of enemies who would have deprived our lives of meaning and made of our institutions of government a hollow mockery.
For that deliverance we are indebted to the people of many lands and to the sons and daughters of many homes in Canada- a great multitude to whom history will apportion due praise.
The mention of their contributions takes us back in thought to some of the major incidents of the early days of the war-to Great Britain, for a time standing alone against the might of German arms, "the prisoner of her own historic greatness"; to the embattled republic of China which had carried the fight since 1932; to our great neighbour to the south, technically at peace but marshalling her tremendous strength for the decisive battles ahead; to another great ally-the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics-biding her own time to thwart the enemies' attack before joining the forces of freedom; at home a generation of gallant young men, of the navy, the army, and the air force, offering itself a living sacrifice to save our civilization from collapse.
To all these we owe the sincere tribute of a grateful nation. As for our own sons and daughters in uniform, they have put us forever in their debt. They have made us all more proud to call ourselves Canadians.
Nor should we forget the devotion to duty of the workers in the less perilous but equally exacting tasks of the farms, the mines, the factories, the offices and the laboratories. Without them our victory would not have been achieved. To them also is due the thanks of a whole people for tasks faithfully performed.

The spontaneous rejoicing of the nation was a welcome release from the discipline of war. But beneath the surface of it all, there lies a sombre undertone of seriousness. Men and women are counting the price of victory, measuring the sorrow and personal loss that all too often visited their homes, and laying plans to try to make the new day a better one.
It is in that atmosphere we gather here to-day-to try as best we can to mend the wreckage of the war years; we assemble here to take up the tasks of peace; we come to accept the challenge of a new day.
What is to be the answer of this nation to those in Canada who saved it from catastrophe and to those who will live with them; and to all the others who will follow after? That question brings us to the realities of to-day.
The answer of this house to the men who fought and to the men and women who made the equipment with which to fight, as well as to all others, cannot be made in words and high-sounding phrases or in tablets and monuments of bronze and stone. Comprehensive measures to make possible opportunity, useful jobs, needed production and assured security, particularly for those who return from war, for the wounded, and for the dependents of the fallen, is the only answer this parliament can give to those but for whose sacrifice we would not be here. It is needless to add that the same general objective must be our ambition for all others.
And a second answer we must give if we are to be worthy of these days. We must build an economy in which our people will have faith; a democracy in which we can all have confidence and a programme for Canada in which, on its fundamentals, we can all be united.
On such a basis we can build a new spirit of unity in Canada, a new sense of responsibility for public affairs, and a new vision of positive destiny for the nation.
The ideal state does not fall ready-made from the heavens. We gain it only at a great price.
Upon the members of this house therefore has fallen a great responsibility. It is that of making a worth-while contribution toward a more generally acceptable state at home, and the best possible relationship abroad.
Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, I look forward with eager anticipation to my work during the coming session of this parliament, not only with those who have sat in this chamber

The Address-Mr. Bracken
in the past but, as well, with the new members who, like myself, are here for the first time.
To the members I see around me-the members of all political parties-I wish to say at once that I give to each of them credit for equal sincerity and honesty of purpose with my own. In the political parties and groups who occupy seats, both to your left and to your right, Mr. Speaker, I recognize one common objective, namely to promote what each conceives to be the best interests of our country and the well-being of- our fellow citizens.
The function of His Majesty's Opposition in this house is one of great responsibility. If ever the function of an official opposition in parliament be reduced to a perfunctory role, the whole British common law structure, which secures to us so many of our individual liberties, will be in danger of falling into decay.
We have come here as individuals-we have come as individuals supporting the policies of one or other of the parties represented. I concede to each individual in every party credit for worthy motives. Where we differ is largely in the means to reach the desirable ends that most of us share in common. If we can but maintain a real democracy, what is best among us will in the long run come to the top.
As to the attitude of the official opposition to the government, I wish to say a word. We recognize that the government is carrying heavy responsibilities. That is inherent in the task it sought and was granted. It in no way excuses it from the consequences of its errors; it in no way justifies its wide departures from responsible government; it in no way warrants its excursions into dictatorial and bureaucratic methods.
It will be our purpose to assist the government to meet the problems it is facing. We are denied the right to assist in the formulation of government policy, denied also any share in the administration of that oolicy. But we are not denied the right to constructive criticism. That, in fact, is our duty.
We shall expect the government to present its programme and to take parliament fully into its confidence.
We shall look upon the members of the cabinet as a board of directors of a great national cooperative enterprise-a board of directors responsible for the economic health of the state. We look upon ourselves-and here I include all members of all groups-as representatives of the shareholders of that enterprise, the people of Canada.
In the interests of those whom we represent, we will want to know what is going on in the government. We will expect a discontinuance of dictatorial methods, a discontinuance of secrecy in matters of public concern, a discontinuance of government by order in council rather than by parliament, and a frank exposition of all matters affecting the people's interest.
The blanket denial of information on the flimsy excuse that it is not in the public interest will not be tolerated. The government does not own the assets it exacts from the people. It is but the trustee and custodian of them. How those assets are used must not longer be withheld from the people's knowledge.
Traditionally, the speech from the throne is supposed to give an outline of the government's policy. The speech before us to-day is longer, more vague, and has less substance than usual. I have seldom seen a government document which takes up so much space to say so little in so many words.
The first few paragraphs are good literature and good philosophy, chiefly on the subject of war. But they state no policy. Other paragraphs speak only of vague plans and pious hopes in the government's mind. As an example of this, we are told that the maintenance of long-term markets for our primary industries is receiving close attention. This is the same story the Prime Minister has been telling for the last twenty-five years.
Belated notice is taken of the acute problem of housing. But the fact is the government's housing programme is a flop. The words "too little and too late" fit the situation perfectly. There has been too much talk and propaganda and too little reality.
The veterans are to have a charter; all acts and administrative measures are to be put in one document instead of several. That is supposed to make a charter. The substance will be no different from at present but it will be handed to the returning veteran under the caption: "The Veterans' Charter." There is obviously no harm in doing this, but leaving the programme the same and calling it a charter in no way eliminates red tape or humanizes the administration of veterans' affairs, or makes rehabilitation measures more efficient.
The service and sacrifice of Canadians in the war are t-o be commemorated by the planned development and beautification, some time in the future, of the nation's capital. I agree wholly with the planned development and beautification of the national capital. I think the parliament of Canada ought to develop the
The Address-Mr. Bracken

national capital and its surrounding area so as to worthily represent Canada, without using the excuse of a national war memorial to do it. It will not help the veteran vainly seeking housing accommodation in Saskatchewan or Nova Scotia, or any other province, to read that his service and sacrifice in war have been suitably commemorated by the beautification of Ottawa. The right kind of memorial to commemorate the service and sacrifice of the men and women who fought is a Canada of to-morrow with jobs, security and opportunity for all. One of the first concerns of all members of this house at this particular time ought to be the care and rehabilitation of war veterans.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the government's administration of its own plans has failed to meet the needs of returned service men and discharged war workers. Its policies, after the blueprint stage, have been fumbled in administration from beginning to to end.
One of the government's outstanding defaults, as far as veterans are concerned, is the general lack of accommodation for them on their return. The government spreads its propaganda to the four winds of heaven, telling about generous gratuities, while concealing the cruel fact that the gratuities of many veterans will be eaten up completely by the extra cost of building a home, due to increased building costs. From all indications, the situation is likely to be worse before it is better.
To produce prompt and adequate housing accommodation for all service men in need of it is the imperative and immediate 'duty of this government.
I want to say, with all the emphasis at my command, that this nation will not stand for any chiseling down of the promises and commitments made to service personnel while they were fighting our wars abroad.
I now- come to another question-that of controls.
This nation has made it clear it does not want socialism. This nation has made it clear that the people are opposed to regimentation. They do not want -to have bureaucratic controls in operation any longer than necessary. It is important, however, that the road from control to de-control be an orderly retreat and not a disorderly rout.
The scarcity^ of important basic materials rendered certain controls necessary, but, as someone has said, "coercion is insatiable." Controls seemed automatically to breed and multiply till they invaded practically every department of life and became almost intolerable, even in the patriotism of war time. 
Moreover, the new controllers exercised powers quite unprecedented in our experience-powers which, in effect, were exercised free from the parliamentary control -to which ministers of the crown are subject.
The public counts on these controls and controllers being removed as rapidly as possible. It seems clear that, as shortages were put forward as the justification for their imposition, controls should be removed as fast as shortages disappear.
While on the subject of controls, let me deal with one very controversial one. The government yesterday announced the introduction of meat rationing in Canada. I ask the government to make clear the answer to a simple question, which is being asked by both producers and consumers of meat all over this dominion: is meat rationing necessary? Does the government consider it is necessary? Many do, but many others question it. All will agree that food must be provided for the people of Britain and other countries whose populations have suffered so much in the war we fought together. In this respect we must see to it that Canada does her full share. Let us have no misunderstanding on that point. I know of no one who questions that policy, or who is opposed to seeing that Great Britain and our allies receive all that we can send them of our supplies.
If the government can show the necessity of meat rationing at this time when controls of this kind should normally be removed, then we must inquire why such a condition arose and who is responsible for it. If, to provide meat to Britain, there is need for rationing meat in Canada to-day, the blame can largely be laid at the door of the government itself for its failure to maintain hog production at higher levels. There is being produced in Canada this year much less bacon than a year ago. This is chiefly due to the government's policy of keeping hog prices so far out of line with feed prices as to discourage hog production.
Some two years ago, the government announced an export equalization bonus of fifteen cents per bushel for barley and ten cents for oats. Immediately farmers started to cut down hog production. They naturally took the higher price for grain, instead of feeding it to hogs. The government later gave a half-hearted recognition of the hog-raiser's position by announcing a S3 bonus on grade A hogs; but hog production continued to decline because the hog and coarse grain bonuses were out of balance. The final effects of this shortsighted policy started to show in -the sharp decline in hog slaughterings in the fall of

The Address-Mr. Bracken
1944. At the present time hog production is said to be down nearly a third-and the decline is continuing.
As I have said, many people think meat rationing is unnecessary. If meat rationing is not necessary, why put it on? If it is necessary, then the government is asking both the producer and the consumer of meat to submit to a rationing plan to cover up shortages in meat production brought on largely by a muddled and misguided government policy. If there is need for rationing, the government is, to a great extenl, responsible for it.
There are two questions I want to ask the government in this connection. What is to be the effect of the rationing policies on small processors of meat? We are receiving complaints daily as to the inconvenience to which they and their customers are being put. And what is being done to avoid the bottlenecks at the larger slaughtering plants? Complaints are reaching us concerning the inconveniences to shippers and the losses through shrinkage resulting from delayed sales at some of the larger stock yards.
In parts of western Canada, there is a serious shortage of feed, and there will be a rush of cattle to the packers' plants in the fall. The smaller processors, both there and in the east, say they must buy within their quota, and the farmer and consumer both suffer.
In the August 15th issue of Maclean's magazine, I noticed a penetrating article on this subject. The writer of the article fears that rationing will be a stimulus to black market operations and that extensive policing measures may be necessary to prevent it. There are many who fear that the government's policy will result in such a black market condition as will be very difficult to control.
WTe must not let this immediate problem obscure entirely the long-range picture of live stock marketing. Cattlemen are fearful of the future of their market in the United States. What consideration has the government given to permitting at least token shipments to that country, for the purpose of helping to safeguard that market for the future? I am of opinion that we ought to seek freer access to that market for our future needs. As it is, I wonder if we are not in danger of losing that export market.
There is no matter on which there is greater unanimity in Canada than the feeling that there must be some reduction in the rates of income tax. With that view this party is
in entire accord. Substantial tax relief is indicated from both Washington and Canberra.
We look upon the government as the custodian and trustee of the taxes it demands from the people. It can be prudent in spending them, or it can be wasteful. There are many who think the government has not always been prudent in its war expenditures. It is a common view that it has been wasteful of the hard-earned money it has taken from the taxpayer. In my judgment, it has been guilty of some extravagances unparalleled since confederation.
Everyone knows that modern wars come at a high cost. There will be no disposition to criticize the government for necessary war expenditures, but no one will excuse the government for waste or extravagance. There is a widespread feeling that the government has become so accustomed to huge expenditures that it cannot rid itself of the habit.
It is only necessary to point out what has happened in recent years to show the importance of this matter. Before the war, this government took from the people's pockets, in the form of taxes, in round figures some S440 million a year. Last year it took $2,440 million, or more than five times the pre-war amount. Before the war it taxed the incomes of only a quarter of a million people. Last year it taxed those of over two million people-or more than eight times as many. In the year 1938, this government spent some $530 million of the people's money. During the last fiscal year, 1944, it spent $5,300 million-or almost exactly ten times the pre-war expenditures.
Before the war, the government permitted the expenditures to be inquired into in the open. During the war, the government supporters denied the war expenditures committee the right to ask about war expenditures except behind closed doors. The consequence of all this is that the government has spent in the vicinity of $20,,000 million in the last six years with but little public check upon it. That is more money than had previously been spent by all the governments of Canada since confederation. It is, in fact, nearly fifty per cent more in six years than in the whole seventy-two years of confederation which, preceded them.
Last year the government taxed the people of Canada $2,400 millions, which is more than the total dominion taxes collected in the first fifty years of confederation. At the same time, during the past six years it has increased the annual debt from some $4,000 million to a
The Address-Mr. Bracken

figure in the neighbourhood of four times that amount. In the face of all this, the government. is now setting out on a huge programme that will involve expenditures probably three times as high as before the war. It is no wonder its Minister of Finance is seeking a way to excuse the government from making cuts in taxation of a size that the termination of the war should bring.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Mr. Speaker, on a question
of privilege, I deny that I am seeking anything of the kind.


Mr. HOMUTH:: You quibbled over it ali
the way.


William Earl Rowe: Don't deny the promises that were made before the election.


John Bracken: The minister will have
a chance to state what the reduction will be.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Precisely.


John Bracken: I gathered from, the press of recent weeks that he is seeking an excuse to show why they will not be as great as the public were led to believe they would be from his own public utterances and the utterances of other hon. gentlemen opposite.


James Lorimer Ilsley: On a question of privilege,
I want to set this matter right at once.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I rise to a point of order. Some hon. MEMBERS:	Sit down.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: He is speaking on a
question of privilege.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The Minister of Finance has referred to-


James Lorimer Ilsley: On a question of privilege.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I rise to a point of order.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is clearly a question of
privilege.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It certainly is.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: What do you know about it?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Far more than you do.


James Horace King: I understand that the hon. member has given the minister permission to speak.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I am not prepared to defer to the minister when I am right. I rise to a point of order.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think I need to aTgue the question. It is clearly a question of privilege, because as Minister of Finance I am being accused by the leader of the opposition of seeking to excuse the government from 
carrying out promises which the government made with respect to taxation before the election. I must answer that.


John Bracken: I did not say that you
were seeking to excuse the government from promises made before the election. Nothing like that can be found in my statement, I will quote from my statement as soon as you are finished.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Apparently the hon. member is referring to a report of the remarks I made to a delegation from the trades and labour congress of Canada when I used the word "disappointed." I used the word "disappointed" in referring to the probable reaction of some people to what could be done toward specific proposals which were made by that delegation and other similar proposals if it was expected that they could all be met in full. One of those specific proposals was to raise the exemptions from taxation.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Order. You cannot make a speech.


William Earl Rowe: That is the best apology you have ever made.


James Lorimer Ilsley: One of those proposals was
to raise the exemption for single persons to $1,000 and for married persons to $2,400. It was-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I rise to a point of order. The minister has no right to make a speech on a question of privilege.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Horace King: I would ask the minister
to be kind enough to be as brief as possible.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I foresaw this situation. If
I understand the rules at all I am strictly within my rights.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You do not understand
them, because you are certainly violating them.


William Earl Rowe: You have made four more
excuses.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, you have.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This delegation had made
explicit demands for the abolition and reduction of taxation at the same time that they were requesting increased expenditures. Speaking with reference to these specific requests and similar demands, I said that some persons would be disappointed, having in mind that they could not all be met in full. That is the sole basis for the statement made by the-leader of the opposition.

The Address-Mr. Bracken


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I rise to a point of order. The minister should not make a speech. He has not stated his question of privilege.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, I have.


James Horace King: The minister asked the
permission of the leader of the opposition to ask a question.


Mr. GRAYDON:: No, he did not.


William Earl Rowe: He rose on a question of
privilege.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I rose on a question of privilege. I want to say with respect to the preelection promises by the government on taxation that those promises were made by me. When the budget is introduced I shall be content to leave it to the judgment of the country as to whether they have been carried out.


John Bracken: There was not in my
remarks a single word about government promises with respect to taxes-not one.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read it over again.


John Bracken: Certainly I will read it
over again; that is what I got up for. First I shall try bo make clear just what statement my remarks were based upon. I am referring to the Ottawa Citizen of August 22 in which reference is made to a delegation which bad visited the minister. The report states that the minister said 'these words, "Some would be disappointed when they see how much the government will be able to reduce taxation." I made no reference whatever to any political promises that my hon. friend made to the public of Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They did, and that is why they are over there.


John Bracken: This is the statement which I just made and about which there has been so much wasted time: "In the face of all this, the government is now setting out on a huge programme that will involve expenditures probably three times as high as before the war. It is no wonder its Minister of Finance is seeking a way to excuse the government from making cuts in taxation of a size that the termination of the war should bring." That is what I said, and that is what I believe. I give the government fair warning that unless there is brought down in the budget substantial relief from the burden of war time taxation there will be widespread resentment and bitterness from one end of this country to the other.
I wish now to touch briefly on another subject, that of dominion-provincial relations.
The major set-back in the economy of certain provinces forced this issue to public attention in the nineteen thirties. The dominion appointed the Rowell-Sirois commission to study it. The commission took some years at the task, spending a considerable sum of money in the process and eventually reported. A dominion-provincial conference was called in 1940 to conside'r the report. The conference blew up, for reasons which need not here be explored. The war and the War Measures Act and a dominion-provincial taxation agreement met the needs for the time being.
But the war is now over. The dominion-provincial agreement will goon come to an end, and the War Measures Act must soon terminate. It is thus imperative that the situation be met soon-indeed, it has remained unsolved far too long already. So much is this the case that the dilatoriness of the dominion government in bringing the matter to a head is to-day largely responsible for the fact that the provinces are not in a position to lay sound plans for meeting their post-war responsibilities.
In August last, the dominion advanced certain new proposals. The provincial governments are now considering them. A progress meeting is planned for November, and no doubt other meetings later on.
I do not intend to deal with this matter further at this time, but there is one item in the government's proposals that I think should be mentioned.
The dominion proposes to pay an old age pension of $30 a month, commencing at age seventy, without a means test. This will be welcome, as far as it goes. Those who have had experience in administering old age pensions have found that the means test led many people to divest themselves of their property before they reached the age of eligibility for pension. On the other hand, many worthy citizens in need of a pension would not suffer the humiliation of meeting a means test.
There are good arguments, therefore, for abolishing the means test altogether and substituting for it, as the dominion proposals suggest, payments out of general taxation or a contributory old age pension scheme.
But the dominion proposes to require the provinces to pay fifty per cent of the cost of pensions for needy residents of the ages of sixty-five to sixty-nine and to leave the administration of this part of the scheme in the provinces. The dominion in this respect is not facing the problem at all. It does nothing to correct the errors of the past. The pernicious elements of the old system
The Address-Mr. Bracken

are to be perpetuated and the dominion refuses to foot the pensions bill at sixty-five.
Its obvious dilemma is that it won't resist the pressure for pensions at sixty-five; and if it adopts pensions at sixty-five, it can't see its way clear to pay the whole bill, so it leaves the problem on the doorstep of the provinces to pay half the cost of pensioners from sixty-five to sixty-nine.
What must not be lost sight of in the discussion of dominion-provincial relations is that every person affected is a Canadian, no matter in what province he may live. What we must find is a way to see that no Canadian is denied a decent level of social services because of his geographic location or that he has to pay a confiscatory rate of taxation to secure it because geography finds him in a certain place.
The provinces have met the dominion. A constructive approach to the problem has been shown by all of the provinces. Let us hope that success will crown their deliberations and that sound progress in the way of repairing the weaknesses in our constitutional structure will not longer hamper the state in meeting the social and economic problems of the people.
The briefs submitted by the dominion government to the provinces on the occasion of that conference have dealt with a wide range of subjects of importance to the Dominion of Canada. One, however, is notably absent. There is no brief nor any reference book on international trade. It is true the provinces have no jurisdiction in that field, but it is equally true that the prosperity of every one of them is wrapped up in it.
Canada is the world's largest exporter of wheat, newsprint and non-ferrous metals, and one of the world's largest importers of coal, oil and steel products.
Under these conditions Canada is both a great exporting nation and an almost equally great importing nation. This means that both a high real national income and a high level of domestic employment will be most difficult, if not impossible, to achieve without maintaining a large volume of external trade. In this connection let me make it clear that we will support all reasonable measures put forward by the government to increase the general volume of international trade and Canada's share of it.
Admittedly, the problem ahead is not an easy one, and it is not a war problem. For a number of years prior to the outbreak of the war that has just ended, we had been losing our market in Britain for grain, milling and allied products. For years prior to the war, the lag in our exports of agricultural products

was made up by an increase in our export of materials to make the instruments and tools of war. Now we have it on the authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that only 20 per cent of our war-time exports belong to the category of normal peace-time trade.
We must now face the fact that we have maintained an immense volume of export trade for years past largely by the simple expedient of giving our exports away; and this in some measure it is proposed that we continue to do, and with that I am in agreement.
Looking forward to the high levels of employment and national income upon which the validity of the dominion's proposals to the provinces are based, our present international trade position invites clarification.
What are 'the government's plans for restoring our normal export trade to Britain?
What are its proposals for increased trade with the United States and for meeting our obligations in New York, for which -we can no longer count on the sterling balances we had before the war?
What are the government's plans for developing trade in the orient; in South America?
. What is the government's plan for assisting in the development of economically undeveloped areas?
The present hope of civilization is that the resources of the world be put to use fully and effectively, and no country can have more to gain from this than Canada with its wide variety of natural resources.
We are to be asked to approve a measure to provide for Canadian participation in the international monetary fund and the bank of reconstruction and development, presumably the one agreed to at Bretton Woods. I do not anticipate that this parliament will refuse to give its assent to these proposals. The monetary proposals of Bretton Woods are predicated upon a world of order, peace and specialized production and trade. We must do our part to bring about such a world. There are many things to be done, however, and many measures of economic cooperation to be arrived at before that world will be achieved.
The use of atomic power for war and its prospective industrial use are sharp reminders that we face a new and different future. Science has made defence a collective problem. For their future safety, the nations of the earth must bind themselves to the principle of collective security.
As to how the measures to preserve peace which are embodied in the San. Francisco

The Address-Mr. Bracken
charter are to be made effective, we will expect more information from the government than his excellency's speech discloses.
It is not enough just to change the form of world security. The seeds of potential war are ever present in the world. For the moment they lie dormant. To see that they are sterilized for all time to come is the task of our day.
Signatures, even of fifty nations, on a page will not guarantee peace, even though the plans be well conceived. It is admitted that the document to be presented to us is not perfect. Nevertheless, it is a step toward peace-probably the longest step ever taken in the history of human affairs. This party intends to support the charter; and1 we trust it will have the unanimous approval of parliament. It provides a way by which to achieve and maintain peace, but it does not provide the will to peace

the will by which alone the nations of the world will avoid a clash of arms. World peace, desirable as it is, cannot be gained and kept by signatures on a page. That task remains and will remain a challenge to every generation, of mankind as long as national boundaries exist and national selfishness prevails.
The seeds of war, unfortunately, are not sterilized by the ink of diplomats sitting around a tabje. They have been made to lie dormant for a time. Without the sterilizing influence of the will to peace on the part of the mass minds of every generation, they may spring to life again. Let us be thankful those seeds are dormant now. It remains for this generation to preserve and pass on to the next, and so on for all time, the spirit by which nations as well as men will settle their differences by conciliation rather than by resort to war.
Upon the major powers of to-day rests the future peace of the world. As long as the big nations stand together, there will be peace. If they fall out with one another, it will be a danger signal on the way to war. No nation or group of nations can stand against the united strength of the major powers. In their unity lies our hope; in their possible dissension our fears.
To me, Canada's mission in the world is clear. We must throw our weight wherever it will serve the will to permanent peace. That means sharing our .proportionate burden of policing the world. It means trading with the world, wherever it can be done to mutual advantage. And it means looking upon other peoples as human beings even as we are human beings.
We meet here at a time when forms of government the world over are being tested 47696-3
and weighed in the balance. In so far as Canada is concerned, parliamentary institutions will either face to-day's challenge or they will disappear. The people are looking to parliament for enlightened, safe and progressive leadership; and they expect the members of this house to see that such leadership is given to the nation. Under our system of government, it is for the administration in power to bring forward its policies. It remains for us, as members, to support what is wise and to criticize what is imprudent in the proposals advanced.
As leader of the opposition, I accept on behalf of the party I lead the responsibilities that fall to our iot. The government may, therefore, count upon us for both constructive cooperation and constructive criticism. It is in that spirit that this party approaches the tasks of the challenging days ahead.
Mr. Speaker, as I have said, there _ are a number of matters of policy and administration on which the government is subject to criticism. In closing these remarks, let me refer again to some of them.
One is the question of jobs. I say earnestly to the government that the one matter that must be made their concern above all others is to see to it that needed jobs are provided for those coming home from the war and for those who have been or may be dislocated because of the transition from war to peace. Whatever else the government may fail to do, failure in this respect will not be excused.
Another question is that of markets. The threat of the loss of markets-referring to exports-for farm and other products this government must take seriously. I am not suggesting that it does not. The farmers have borne their lot in this war with credit to themselves and to the country as a whole. They are fearful of what is going to happen to their markets. At the moment, live stock men particularly are concerned, recalling the history of the last war. Temporary transitional measures are not enough. The farmers will expect from their government policies that will give them confidence that markets at fair prices will be available in the future-not only immediately, but in the more distant future.
A third question is taxation. The people feel there should be considerable reductions, now that the burden of war is past. We shall expect, therefore, that substantial taxation relief will be included this session in the budget proposals.
A fourth is the matter of demobilization. The government's demobilization policy has been bedevilled by its own two-army system and by the lack of a rational man-power policy. The result is that there is criticism from one

The Address*-Mr. Bracken


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I should like my first words this afternoon to be words of cordial greeting to my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) upon having assumed the office of leader of the opposition in this House of Commons. I congratulate him upon the confidence which his party has in him. May I say that, perhaps better than anyone else in this house,
I am able to appreciate the great responsibility which he has assumed. My words of welcome are all the more emphatic in that IMr. Bracken.!
I have been hoping for about two and a half years past to have the pleasure of extending this greeting.


William Earl Rowe: You are lucky to be doing it to-day.


John Bracken: I am very glad to welcome the Prime Minister himself as the junior member of this parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friends that the Winnipeg convention seems a long time ago. The leader of the opposition has just said to me that he welcomes me as the junior member. According to my recollection, it took only a few weeks for me to find my way back into parliament after I had met with defeat in my old constituency. It took him over two and a half years to gain admission to the House of Commons. However, I am quite sincere when I say, not only on my own behalf but on behalf of the party which I lead, that we are pleased to see the hon. gentleman in the seat which he occupies to-day.
With respect to what he has said as to the duties of the leader of the opposition, I have no exception whatever to take. The position of leader of the opposition is one that is recognized by statute. He holds an office in this house which is one of responsibility comparable in some respects with that of a minister of the crown; his is supposed to be a service to the House of Commons as a whole. In the obligation which is placed upon him of following closely the acts of the ministry, of constructive criticism as opportunity affords, that is a duty which we will expect him to perform, and will welcome his performance of it in full measure.
Before I comment on the speech of my hon. friend, may I join with him in the congratulations which he extended on Friday last to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I should like to congratulate very warmly the two hon. members who spoke for the first time in this house on the excellence of the addresses which they made on that occasion. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) moved the address, and it was seconded by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Langlois). Both these gentlemen, in becoming modesty, credited the government with having desired to pay a compliment to their constituencies. That it was right and proper for them to believe. May I say, however, that the government had something more in mind in suggesting that they should open the debates in this particular session. What the government had in mind particularly was the feeling entertained I am sure

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
in all parts of this house, namely what is owing, above all else, to those who are or have been members of the armed forces of our country and have seen active service. We were glad indeed to recognize that both these hon. members had served Canada overseas in the great war just ended. It must be a source of pride to all hon. members of this House of Commons to realize, that between those who served in the first great war and those who served in the present war, there is in this house a total numbering, I believe, roughly something like one-third of its membership. That is the splendid contribution that those who are now actively engaged in serving the state in parliament have made toward the defence of their country and the defence of freedom in the greatest of wars in the world's history. It was definitely a desire to give that word of recognition to the armed forces which was primarily in the minds of the government.
There was also the desire to recognize the younger men who have come into parliament for the first time. One of many commendable features of the new house is that there has been introduced into the membership of the Commons a large number of new members, many of whom, as I have already said, have actively participated in war. They will now have to do with finding a solution for the problems which have arisen out of war. Few, if any, hon. members will be more qualified to speak with authority on war and post-war problems than those who have been in actual combat. I could not but be impressed in what both hon. members said, with the world outlook which their utterances revealed.
But may I say of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and the hon. member for Gaspe, that they were chosen to open the debates of this new parliament, quite as much because of what of known ability and achievement they merited in their own right. I speak not only of the contribution each has made in the service he has rendered our country in war, but of the success which at an early age, each has attained in his particular profession. Both are gentlemen who have distinguished themselves in the academic world, and in their professions. I should like to congratulate each of them on having given so admirable an example to all of personal courage at a time of war and also of skill in debate in a first appearance in this House of Commons, as that which they gave to us on Friday last.
May I now come, Mr. Speaker, to the remarks of the leader of the opposition. Let me say, at once, that to a considerable portion of what my hon. friend has said this
afternoon I not only take no exception but with it am in complete agreement. I was pleased to hear him, at the close of his address, speak as he did about the charter of the world security conference which will later be a matter for consideration by this parliament. I was glad to hear him say, speaking of the importance to the world of the success of that great new instrument for the maintenance of peace, that, if that new venture was to be of service to the world, we all must display the will to peace, and not trust too much to enactments of any kind. Sharing his views in that particular and realizing, as I know he does, how serious the situation is in the world to-day and will be for a long time to come, I do not think we can begin to exercise that will to peace too often, or too much among ourselves. It depends, in the last analysis, upon the attitude of individuals whether peace is to be maintained in this world. We have had six years of bitter strife which has left legacies of hatred and suspicion. Unless the world can be freed from this hatred and suspicion, all that legislators may attempt will be in vain. We shall have to make a beginning in this House of Commons in our controversies in relation to the problems that come before us. I confess that there is nothing that gives me more concern than to see, on the very morrow of the conclusion of this great war, the beginning of much that looks to me like an effort to intensify controversy in some of our domestic fields. The spirit of the approach to any question is going to be the test as to whether or not a solution of the problem can be found. I do appeal to hon. members on all sides of this house to realize that a war, such as this country and the worlld has gone through in the last six years, has left problems which will require, on the part of everyone having to do with public affairs, all of patience, of conciliation, of genuine friendship and of cooperation that it is possible for all to display.
My hon. friend in speaking of the speech from the throne mentioned its references to the war. He took exception to the length of the speech, and to its substance. He spoke of the first part of it, as I recollect his words, as being largely literature and philosophy. If my hon. friend will read again what appears in the first two pages of the speech, he will realize, I believe, that, far from its being mere literature or philosophy, it is the one tribute which above all is owing by parliament to the people of this country, a tribute which in words cannot be made too comprehensive or emphatic, having regard to what they signify. We have had six years of

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
war. In all its history the world has known nothing like it. Future generations and parliaments are going to turn back to the pages of the speech from the throne to see what in 1945 the Canadian people through the lips of the representative of the crown had to say of Canada's services and sacrifices, her contribution to freedom-in those momentous times. I venture to say that, in years to come, no words in any speech from the throne in Canada will attract more attention and more approval than the words my hon. friend has passed over as being merely literature and philosophy, 'but which, in reality, are an expression of this nation's obligation to those who offered their lives in this war, to those whose lives were sacrificed, to the bereaved, to those who were crippled and maimed and wounded, to those who to-day are looking so eagerly to their return to their home country after years of imprisonment in Japanese concentration camps and prisons. That is something of what is expressed in the early part of the speech from the throne, of what we feel we owe especially to those who have given their all or were prepared to give their all, that we might enjoy the freedom we have to-day.
But the speech in the introductory portion goes further than that. It seeks also to recognize the services of those who have worked in less conspicuous, more humble, but nevertheless very necessary ways to help win the war. I refer to the hundreds of thousands of workers on the farms, in our primary industries, in the shops, and factories and offices, to those who have served in the homes and in hospitals, to those who have made their several contributions in order that the men at the front might not lack support, to all in fact who saw that such contributions as it was possible for those in civil life to make to the winning of the war, were made in as full measure as possible.
I had the responsibility, Mr. Speaker, for the speech from the throne and for advising His Excellency to pay a special tribute to our warriors and our workers; I am sure hon. members of both houses of this parliament will wish above everything else to have it noted that among the first words uttered by His Excellency were those which gave expression on behalf of parliament to the country's gratitude.
To all who have contributed by service and sacrifice to victory, I would, in the name of parliament, express our country's gratitude.
I know the speech is lengthy. There is more than one reason for that. I have given one reason already, but let me enlarge upon it. At Westminster, Britain took the earliest
fMr. Mackenzie King.]
opportunity to express its appreciation of the services rendered by the armed forces and those who had performed other essential tasks, by presenting a special, formal address to the King in language not very much different from what appears in our speech from the throne. More than that, the House of Commons and House of Lords, as a first act, once victory had been won, attended a service in Westminster in which they gave, as my hon. friend this afternoon has recognized is also given in our speech from the throne, an expression of thanks to Almighty God for His mercy in having saved the world from the appalling menace with which it was faced.
In view of the differences between our practices and those at Westminster the government did not consider it necessary to duplicate that procedure, but we have felt it desirable, and I am sure the nation will be pleased that it is so, to place fonnally on record in the speech from the throne the thanksgiving of the people of Canada to Almighty God for the great deliverance vouchsafed our country, along with other lands, and our profound appreciation of the service rendered by the armed forces of our country, together with our tribute to the men and women of Canada who, in other ways, have done what they could toward the winning of the war.
Let me pass now to the next part of my hon. friend's remarks. I think I can answer him very briefly and very effectively. Most of his time was spent in criticism of the government's policies with respect first to one subject and then to another. I have a list of them before me, but they will be remembered by all who heard him. As my hon. friend spoke it seemed to me I heard very distinct echoes of what he and members of his party had been saying, ad nauseam, months before the general election; and before, the people, who after all are the masters of parliament, had an opportunity to express their views. The people have pronounced on these matters and I am prepared to accept their verdict.
My hon. friend spoke about controls. He said the people had made it perfectly clear that they did not want, I think he said, anything in the way of, first, national socialism. That was directed, I imagine, toward my hon. friends of the C.C.F. party.


Major James William Coldwell: I don't know why.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The next shot evidently was intended for the government. He spoke of bureaucratic control and of other things which he thought were not wanted by the people. May I say to my hon. friend that of things not wanted there is one thing that I think the Canadian people made very clear.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
It is, that they do not want the Tory party -and that, by whatever name it may wish to call itself.
My hon. friend also waxed eloquent upon what members of the armed forces feel about the administration. Before the general elections, we heard him and members of his party say a great deal about what the armed forces thought of the government, and on the other hand what they believe the armed forces thought of the party of which he is the head. Well, I suggest that the figures in the returns which came in after the election must have occasioned a good deal of a surprise to the leader of the opposition. When my hon. friend criticizes the government's actions in respect of what it has sought to do to safeguard and further the interests of members of the armed forces, may I remind him of something which is a source of profound pride to me, namely, that in the general election the vote of the armed forces of Canada was, in largest numbers, in support of the present administration. Moreover, before he repeats what he said this afternoon, I suggest he ought not to forget that his own party received the smallest proportion of that vote.
My hon. friend next spoke about the government's housing policy. He called it "a flop"-"too little and too late". I wonder if he realized that it is less than three months since the people pronounced on the government's policies. During the time of the election much was said about the government's housing policy, about the inadequacy of demobilization, and many other matters. But the people of Canada did not take the narrow partisan view my hon. friend has been expressing to-day. They took the intelligent, wise and, may I say, liberal view as to how situations of the kind should be viewed, namely in the light of all with which the government has had to contend.
I wonder if the new leader of the opposition realizes what these years of war-six years- have placed by way of burden and obligation upon the government. Yes, six years of war; and I am wondering if his criticism has been fair in the light of that fact and all that it signifies. I am not asking to be free of criticism, or to have this party free of it, but I do say that it is due, perhaps not to me or to the government, but due to the country that those who criticize the administration should, at all times, remember the nature of the government's obligations over those six years.
Let me go a step further. Does my hon. friend realize that it is not yet a fortnight since the end of the war? Even yet surrenders
are only just being made in some parts of the orient. To come forward with an amendment which says that the government:-
. . . failed to demobilize our armed forces on a fair basis and, in particular, have failed to prevent serious disadvantage to overseas service personnel;
(b)	failed to provide a speedy and effective plan of reconversion from war to peace, and failed in particular to join in partnership with labour and industry in devising a workable scheme to provide jobs, with fair wages, for discharged service personnel and war workers;
(c)	failed to take adequate and timely action to meet the ever-mounting housing crisis . . .
I say that to come forward with that amendment within a few hours after the cessation of war does not commend itself, in my judgment, as being in the nature of disinterested or constructive cricticism.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: We did not think it
would.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is rather in the nature of impetuous partisan criticism. I suggest it was hardly a good way for my hon. friend to begin, in his first address to the House of Commons.
I trust, when the amendment comes before the house for decision, hon. members will see that it. gets just what it should get by way of support. I expect the friends of my hon. friend will join with him in supporting it. I should hope, however, that other hon. members will realize that, in a moment of transition from war to peace, no government on earth can begin to hope to satisfy everyone. We are prepared to be shown wherein mistakes have been made; but I would ask that, when hon. members criticize, they deal fairly with facts, at least for this particular session.
The problems now facing our country are in some respects going to be even more difficult of solution than were the great problems connected with the winning of the war. During war time a wealth of patriotism, for which we canndt be too thankful, exhibited itself. But now that the war is over, and the world is labouring in a great sea of unrest, following the storm through which it has passed, it is to be expected that many questions will be very difficult of solution. May I say that those who lend their voices to unnecessary and unjustified agitations may help to create situations which will be much more difficult, to meet than they may have reason to expect. I speak with some knowledge of the problems remaining to be solved, realizing that we are only at the beginning of their solution. For that reason I would hope that hon. members will keep in mind the world situation as it is to-day.
Since V-E day. 120,500 armed services personnel have already been brought back

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
from overseas. I should have expected my hon. friend to mention a fact of that kind, to have commented upon it, to have wished the government well in its continued efforts. Had he done that, I believe the view the country would have taken of his first utterance would have been that at last we have in the leader of the opposition one who means what he says when he declares he intends to be constructively helpful to>
the administration. But, after his criticism of to-day, I doubt very much if that will be the view entertained.
In one respect I am going to follow an example set by my hon. friend to-day. His speech was brief, and I intend to make mine briefer still. I do that because I believe I have said in a word all that in answer to criticism it is necessary to say to-day, when I stated that the people themselves had very recently pronounced upon the government's action. And may I add that the electorate made its pronouncement after having at an earlier stage of the war also returned this administration to power. So far as I know there has not been anywhere else an administration which has contested two general elections during a war and which with a period of five years intervening has on both occasions been returned to power by the people. I prefer to let the people's verdict speak for itself rather than in any way to attempt to enlarge upon it.
My hon. friend has referred to taxation. Because he has been at the head of a government himself, I feel I ought to say something which he knows only too well. It is that taxation is dealt with not in the speech from the throne but in the budget. In order that my hon. friend and his party might not fall into the particular trap into which they have fallen to-day a clause was inserted in the speech from the throne which draws attention to that very fact.
I was surprised at the opinion which the leader of the opposition seemed to entertain of the intelligence of the members of the Commons when he began to tell them of the differences in amounts of expenditures and taxation between the last year preceding the war and the present time, between the last year of peace and what took place after six years of war. I could hardly believe that my hon. friend was speaking seriously, or that he had remembered that he had come into the House of Commons after leaving the provincial field where perhaps others would not be less critical of him, especially when he was at the head of a coalition government. But to-day he is speaking to members of many parties and from all parts of I Mr. Mackenzie King.]
Canada. When he says that before the war so many millions were paid out and that, last year, so many billions were paid out; that present outlays are ten times the prewar figure, I think I should say to him that he might well be thankful outlays are not a hundred times the pre-war figure. Instead of the administration having been extravagant, as he has implied, having regard to the magnitude of Canada's contribution I claim it has been exceedingly careful in its expenditures over the war period.
What about other countries? What will my hon. friend1 have to say with regard to the expenditures of other nations? What about the expenditures of the United States? What about the expenditures of the United Kingdom and of other nations involved in war? There have been vast expenditures everywhere. But I ask my hon. friend: what has been the result of these expenditures? What has been the effect of what this government has done with the public money of this country? It has been to make Canada's contribution to the war a contribution which has made Canada great in the eyes of the entire world. I say that the price which has been paid is a small price when one realizes that to-day we are enjoying liberty and freedom. I think we can honestly say that if the contribution which Canada has made-I am speaking of the people of Canada, the armed forces of Canada, not of the government-had not been made, if the sacrifices and services had not been given, it is exceedingly doubtful if to-day we would be rejoicing in the magnitude of the victory which the allied nations have won both in Europe and in Asia.
I shall leave to a more appropriate time any discussion of the dominion-provincial conference. That was another subject my hon. friend mentioned. I am happy to say that I believe a very promising start was made this year at the dominion-provincial conference. I do not think too much can be done on the part of provincial legislatures and by the dominion government to see that the excellent beginning which has been made is followed up in the spirit which was shown at that time in the endeavour to get together and to cooperate in solving these very difficult dominion-provincial questions.
My hon. friend said he noticed that in proposals placed before the conference the government policy made no reference to exports. That was surely an oversight on his part. I would direct the attention of my hon. friend to what is set forth on the very first page of the government proposals of Canada. There he will find it stated:

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
Opportunities for useful work and markets for agriculture and other primary industries are dependent upon remunerative outlets for the goods and services that are produced. At the height of the war effort almost onedialf of the Canadian people obtained their incomes from the expenditures of the federal government. As war time government disbursements decline, opportunities and remunerative outlets must be found in the expansion of expenditures directly made by all the^ individuals and enterprises of the country for civilian needs and civilian purposes. The increased expenditures that replace war time outlays will have their source in the sales made into the export market, in a rising level of consumption, in private investment for the expansion of productive facilities, and in public investment for improving the productiveness of our natural resources and the construction of useful public works.
And a little further down:
First of all, the government will continue to press actively for wide collaboration among countries for the reduction and removal of world trade barriers. Even if this purpose is accomplished it will not meet all the problems with which we shall be confronted. In the immediate future and for some time after final victory in the Pacific indispensable customers, particularly the United Kingdom and countries on the continent of Europe, will not be able to make full cash payment for goods they will wish to buy from us. In order to alleviate the sufferings of liberated peoples, to help in the rehabilitation of devastated economies, and to establish the flow of peace time trade upon which we are dependent, Canada should be prepared in cooperation with other countries to grant further assistance and loans. Also, Canadian participation in the international monetary agreements are likely to involve extensions of credit. These are national responsibilities which the federal government must necessarily assume. By doing so we shall fulfil our international obligations and at the same time ensure adequate and continued opportunities for employment at home. It- is essential that the federal treasury be in a position to carry these burdens.
If I wished to I could give other quotations from the same source. I might also touch uponi other matters to which my hon. friend has referred, but I intend to keep the promise I have made to be brief. I shall therefore bring my remarks to an immediate close expressing the hope that hon. members of the house will profit by the example of brevity set by the leader of the opposition and myself and hasten the conclusion of the debate that we may get down to the business of the session just as soon as possible.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I shall be following the example of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) this afternoon. I do not wish to speak at any great length, but their speeches have been so com-mendably short that I doubt very much whether I shall be able to equal the record they have established.
May I first of all on behalf of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party congratulate the mover (Mr. Benidiekson) and the seconder (Mr. Langlois) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I think it was fitting that two young men who have served this country during the war should have been selected for that honour. They performed their duty well, and may I say that it is no easy task but rather something of an ordeal to make a maiden speech in this house.
We join, too, with hon. members generally in expressing our thankfulness that since the last parliament wTas dissolved the war has been brought to a victorious conclusion. To those who have suffered bereavement, and to the men and women whose services have resulted in loss of life or impairment of limb, we express our grateful thanks, and to all who in many ways have served our common cause we wish to express our heartfelt appreciation.
But now the time has come for this nation to translate its sympathy, its gratitude, its thanks and its appreciation into concrete plans for the building of the bright new w'orld which was promised during the war and which figured so largely in all pre-election speeches. The election of June 11 restored the Liberal party to power. It resulted; too, in some increase in the official opposition and quite a large increase, both in the popular vote and in membership in this house, of the party for which I have the honour to speak this afternoon. We more than doubled our popular vote in the country; and instead of electing only eight members, as we did in 1940, we elected twenty-eight. We were particularly pleased that the men and women who fought victoriously against fascism and nazism overseas gave our candidates a majority of their votes cast in the overseas regions over any other party. May I say that I think this was a fitting rebuke to those well-financed propagandists who did their best to vilify us and, by inference, those who share our views throughout the British commonwealth and the democratic world.
I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) this afternoon was incorrect when he stated that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) referred to "national" socialism. I think he left the word "national" out and he spoke of the people of Canada not wishing socialism and, as he put it, regimentation. Well, Mr. Speaker, all I can say is this, that throughout' the British commonwealth of nations, a group of nations which have always stood for the ultimate in democracy, to-day there are labour and socialist governments in Australia, New Zealand, and now lately in Great Britain, whereas in the same commonwealth only one government remains in power
The Address-Mr. Coldwell

which dares to admit that it is Conservative, and that government can be found in the province of Ontario.
During the election campaign we placed our ideas and proposals squarely before the people. They differed fundamentally from those of all other parties seeking the support of the country, and we are certain that time will demonstrate that our programme and policies are sound, offering the intelligent solution to the many grave problems which confront this country and, indeed, the world, problems which will have to be faced by all of us in the not far distant future.
I want to remind the government this afternoon that they have made specific and well understood promises regarding full employment, homes and social security. We do not believe that those promises can be realized without public enterprise and public national planning, and the nation will not forget those promises, even if the poster's have disappeared from the billboards. On those billboards, let us remember, one word stood out above all others. You remember it? The word was j-o-b-s-jobs. But the government and all other parties except the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation proclaimed the view that capitalist free enterprise can and will provide the jobs. Well, it did not do so before the war, when hundreds of thousands of Canadians werp unemployed and on relief. Then our hon. friend the new leader of the opposition was in power in Manitoba and his present friends were in power in Canada, to be followed by the right hon. gentleman who is again Prime Minister of Canada, under both of whom many thousands continued to be unemployed for months, even after the war began. Can the system they both support do any better now? I do not, think so, nor indeed does the world generally. As I said a few moments ago, in our British commonwealth of nations only one admittedly Conservative government remains in power; that is in Ontario. The democratic movement that we represent in this house is one which worldwide reaction cannot stop. Reactionaries may, in some countries remote from the physical effects of war, continue their exploitation and their economic power for a time, but the handwriting is on the wall, and the day will come, and come soon, when it will be said of them that they have been "weighed in the balance and found wanting."	[DOT]
"Jobs and adequate incomes for all"-that was the government's pledge to the people. We will help them to fulfil that pledge in every way we can; yes, and we will continue day by day and week by week to demand that they do fulfil it. To achieve it, new jobs

must be found for more than 2,000.000 people more than were employed in war-time civilian production.
I am not saying that a semblance of prosperity may not develop during the period when world reconstruction is in progress and the pent-up buying power and demand accumulated during the war are again factors in our domestic economy. But I believe that this will be followed by a slump which only large-scale public investment, and expenditure under public ownership and control, carried out in conjunction with comprehensive national economic planning, will be able to mitigate.
Meantime, as tihe Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition both pointed out and admitted this afternoon, we are facing immediate problems resulting from the sudden cessation of hostilities and, I believe, the unpreparedness of the government to meet them.
The Canadian people have been led to believe 'that the Liberal party promised full employment and well-paid jobs under decent conditions of work, and in addition, all the benefits of collective bargaining, a voice in the management of industry, plus the prospect of gradually increasing wages and gradually decreasing hours of work.
What, is the present situation? True, in spite of the deepening unemployment and serious housing shortage, the gracious speech adopts a tone of official satisfaction. It says:
. . . Canada was prepared to meet the very difficult situations which would arise when victory had been won.
Referring specifically to housing, it speaks with satisfaction of "plans already in operation."
There is, then, smug satisfaction with obviously wholly inadequate policies and, second, no indication that further action is planned. This surely adds up to peace-time unpreparedness.
Let us consider the employment situation. If families could be fed, clothed, housed and kept together by the official assurances of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) there would be no employment problem to-day. The latest of these reassurances which I have seen states that there were 124,000 jobs to be filled and only 53,000 persons looking to fill them; so then, no unemployment problem!
But what are these jobs? Many are seasonal jobs when packing, harvesting, processing demands are exceptionally heavy. But there are physical difficulties for the worker in taking such seasonal jobs. He has to get to the place where he is wanted whereas war workers are concentrated in the areas where

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
they now live. If he accepts, it may mean, without government help, the uprooting and breaking up of both the home and the family. This will bring about grave social as well as economic problems.
Again, the types of work being offered often fail to fit the labour available. Unskilled factory workers cannot do skilled construction work. Sedentary workers and women cannot fill the demand for heavy labour.
Last and most important is the difference in pay between war work and the work now being offered. The main lay-offs have been in shipyards, where the average weekly wage was $40.48; aircraft, weekly wage, $37.50; chemicals, weekly wage, $34.37; automotive industry, weekly wage, $40.10. But the main permanent jobs being offered now are in textiles, weekly wage, $23.90 including overtime; hosiery and knit goods, weekly wage, $21.34; retail trades, weekly wage, $24.55; and so-called service industries, weekly wage, $19.61.
These figures are from the dominion bureau of statistics report on the employment situation for June, 1945; thus they may be taken a;. reliable.
Workers then can draw scant comfort from statements that there are more jobs available than persons to fill them. Families whose incomes have dropped by one-third and even by one-half cannot buy shelter and food at to-day's prices, and so we demand of the government that it make good its promises; and pending the adoption of a more comprehensive plan than we see placed before the country or foreshadowed in the house, we suggest the following:
First, that there be a lay-off or severance pay to provide $25 a week for all displaced workers until they are reemployed.
Second, that discharged veterans be paid full pay and allowances until reinstatement in civilian life, with the same minimum of $25 a week-and I shall deal with that more fully in a minute.
Third, that to maintain the purchasing power of Canadian farmers, floor prices for agriculture be extended and continued.
Fourth, that we have legislation to protect workers' and farmers' equities in their homes and to prevent evictions and foreclosures. I think that is most important because many war workers, owing to the housing situation, had to buy houses and make a down payment, and they did so thinking that their wages wTould enable them to continue their monthly, quarterly or yearly payments. Today they find themselves out of work and are in danger of losing these homes unless adequate protection is given them.
Fifth, that immediate action be taken to raise wages in industries frozen at substandard levels.
Sixth, an extensive public low-rental housing programme which, will provide -both large-scale employment and urgently needed homes. The present policy of reliance on private enterprise will produce neither jobs n>or homes in adequate numbers.
Other public projects which the government should undertake should be the construction of schools, hospitals, roads, rural electrification, irrigation 'and the like, and the reconversion of government-owned war plants under public ownership to open up new opportunities of employment.
This country requires a really planned programme of reconversion. At present the disposal of Canada's one biLlion dollar's worth of capital assets is on a completely unplanned basis. The white paper tabled last session was not a plan but merely a statement of objectives and not of methods. Any plan should provide for the welfare of workers affected by cutbacks and the cancellation of war orders and for the public and cooperative operation of valuable plants to meet peace-time needs. Instead of this, ministers simply repeat that there are plenty of jobs, which is cold comfort for those who, for various reasons, cannot find suitable work at wages sufficient to meet the obligations they have undertaken.	_
But equal to this failure to plan for suitable employment for war workers and returned veterans is the failure to make effective plans for housing. On this point the speech reveals no new plans for the- future. On the contrary, it expresses satisfaction with the present plans, stating that the "plans already in operation provide- for the expansion of home construction to keep pace with the increases in the output of building material."
The housing need, we are told, is five hundred thousand new homes-new homes now-and then building for a period of years at the rate of fifty thousand more each year. These are minimum figures. Now what has the government done to date? True, we have passed several acts of parliament, but acts of parliament will not provide houses. We expected that limited dividend corporations would be formed under the provisions of the National Housing Act, but so far, as far as I can learn, none have been organized. Wartime Housing, I believe, is building ten thousand inadequate houses, and the veterans' land administration only three thousand houses. Besides this, theTe has been a policy of going cap in hand to the insurance companies offering them a government-guaranteed return and permitting a de-
The Address-Mr. Coldwell

lay of more than a year since the passing of the National Housing Act in setting up a single limited dividend corporation. The result is that no home will be completed by a limited dividend corporation for weeks, and when the homes are completed1 they will not have been built in accordance with community needs but on the basis of private profit.
There is no reason to believe that the insurance companies will build low-rental houses, and those are the houses we need-housing available to the masses of the people who need it. Under the National Housing, Act, insurance companies can obtain government loans to build houses costing $5,000, and these will be available only to those who can pay a rental of, say, $50 a month, or the upper fifteen per cent in the income tax brackets. These houses being built under the National Housing Act, as distinct from the limited dividend corporation,, are not within the reach of most people who need them. Today a modern five-roomed house will cost about $6,000, and that is low. I understand that the loan may be $5,400, but this means that the buyer must find and pay down as a cash payment $1,100 and assume a mortgage of $4,300.
Including taxes this would involve a monthly payment of at least $35. We are told authoritatively that, shelter should not exceed one-fifth of the income after taxes, so that such a contract should not be undertaken by any person whose income is less than $2,100 a year after taxes. Not one out of five of those who pay income taxes can afford this type of housing accommodation on that basis. The government has apparently set its face against public housing enterprises, refusing to allow municipalities to come under the act, as I we urged last year, thus refusing to profit by the experience both of Great Britain and of New Zealand.
I am told that out of hundreds of veterans who have considered building under the National Housing, Act only seventy have attempted it. The rest found that they could not meet the down payments and the monthly obligations; yet the nation cries aloud for decent, homes, and veterans are returning to find their families and themselves without shelter.
In view of this situation I am going to move an amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnmis): That all the words of the amendment after the word that be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
We respectively submit, however, that in the opinion of this house Your Excellency's advisers have failed_ to propose the fundamental social and economic changes which alone can meet the pressing needs of the peace-time era upon which IMr. Coldwell.J
we have entered, and we urge that immediate steps be taken to assure full employment, adequate purchasing power, and a large-scale building programme that will provide urgently needed homes for the Canadian people.
The intimation that the various acts and orders in council relating to veterans' problems are to be consolidated into a veterans' charter is, I think, to be welcomed generally in this house. We should as soon as possible see, too, that all social security measures are consolidated into a similar comprehensive national charter. I wish to say now that the out-of-work benefits to unemployed war workers must be extended to veterans. The present provisions for returning men and women are inadequate. This is particularly apparent in the case of veterans who have decided to go on with their educational courses; $60 a month for a single person and $80 a month for a married man. That is not enough. A married man will have to pay rent for himself and family, more if he has a child or children, of at least $30 a month for unfurnished accommodation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are allowances for the children, too; my hon. friend knows that.


Major James William Coldwell: make more adequate provision for international credit. But before we are asked to give it final approval careful inquiry should be made into its proposals and its implications. This can scarcely be done in a debate in this house or in committee of the whole, since the opinions of expert advisers would not be available here. The agreement should be studied by the banking and commerce committee, and I am not only suggesting but asking that this should be done.
Current proposals for the rehabilitation of the world economy, the united nations' charter, with its emphasis on the maintenance of peace and the necessity for raising living standards throughout the world, reflect the desire of mankind to avoid war and to eliminate its causes. Since the united nations conference at San Francisco thoughtful people have realized that much of what we determined there became obsolete when the first atomic bomb fell on Hiroshima. If emphasis were needed, the reports of the obliteration of Nagasaki in to-day's papers would be quite sufficient. The atomic bomb marks the end of many things. The power locked up in the atom has been released. All depends now on how we use it. It can become, when applied to peaceful needs, the great emancipator of mankind; but certainly marks the end of any attempt to keep the peace by balance of power methods. The threat of sudden attack in secrecy rules out such means entirely. Big national armies and mighty national navies would seem to be powerless against even a small air force or robot planes equipped with atomic bombs. Henceforth there seems to be no sane alternative except some body of government at the international level to remove the economic and social causes of war and to bring a rule of law to the whole wide world.
I spoke of the peace-time possibilities of atomic power. They depend upon the success of scientific research. Canada has reason to be proud of the contribution made by her scientists, many of them young men, during this war; but are we going to retain their services for the development of the great potential wealth of the country now? I am told that some of our talented young scientists are being lost to our public service and to Canada because the government has no definite plans for the national research council and continues to pay salaries that by any yardstick, before the war, during the war and now, are disgracefully low. Once they are lost it will be difficult to bring them back to do the public service many of them wish to do.
The speech from the throne foreshadows the beautification of this national capital, already 
beautiful in many respects, and its surroundings as a suitable war memorial. That is a noble idea, particularly if it begins with the substitution of decent homes for the fire traps that one can look out upon from these very buildings. Slum clearance, however, should be undertaken not as a memorial to the heroic dead but as justice to the living. In spite of these strictures, I think Canada deserves a beautiful national capital city. In addition,
I should like to see here, and in each of our provincial capitals, a real centre of Canadian culture. We should have as part of our memorial a cultural centre to include a national theatre, a national library, a national [DOT] art gallery and in time, subsidized from public funds, a national opera company, a national dramatic company, a national symphony orchestra and perhaps even a national ballet. If each province undertook a similar project Canada, with its diverse peoples, might become not only the centre of North America culture but the centre of a distinctive Canadian culture, marking its nationhood by more than a new Canadian flag.
It is time Canada, as an independent partner in the British commonwealth of nations, and recognized as a leader among the middle powers, assumed her rightful place among the nations. This war has shown that we can do big things in a big way when we try. I do not want to minimize what this country has done; I do not want to detract from any credit the government should get for what this countiy has done during the war. The speech from the throne says that steps already have been taken to plan and develop the region around the city of Ottawa on both sides of the river. In this connection let me add a note of disappointment in that the government has seen fit to go abroad for architectural assistance. There are Canadian architects and landspace artists, talented in town planning, able to reflect the spirit of their country, who have been active in study groups and associations in Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Montreal and, indeed, in this city of Ottawa. But whatever may be done here in the way of beautification, Mr. Speaker, as a memorial to those who have suffered throughout this war, I hope and pray that Canada's living sons and daughters may yet make this-land itself a fitting memorial to those who died in what w7e believe to be a great and just cause.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, allow me first to offer you my sincere congratulations upon your election to the highest office it is within the competence of this house to bestow upon one of its members. Let me assure you, sir, of my earnest desire to make the onerous duties that go

The Address-Mr. Low
with your high office as much lighter as careful observance of the rules of order and considerate, forthright conduct will make them. I do hope that when you have served your term as Speaker of the House of Commons you will have accumulated a rich aggregate of pleasant memories and personal friendships. The start you have made assures me that you will serve with impartiality and distinction.
I wish also to congratulate the mover and seconder of the resolution now before us upon what I consider to be two able addresses. I listened with real interest to what they had to say, moved at times by the lofty sentiments they expressed and fully appreciating the smooth, easy and clear delivery of their messages. Almost they persuaded me to be a Liberal. Both hon. members demonstrated ably that the young men of this day are well prepared to make a valuable contribution to the enrichment of our national life. Of course one would not expect these young men to parade before the house the weaknesses of the government they were elected to support. That is expected from those on this side of the house, and doubtless hon. members here will take full advantage of their opportunities.
However, I should like to make it clear, in this my first real address in parliament, that in anything I shall say now or in the future by way of criticism I shall try to be eminently fair. I do not indulge in carping criticism, nor do I hurl poisoned personal harpoons. But that does not mean to say that I shall not be outspoken when I see in the government's actions, trends which in my humble judgment may militate against the welfare of the Canadian people. I do not believe in crying "peace" where there is no peace.
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to come into the House of Commons representing the people of the constituency of Peace River, which is at once one of the largest ridings in Canada and the last great frontier in the dominion. The immense possibilities of that great inland empire are just beginning to dawn upon the Canadian people. The richness of its fertile farm lands is unsurpassed in all America, a fact attested by the records of crop yields and superior quality grains that have captured scores of top honours at the leading shows and exhibitions of the world. We all remember with pride and thanksgiving the successes of Herman Trelle and the outstanding contribution to Canadian agriculture made by him on his farms at
Wembley. We now mourn his untimely passing as the result of a most regrettable accident in California just recently. My friend Trelle and the soil and climate of the country of the mighty Peace, made a combination that has lifted Canadian prestige to a high level in the agricultural world.
Nature endowed the Peace River country not only with unsurpassed soil, sunshine and rainfall resources, but also abundant timber, fur-bearing animals and, doubtless, minerals of many varieties. But her greatest pride is her people. True pioneers with a vision of empire in their souls settled the country, as a result of the policy of the federal government in the days when Ottawa alone controlled the natural resources of the prairie provinces. They carved out homes and farms, towns and villages, through application of sheer determination and stubborn courage. And in spite of their hardships, their isolation, and the fact that their country and their pressing needs have been consistently ignored by the federal government, which alone must bear the responsibility for their settlement in the north country, the people of Peace River have maintained the true spirit and hospitality and friendliness of the pioneers; their cabin doors are never locked.
I said their country and its development have been consistently ignored down the years by Ottawa. The present Liberal government has since 1935 done nothing to remove the heavy transportation handicaps they have suffered since the first settlement in that section. Their most urgent need now is a rail outlet to the west, perhaps through Pine Pass, to link up with Prince George, British Columbia. Such a rail link would obviate the necessity of the long back-haul of three hundred miles to Edmonton.
Almost as urgent is a new and equitable schedule of freight rates; for in common with other parts of Alberta, the Peace River has been placed at the very peak of a most unfair and discriminating freight rate structure that throttles its development. Added to the natural disadvantage of its geographical position, a series of discriminating practices have grown up in the Canadian railway^ystem which have the effect of favouring both central Canada and the coast province of British Columbia at the expense of the Peace River and Alberta generally. To these two gTave problems, the sympathetic support of the government can bring satisfactory solution.
The Peace River cannot fulfil her destiny as a producer of an abundance of mueh^needed foodstuffs for the early alleviation of short world supply unless these needs, among others, are met. For the proper development of this
The Address-Mr. Low

last great frontier where perhaps fifty thousand more people could settle in comfort and security, the rail outlet to the western seaboard and the revised freight structure are absolutely essential. Time will not permit me to enlarge on these matters now, but I have pledged myself to work unceasingly for them, and I am prepared to raise my voice on every possible occasion and to haunt the offices of those who have it in their power to do something about them, until the needs of my peeople are satisfied.
I wish here to thank the government for finally undertaking, jointly with the province of Alberta, to build the Grimshaw-Notikewin-Hay River road. This will play a big part in the development of the north as well as in making available to the rest of Canada the vast mineral wealth of the nothern territories. But the government need not have waited until they were facing an election to announce their participation in the project. Their sincerity would have been infinitely more impressive had they consented to join with Alberta on any one of the many occasions during the past eight years when that province attempted to interest Ottawa in undertaking to build the road.
I wish to identify myself with the expression of thanksgiving in the 'throne speech that tragic war has ceased and that final victory has come to 'the united nations. Surely it must be evident from the many miraculous events of the past six years that Almighty God has sustained our efforts, and that without His divine intervention civilization anight have completely destroyed itself. It is no mere scientific accident in my opinion that the secret of the atomic bomb was discovered first by the Anglo-American people.
Mr. Speaker, my thanks go out also to the people of Canada whose magnificent war effort has aroused the admiration of the world. To the fighting men in all branches of the service, we oiwe a debt which I sincerely trust we shall acknowledge and pay, by adequate provision for their future happiness and security, no matter wha't that might cost us. My sincere sympathies go out to all those bereaved families whose sfcs, husbands, brothers or fathers will not return. So not to break faith with them who gave their lives that we might be free to choose our way of living, let us pledge ourselves not only to do our utmost to prevent, a recurrence of tragic war, but also, what is more important and pressing, to gelt at and root out of our national life those things which are the real causes of war.
We whipped Germany completely in a military way. In fighting her we were fighting totalitarianism, which is centralization of power 
maintained by force. But 'though the combined military might of the united nations did vanquish Germany, yet there is Still grave danger that nazism-what, we fought Germany for-may win. For while we have been busy fighting centralization of power 'maintained by force abroad, more than a vestige of the evil has crept in at our back door here at home. Its cunning subversive propaganda has found ready response in the hearts of many unsuspecting Canadians, among whom I fear we must class the Liberal government. I do not believe it has been through malevolence on their part, nor do I like to think it is through stupidity, but the fact remains that the government has been drifting into totalitarian centralization, and we now even hear much about- maintaining it "by force."
Considerable space is given in the throne speech to what the government has done. Claims are made there to great .progress for Canada during the war years under the leadership of the Liberal government. But splendid as Canada's war effort has been, in many ways the general situation in Canada and in the world is infinitely worse than it was in 1939.
I find widespread among the people of Canada to-day a feeling that centralization within our country as well as on a world scale is inevitable. This "inevitability" psychology has resulted from the persistent and subtle propaganda of the enemies of true democracy over the years. It planted its roots deep in the frustration of the hungry thirties and it has fed on the bitterness engendered among Canadians by that sense of futility. It has made such great inroads among our people during the war years that I feel we face a dangerous situation as a result of it. What has this Liberal party and its government done about it? It has fought valiantly against the spreading fire by throwing gasoline on the flames. It has blundered into the position actually of a tool in the hands of the enemies of democracy by adopting a policy of centralization of power, and by its actions of helping to establish firmly among Canadians the feeling of the inevitability of centralization. Social Crediters in and out of the house have repeatedly warned the government about its dangerous drift.
In the first place the Liberal government itself was a victim of the psychology of futility during the period of 1935-39. This the Prime Minister admitted in his answers to the thirty-three questions in Maclean's magazine last spring. When the war broke out they began seriously to flirt with the centralization idea as a result of which they called the dominion-provincial conference in January, 1941, to consider the Rowell-Sirois

The Address-Mr. Low
report. When that conference failed, under the stress of wartime needs this government began a surreptitious attack on the provinces to force transfer of taxation powers from the provinces to the dominion. They called the attack "taxation transfer agreements", but actually the provinces were put into the position of having to accept the dominion's proposal, "or else". Many of us said at that time that we would bet our shirts there would be a serious effort made by Ottawa to render the so-called temporary arrangement- a permanent one, for we recognized the centralization policy which the government was following. It was only too obvious that though the Prime Minister had given much evidence of favouring fundamental reform of the financial system he was not able to get into office a Minister of Finance to support him in his desires-. Rather, each finance minister in his turn preferred to juggle taxation fields, as if that could possibly by itself make available more money with which the various governments could run their business. Surely it must have been obvious all these years that it is the same people who are taxed, whether by province or dominion alone or by both in their own spheres, and it must also have been obvious that there is a limit beyond which we cannot go in heaping tax burdens upon our people. However, in spite of all that has been said about it, we now behold another attempt by this government to arrogate to the dominion, taxation authorities which belong by right to the provinces. This is another step toward centralization, of power, which if carried into effect, will topple and destroy the last remaining columns of true democracy. No wonder many people think centralization inevitable.
I need only mention such things as selective service, compulsory unemployment insurance, compulsory health insurance schemes, Dumbarton Oaks and Bretton Woods, to further impress upon the people of, Canada additional evidences of the trend of this government's mental drift. And I say with all the gravity at miy command that centralization is not inevitable. Centralization is the very antithesis of true democracy. There are better ways of solving our problems, ways that will preserve the individual freedom of Canadians. I come of English stock on my mother's side and of stubborn Scottish in my father's line. One of my direct ancestors was among those who dipped quills and- signed1 with their own blood a document resisting the centralizing encroachments of King Charles I. Perhaps that explains why I am a reformer. And now every drop of the blood of my ancestors cries out in me to resist to the utmost extent of my strength
the Liberal government's policy of centralization of powers. I call upon all Canadians who are determined to preserve and apply in Canada, the principles of Christian democracy to contend against this dangerous policy of totalitarian centralization and to root it out of our national life forever.
Mr. Speaker, if it is your pleasure that we should now call it six o'clock perhaps you might follow the example in reverse of Joshua.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. LOW:: Mr. Speaker, when the recess was called I was dealing with the problem of centralization. I should like now to turn for just a few moments to another important matter which is closely allied with centralization and which is of grave concern to the people of this land; I refer to the matter of taxation. My search in the throne speech failed to disclose any intention of the government to set about a reduction of the tremendous tax burden under which Canadians have been staggering these past years.
Many of us had hopes that, with the cessation of hostilities and with the consequent relaxation of serious war necessities, we might expect at least a start this session in the scaling down of taxation. Our hopes were somewhat encouraged by reports from Australia of a 12J per cent reduction in personal income taxes and in a lowering of sales tax over quite a- wide range of materials. It seems evident now, however, that we cannot expect a similar move by this government, at least at an early date. I am not unmindful at all of the substantial commitments already made by the present administration to meet postwar needs. With many of these commitments I find myself in substantial agreement. But here again I fear that the government have become confirmed victims of an inevitability complex, as if there were no better and other ways of meeting their commitments than by continuing to heap intolerable burdens of taxation upon the people.
If one takes the trouble to study the history of taxation in this country as well as in all other countries operating under the same vicious system of debt financing, he will find that the tax burdens have increased consistently decade after decade, through good times ,and bad, and through peace times as well as war times. I would not be so much concerned
The Address-Mr. Low

about the matter of increasing rates and varieties of itaxation if I did not know that an ever-increasing percentage of the national income is being taken by governments to carry on their business, and particularly to pay the growing tribute to the merchants of debt in the form of interest on our growing obligations.
I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that the only true way of ascertaining the burden of taxation is to measure it as a percentage of the national income. An examination of the figures for the years 1923, 1939 and 1944 will yield a good deal of food for thought. I chose 1923 because it is the earliest year for which figures representing the national income of Canada appear to be available. The year 1939 was chosen, of course, because it is the last pre-war year, and, of course, 1944 as the last fiscal year.
In 1923 the national income was, in round figures, $4,200,000,000, The tax revenues to the federal government for the same year were, in round figures, $154,020,000. Those taxes represented for that year 3-7/10th per cent of the national income. In 1939 what was the picture? The total national income was, in round figures, $4,553,6Q2,000; the tax revenues were $436,000,000, and those figures represented 9-8/10ths per cent of the national income. In 1944, admittedly a war year, and a very heavy war year, the national income was estimated at approximately $9,000 millions; the total tax revenues were $2,283,000,000. Those taxes last year represented 25-3/10ths per cent of the national income. These tables show in twenty-one years an increase in the tax burden from 3-7/10ths per cent of the national income to 25-3/10ths per cent of the national income.
These figures, too, represent only what the federal government is exacting by way of tax toll. When we add to the schedules the aggregate of provincial and municipal taxes, the percentage of the national income taxed from the people in 1944 approaches close to fifty per cent of the national income; that is, fifty cents out of every dollar of income of the Canadian people.
I wonder just where we are heading. The taxation burdens of our Canadian people are intensified tremendously by debt financing; and I suggest that every hon. member acquaint himself with the debt history of Canada. From 1867 onward the total of ail government debts in our country steadily mounted. For a number of years prior to the outbreak of world war II the aggregate of dominion, provincial and municipal debts increased each year by almost exactly the total amount of the interest on those debts, indicating the utter impassibility of paying even the interest on our obligations without resorting to taxation of confiscatory proportions. It is chiefly 
this ever-growing interest burden which causes the debt load, as measured in terms of a percentage of the national income, also to grow ever greater and more intolerable. Debt financing has failed.
In his last, report to the United States congress, President Truman announced that an overwhelming portion of allied obligations of $42,000 millions worth of American lendJlease would be cancelled. President Truman further said that to add forty-two billions to the already enormous financial obligations of the allies would disrupt political stability. These debts had to be cancelled because they represent the utter failure of the debit finance system. which if pushed to its logical conclusion would destroy the economic as well as the political stability of the whole world. That debt finance system is basically unsound. Unless and until we make a new approach to public financing in Canada, an approach which relegates debt financing to the limbo of past nightmares, the Canadian people can have little hope for tax relief, especially if we are to keep up the services to anything like the level required for social justice to our people.
I am convinced that there is a better way than debt financing. My experiences of the last twelve years have intensified that conviction. If that better way is applied to our country an immediate downward revision of taxation will be possible. My colleagues and I will continue our fight for the application of that new principle of finance, which is simple, scientific, and easy to administer; for we are convinced that taxation of the punitive intensity we now suffer not only in the end-resullt makes men submissive and tolerant to the nefarious doctrine of the centralization of power, both national and international, but also enslaves mankind.
I turn for just one moment, Mr. Speaker, to another matter which was raised in the speech from the throne and about which I should like to speak briefly. I wish to commend the expressed intention of the government to take over the full cost of olid age pensions and to abolish the means test. That is good so far as it goes, but it does not fill the need at all adequately. The Social Credit group in this house have always felt and do now feel that it will be necessary to lower the pensionable age to sixty years and to bring up the general pension to not less than $50 a month, and that. Mr. Speaker, without the means test.
The absolute necessity of a measure of this kind will become more apparent as the problem of unemployment develops to its full intensity under the discredited system of finance which this government persists in following. It may sound like a big undertaking to pay a pension

The Address-Mr. McMaster
of not less than $50 to every Canadian of sixty and over, but in the light of the colossal gifts which we made' to our enemies during the war, and to our friends in the same period- and in the giving, Mr. Speaker, made ourselves prosperous-the aggregate sum required to carry out the undertaking which we recommend in connection with old age pensions becomes quite commonplace. Some of my colleagues doubtless will deal with this subject more in detail when they take part in this debate. -
There are other matters arising out of the throne speech with which I should like to deal, but I shall follow the example, the good example by the way, of those who have preceded me in this debate and cut my remarks short. Just allow me to say in conclusion that I have faith in this great land of ours, a land which I believe to be choice, above all other lands. I have faith in Canada and I believe that she can take her rightful place in the world community of nations and cam in that world community of nations become a great power for good. I still have faith that Canadians will awaken to the needs of this most fateful hour in world history and apply the accumulated wisdom of the ages to avert the disaster of threatened victory of totalitarianism in the peace.
Some wise man has said:
Earth might be fair and all men glad and wise	.
Age after age their tragic empires rise
Built while they dream; and in their dreaming weep,
Would men but wake from out their haunted sleep
Earth might be fair, and all men glad and wise.
I look forward with faith to that day when Canadians will awake.


Mr. W. A. McMASTER (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, a great many people will be surprised that I should intervene at this early stage of the debate, but I can assure you that the most surprised person is myself. That would not have been the case if those who are better fitted and who perhaps should have had the honour of intervening so early had been available. It just so happens, however, that, they are not available and therefore I have been given this opportunity of addressing you. I do not think I could have addressed' this house were it not for the feeling of elation I have had during the few days that I have been attending these sessions. I am a new member and after meeting the other members of my own party, many members of the other parties, some members of the senate and some officials in. this building, I have
been so elated that I thought I could even make a speech to those assembled here tonight. Otherwise I might have assumed my ordinary attitude of indifference and indolence.
I must ask your indulgence; Mr. Speaker, because I have been a member for only a few days, having attended only two sittings, so that if I err in my manner of speaking or in anything I say while addressing hon. members, you will correct me. If you do I shall accept the correction with the best grace, hoping that as you learn the duties of your office from time to time I may take the easier course of learning mine by observing what you dio in the Chair rather than by any hard work of my own.
I listened to the Prime Minister asking the indulgence of members and I recalled that this same indulgence was asked for during many years of the war. I believe that in nearly every case it was granted by those who perhaps did not entirely agree with the right hon. gentleman's method of conducting the war. During the war, however, they were willing to subordinate their own ideas in order that the war might be carried to a successful conclusion. Now that the war is over he is again asking our indulgence. May I say this to him. If at an earlier period of the war he had accepted the help of those who were just as earnest and anxious as he was to win the war, and who could give as much as he or I could, and the help of those who, in the way of actual participation in the war could have given more, his burden would not have been so great; I probably would not be here to-night, and the country as a whole, as well as history, would perhaps have placed him in a higher niche that it will because he did not seek the assistance of those who were willing to help him in the past.
The hon. member who preceded me has spoken about the Peace River district and has used, with reference to that district, words which at the beginning of the century were often spoken about Canada as a whole. In other words, he has spoken of the great material wealth and the fine population of the Peace River district. In the old days when we spoke about Canada wre referred to the material wealth, the great resources, of this country, but we always emphasized more than anything else the fact that the people as a whole were the greatest asset of the dominion and that in the character of people they were, the future of Canada was wrapped up. I believe that is still so.
The Address-Mr. McMaster

As I listened to the hon. member speaking of the Peace River district he referred in glowing terms to that part of the country, and although I had not originally intended to do so, I decided that I would speak of my own riding of High Park. After all, High Park is a fine constituency and it has a fine aame. ''Peace River" are words we would like to hear in time of war, but High Park is a good name all the time.
I represent a constituency which is a very fair cross-section of the people, as representative as any that can be found in any city constituency. I -am sure that these people would not want me to deal unfairly with those engaged in other occupations. They would want me to give due consideration to those engaged in mining, lumbering, forestry work, fishing and all other activities which it is not possible to find in High Park. This I shall keep in mind and give my best assistance in -any legislation dealing with matters affecting other constituencies.
Something has been said by the Prime Minister about the vote of the soldiers overseas and a considerable amount of gratification was taken because of that vote. There may be certain reasons why the vote went as it did. I have interviewed people from overseas and have found that a great deal of confusion existed. For instance, in one case a soldier said that in his particular unit on the continent half voted C.C.F. and half voted Liberal. Those who were in favour of forcing everyone to go overseas voted C.C.F. and those who were not in favour of doing so voted Liberal. So that the people overseas were not particularly well informed about what the issues were at home. In fact, I have received word from men occupying the positions of heads of units of considerable size, as well as from men in the ranks, and they all are agreed that not sufficient information was given them to decide what was best for the country. There was -a certain amount of information given, however, by members of the party now in power, as I understand by one of those who have returned.
I am informed that shortly before the election of June 11, certain members of the personnel of the Canadian army were given special instructions on the operation of the Veterans' Land Act. Those instructions were sent out in a book which I hold in my hand, which is designated 50M-944, issued under the authority of T. A. Crerar, Minister of Mines and Resources. This book gives a rosy view of what returned men might expect when they
fMr. McMaster.]
get home. I should like to refer to page 5 which speaks about men coming home and going into their own business and being able to buy a house with a small holding surrounding it in the vicinity -of not only cities but smaller places. The government would buy these holdings, put up the money, and in time they would throw off 82,350. The original price is set at 86,000. It goes on to say:
These small holdings will provide a wide range of opportunities for the veteran and his family, according to their aptitude and preference, to augment outside earnings. It may be from poultry, fruit, flowers, garden truck, bees or a combination of two or more of them. Financial assistance will not be available to inexperienced veterans to undertake specialized operations on a commercial scale because of the risks^ to which they may be exposed, but by starting in a small way the veteran and his family can assist themselves materially in the production of wholesome foodstuffs and by experimentation decide which side-line best fits in with their particular tastes and needs. In some cases the veteran will gradually transform his holding to a point where he can safely engage in specialized production as a full-time occupation and relinquish his outside employment; in others the veteran will prefer to remain in his ordinary occupation and use his holding as a home but with room to follow some interesting hobby in a healthy atmosphere.
This booklet was passed- out shortly before the election. Hon. members can see -that a man would have great difficulty in deciding whether the Liberal party was offering more when he came home than another party that had been bombarding them with literature in the preceding years. Perhaps that is why in the minds of -the overseas veterans there were only two parties that were offering something material. I should say it is a strange thing that our party obtained as large a vote as it did from men who were ignorant of what our party's position- in- regard to them was and who were being bombarded with promises from the other two parties.
I wish to call attention to what I think is one glaring defect in this land settlement act. It will be noticed- that it applies only to certain people. It applies only to a man who has a business in a town or city and who is willing to live some distance away on this property which was originally to consist of two acres, but which in actual practice has been reduced to half an acre. If a veteran has an automobile or the means of getting around to find a property which answers certain specifications-a house and half an- acre of land-the government will buy it and in due time throw off $2,350, giving him an- interest rate of three and a half per cent in the meantime. I -believe the same thing applies to fishermen and men engaged in farming. My experience has been

The Address-Mr. McMaster
this: I have found men who do not want to engage in either of those occupations, and they cannot take advantage of this act.
How about the man who, whose wife while he was away by dint of saving and working herself earned enough money to buy a home, so that when the husband came back he would have a home ready to live in. It would not be paid for by any means, but there would be a considerable equity in it. That wife and veteran do not receive one iota from this land settlement act. They will have only the gratuity and the other money that is payahle under the Soldiers Rehabilitation Act. I think the first essential in any legislation of this kind is that it shall apply to all veterans. If any one man overseas is entitled to $2,350 and interest of three and a half per cent, then surely all the men overseas are entitled to it. I am afraid it will be found that the men who will take advantage of this are not the men who perhaps need it most, but men who can afford to live out in the country, men who have a car and can get into town to work; whereas the ordinary, hard-working, poor infantryman, or member of some branch of the service-and by the way they were told in the last war that they should have their heads read before they went into those services-will get little [DOT]or no benefit from this act. I would respectfully submit that this act should be so amended that every soldier overseas should *be able to take advantage of it, not from any consideration whether he is able to live near a city and get a job, but because by his work overseas he has earned it. If there is any difference between gifts to veterans I should say that the men who in the front line bore the heat and sweat of battle should be preferred rather than those who have the ability to take advantage of certain conditions that now apply. I would respectfully submit that the amendment moved by my leader to-day in regard to the treatment of veterans is justified by the manner in which this land act has been operated by the government to date.
The Prime Minister spoke of my leader as having rather rushed things by saying that demobilization had not been sufficiently gone on with and suggested that the cessation of hostilities was only a few days past, in fact only a few hours past. Yet in almost the next breath he stated that 120,500 men had been demobilized since V-E day. We all know that V-E day was, because of the action of the government, practically the end of hostilities. We all know that just before the last election a statemen* was made
to the press and to the people that only thirty thousand men would be used in the Pacific theatre of war with_ proportionate number of men from other services. Therefore, so far as the people of Canada and the members of the forces were concerned the major operation of the war was ended on V-E day. If that is the case then my leader was justified in finding fault with what the government has done, not so much in what they perhaps have said they are going to do, but rather in what they have actually done.
I come from a riding which has equalled any other in so far as enlistment of men and contribution to the war effort are concerned; and I hear complaints all the time. The men who feel they are entitled to come back are kept there, on the ground that they are needed, that they are key-men. That [DOT]can be said of any man. I suppose every man above the rank of private could be called a key-man. Even a private might have some qualireations that would enable them to keep him there against his desire. There is a great feeling of discontent on the part of these men over there and their families at-home. A great deal of criticism is made of the demobilization scheme so far as it affects the man overseas.	_
I listened to the answer that was given by the Minister of Defence (Mr. Abbott) to the question as to university students. At that time I did not know I was going to speak to-night. I did not have enough nerve, or ability to get up and ask about one phase of the question which I believe will be rectified now when I bring it to the attention of the minister. When it was stated that university men could be discharged in order to go to the university there was a rider attached to it that they must have the consent of the university to accept them. Remember it was about August 27-it might be a day or two before-that this order was promulgated. Yet most universities demand that all applications be in by September 1. I was interested in a couple of boys who were able to get into university this fall. One father told me that it was only by accident that his boy got in. I believe he was in that famous city of Hamilton, where he happened to see the commanding officer and some other official whose consent was necessary. Because of this fortunate circumstance his son was able to get into university, but he told me that his *boy had received some previous university training, and that if he had been given more time, instead of getting the boy in the first year he would have been able to get him in the second year.
The Address-Mr. McMaster

This is not a political question. It is important to the youth of our country; it vitally affects those who wish to go to university, those who will become our leading citizens, become members of parliament and occupy other leading positions. Something should be done to see that every boy in the forces who desires a university education is given an opportunity to acquire it. There is also the question of the boys overseas who have had perhaps one year or two years in university. I happened to come in contact with one father while looking for another boy. I found that his son, who had a year or two in university, was still overseas. When I spoke to him about seeing what could be done in regard to getting the boy home he gave me this answer, which I think is important and probably represents the opinions of many others. He said, "My boy does not want any preferred treatment; he does not want to come back before his turn." That may be true. I do not know whether university education is more important to one of these boys than a job *may be to someone else, but certainly I 'believe these boys should receive every consideration, and that boys desiring other special instruction in other walks of life should receive similar consideration. I have been told, and I believe it to be true, that there is in' operation overseas what is called a khaki college, but -how can such a college provide all the courses that will be required? One boy may desire to complete a course in political science; he may have been in his second year when he entered the service. I do not see how that boy could complete his course except by going to some institution other than the khaki college, which with all due respect, I do not think can operate with one hundred per cent efficiency, and which I am told covers only a course of the first year or two at college.
Then I do not understand why a boy should not be -allowed to go on and complete ms secondary school education. He has to be eighteen before he can enter the army, or seventeen if he enters with the consent of his parents. Surely secondary school education is essential in connection with a great many occupations and professions, and these boys are entitled to it. In Ontario the law demands that a boy go to school until he is sixteen, whether or not he is learning anything and whether or not be desires any further education. Surely when this matter is called to the attention of the government, as I am bringing it to their attention now, they I Mr. McMaster.]
will make a special effort to see that the boys-who require secondary school education are given an opportunity to acquire it.
During the course of his remarks the Prime Minister said he believed in short speeches. I believe in them also, for a very personal reason, because I could not make a long speech if I tried. So I will follow his advice in at least one respect, but I should like to mention one other matter about which I feel quite strongly, for reasons I need not go into to-night; that is, the work of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). Something occurred in these parliament buildings to-day -about which I am not particularly proud. I need not say more about that, except to say that I believe it was a direct result of the sort of thing I am now going to mention. Sometimes I go to picture shows. My wife likes to go, and so do I. Sometimes I see something instructive relating to current events. The only way I ever saw the late President Roosevelt was on the screen, and occasionally I have seen other celebrities in the same way. One thing I disliked was that while the pictures of celebrities were shown they were not shown for long enough. You saw them for a minute and they were gone, though you felt that you would like to see them for a little longer and perhaps visit with them for a while, even if only on the screen. On one occasion I attended one of the theatres in High Park, where they have good family theatres. There I saw something which rather disturbed me. It was just about at the time of the by-election in Welland. I did not agree with the stand of the government in that by-election; I thought they were going the wrong way in governing this country during those strenuous days and, as I mentioned earlier in my remarks, I thought there should be ways of getting better men into the government. On this particular evening we saw on the screen a gentleman making an eloquent speech; I wish I could make one like it. His audience was a number of men working in the war plants of Hamilton. This was not a picture which just ran across the screen and vanished; it must have lasted five or six minutes, and it showed the men in the audience all wrapped up in what was being said by the speaker, who was the Minister of Labour. He said to them, "You are doing great work in this country. Your work is just as important, yes and more important, than the work of the soldier in battle." I thought to myself that if in that audience there was a father with a son overseas he should write his son to come back, to give up the $1.10 a day and get a good job in Hamilton and be really patriotic. Perhaps, however, that

The Address-Mr. Bertrand (Prescott)
father's idea of patriotism would differ from that of the Minister of Labour. I do not blame the minister for going over to Hamilton and trying to build up the morale of the workmen by telling them they were wonderful boys. It might help them and would not harm anybody else; but I could not understand why that particular picture should be shown on the screen before an audience in which there must have been the wives, fathers and children of soldiers. That was all wrong, and now we see the result of that sort of thing. "As ye sow, so shall ye also reap."
I said I intended to speak for only a short time. I am only one of some sixty-six members in this party, one of whom has already spoken. I think I have said about one-sixty-fifth of what could be said in this debate. I am not greedy; I believe in leaving something for the other fellow to say, so that I will resume my seat.
Mr. ELIE O. BERTRAND (Prescott) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, at the end of hostilities, after six years of war, it is my wish that my first words in this parliament should be uttered in thankfulness to Divine Providence for having protected the armies of the allied nations and given us victory over our enemies. It now behooves every citizen and every nation to contribute to the triumph of righteousness over the forces of evil. May that be accomplished and may Christian charity bestow to the world a truly enduring peace.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate you heartily on having been selected to preside over the debates of this house. The post which you occupy honours both yourself and your compatriots. We are pleased that it should have gone to one so competent to fill it.
(Text): Mr. Speaker, it was most pleasant on Friday last to hear the speeches of the mover and -the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. In his maiden speech the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) acquitted himself well, and upon his effort I congratulate him most sincerely. When he stood in his place in the house one could recognize at once the firm hand of the wing commander.
Then, the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Langlois), spoke well in his sea-going fashion. We could picture the Canada he served and loved when serving as a lieutenant in the R.C.N.V.R., and also the Canada he envisages for the future. We are pleased to welcome this nation-builder to our midst.
Speaking of nation-builders may I point out that, as its leader, the Liberal party has the greatest nation-builder Canada has ever
had. He has helped to make Canada autonomous, a fact we are proud to acknowledge today. Among the component parts of the . British commonwealth of nations he has placed Canada on a parity in all aspects of its domestic and external affairs. Under his guidance not the party in power but parliament, of its own free will, was permitted in 1939 to declare a state of war against our enemies. This is a fact which will always stand to the credit of our nation. Who among Canadians to-day has not been proud of Canada's war effort since that fateful year?
Now Canada rates as an adult nation among the countries of the world. During all this time the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has been able to keep Canada united, a task which in this country is not easy of achievement. We know the problems we have to face in our country, with its immense expanse of land, and with the different schools of thought found within its borders. But unity has been maintained by this nation-builder, our present Prime Minister.
Perhaps I would make my point stronger if I were to state that in world war I conscription had brought this nation close to civil conflict because of Quebec's stubborn opposition to that policy. At that time the rest of Canada favoured conscription.
Then, when world war II came along, despite the measure of conscription sponsored by the King government, he retained the confidence of the Canadian people at the election on June 11. Quebec had changed its mind to the extent of sending, to stand behind this man, nearly sixty supporters.
In the speech from the throne one could find many points which might be developed at this stage. However, as I do not purpose speaking at length I shall touch upon only one or two of them. I would first direct the attention of hon. members to a subject which I believe engages the attention and interest of all hon. members, namely, that having to do with the civil service. My further remarks will be directed to the matter of taxation.
Since 1918 we have had on the statute books of Canada a chapter known as the Civil Service Act. This is a statute which has received the approval of the whole of Canada's population, including that of members of the House of Commons, despite their criticism of it. At intervals it has been under review by a special committee of the house. The last report was made by a committee having as its chairman the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier), who at this time holds the portfolio of Minister of Public Works.
54	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Bertrand (Prescott)
I believe all of us will find that the work done by the several committees has been _ useful, first because of the publicity the committee meetings have been given in the press and, second, because of the suggestions made in those several committees to improve the working and the administration of the Civil Service Act. The publicity given the committee meetings has had the effect of making the public better acquainted with the vast amount of work done by and the difficult problems confronting the civil service commission.
All hon. members hope, as they grow older, that other days will bring new and even better ways of understanding among all concerned. At this point may I commend the wonderful work accomplished by the civil service commission since its inception, in giving to the public that type of service expected by the vast body of taxpayers.
It is because these taxpayers are at times hard to please that I should like to bring two or three points to the attention of the house. A. What preference or what is the preference which should be given in the future to our men who were in the service of His Majesty either in world war I or world war II? To my mind their status could be made much clearer than it has been made.
Looking over the Civil Service Act one would readily find that, under the provisions of section 28, those who resigned their positions to join the service of His Majesty in either war must be taken back into the service in a position at least equivalent to the one they left upon resigning to join the military service. It will be found in another section that men who had served overseas are to receive preference in respect of positions given under the Civil Service Act.
Section 30 of the regulations in the act states:
30. The names of persons in the service of His Majesty placed upon eligible lists under the provisions of section 28 of the Civil Service Act, shall be placed in the order of merit above all successful candidates at the examinations-
That means above civilian candidates.
-and above persons whose names are placed upon the eligible lists under the provisions of section 54 of the Civil Service Act.
Section 54 refers to the abolition of positions in certain sections of the civil service. Consequently it means that men who have served in the services of His Majesty will have to be given preference over them. I realty think this situation should be clarified in order that there may be a better understanding of the act on the part of hon. members of the House of Commons and the public generally.

B.	The amended sections 20 and 32 of the Civil Service Act provide that local positions shall be filled by those possessing a knowledge of the language of the majority. That provision is easy to understand and it has been put into practice with a great deal of satisfaction in the last few years. However, nothing is said about positions at headquarters or at important branch offices or in senior positions of the service.
C.	Do we know that when a department makes a requisition for personnel to the civil service commission it stipulates that a knowledge of English or French or both is required? It would appear that the civil service commission has very little responsibility in connection with these cases.
For the reasons I have just given, and many others, and for the benefit of hon. members and of those who expect to obtain positions in the civil service, I would venture to suggest that at the earliest convenient time during this session, or during next session if this is to be a short one, a special committee should be appointed to study and review the Civil Service Act and its regulations. This is a time when many changes will have to occur in order to establish a new order in the world and there should be a clear exposition before this committee of all that is to be expected from the civil service commission under the operation of the Civil Service Act and its regulations. This would be conducive to a better understanding by all concerned.
The second question I wish to deal with is just as ticklish as the one upon which I have just touched. Probably it is more so because it affects a greater number of persons. I refer to taxation. Something of taxation was said this afternoon and I should like to deal with just one phase of this matter. As was mentioned this afternoon by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken), the speech from the throne contains a paragraph which reads as follows:
You will be asked to make financial provision for all essential services, also to meet expenditures arising out of the war, and for the purposes of reconstruction. My ministers' proposals with respect to taxation measures will be disclosed in the budget.
I am sure that all members of the house will be ready to approve the provision of all essential services, especially those having to do with the repatriation of men who are in the services. I know they will be ready to approve all measures necessary to help in establishing these men in civil life as well as for the purpose of reconstruction. I know they will be ready to approve any measures

The Address-Mr. Bertrand (Prescott)
that will help agriculture and other primary industries. No doubt at this stage the most imperative duty of the government of Canada is to preserve the reputation that this country gained during the last war. However, to do this the battle will have to be fought more at home than anywhere else.
We shall have to assure our population of the rational development of our national resources. We must make sure that the wheels of industry are kept humming. We must assure fair revenues to our primary industries and, above all, we must assure our people of jobs, as has been so well said this afternoon by the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Cold-well). Above all else, we must provide that high standard of living and the necessary social protection that will make for a satisfied population.
All of this will require expenditures and I think we all realize that this parliament is ready to approve such expenditures. I should like to repeat what the speech from the throne states with regard to taxation:
My ministers' proposals with respect to taxation measures will be disclosed in the budget.
As we all know, when the budget is announced it immediately becomes law. It is then rather late to make suggestions. I listened this afternoon to the remark of the leader of the opposition in answer to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). I think we all must realize that with the contribution this country has made toward the winning of the war there will be a future need for taxation. It is of no use to leave the people under the impression that taxation will be greatly reduced because to do that we would be using our influence as members of parliament to mislead the people. Our problem in the future will be much more delicate than the problem we had to face during the war. After the war our problem will not be one that can be answered by expenditures; it will be a problem that must be solved through the ability of our citizens and the use of our natural resources.


William Earl Rowe: We told them that before the election.


Mr. BERTRAND (Prescott):: We made an appeal to the country on that basis and were elected.


William Earl Rowe: No, you did not; you said you would reduce them.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: It is true we said that we would reduce taxation, but as the Minister of Finance told the house to-day this reduction might not be just as much as the people expected.


William Earl Rowe: In other words, he changed it right after the election.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: The Minister of Finance-and this will readily answer my hon. friend-told a labour delegation that tax reductions on incomes would probably be disappointing to some. Let us be very careful about the wording: "disappointing to some." It is going to be disappointing to whoever tries to scratch his own sores and does not look at the welfare of the country at large. But in spite of this, people believe, and correctly so, that there will be some tax reductions. Among these reductions there is one-


William Earl Rowe: Be careful!


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: That is wise advice, and I thank my hon. friend for it. I say there is one which I claim is of capital importance. It is not so much taxation; it is to a degree exemption from taxation.
In 1942, when the budget was announced and the savings portion of income tax brought into force in this country, that very savings portion-I should like my fellow members to keep this in mind-was considered as a tiax, so that exemption of $150 given to a married man for his wife, and $80 exemption on the progressive tax in respect of each child, applied equally on the savings portion as well as on the fixed tax portion. In 1943 that policy was in effect for a full year, but in 1944 announcement was made of the cancellation of the savings portion of the income tax for six months of the year. This in effect has reduced the exemptions granted for wife or children in the same proportion as the cancellation of the savings portion of the tax, so that the exemption to the married man was considerably reduced, and that of the bachelor not materially affected. May I telll hon. members at once, so that they will not wonder where I stand, that I am a married man. As I said, the position of the bachelor was not materially affected. I really believe that that was not the intention of the budget of 1944, ' and correspondence exchanged at that time with the Minister of Finance would lead me to think so. I hope that this situation has been under review since, and will be corrected this year.
At the present time one persistent rumour would advocate the cancellation of the normal tax in the coming budget. Because of this persistent rumour I believe it should be brought to the attention of this house, because if this were done without other corrections, it would be found that the reduction in tax would again be less to the married man and to the father of a family than to the bachelor. Again, I think the Minister of Finance would
56	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Bertrand (Prescott)
not encourage a system whereby the father of a family would be compelled to limit the number of his children who would receive college or university education because of having to pay comparatively more than his share of taxation. If that were to become law, the 7 per cent normal tax for the married man would disappear. In the case of the bachelor, 7-8 to 9 per cent would be written off. The result would be a real benefit for persons without dependents but would be unfair to taxpayers with dependents, since they would actually suffer the loss of $28 per child; consequently they would be placed in a more difficult position as compared with this other class of our population.
Of course it is very difficult to make suggestions in the matter of taxation, because in a country like ours it has so many angles. Nevertheless I would venture to suggest that the following exemptions on income taxes should be not only considered but granted in the coming budget. I am not so much concerned with the criticism that we have not reduced the Income War Tax Act to the degree that people expect, because, after all, the people do not expect a real reduction of taxation on a large scale at this time. But I believe we should give a chance to the married man. The bachelor should be granted an exemption of $750 instead of the $660 he is receiving at the present time, and this should be doubled for the married man, which would give him a tax exemption of $1,500, and for each child below eighteen years of age or who is going to college or university there should be an exemption of $400, all of these to be reduced directly from the net income of the taxpayer. These, in my opinion, would be only fair, and would go a long way to help fathers of families and married people in this country, and I venture to add, would also make our worthy Minister of Finance a far more popular minister.
Many other problems could be dealt with at this stage, but the leader of the opposition gave us an example this afternoon which I think ought to be followed by back-benchers like myself. This example given by the leader of the opposition in making a short speech was followed by the Prime Minister; also the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation was not so long

I could have listened to him a little longer-and I suppose it behooves me to follow that example of brevity.
Yes, the problems we shall have to face in this parliament, and afterwards, are many. In my opinion the leader of the opposition, forgetting that we have been at war for six years, based his criticism more on political

grounds than on any others. The leader of the C.C.F. tried to popularize his party by conveying the idea that people are suffering in this country, or at least that they have suffered and will suffer in the future. I do not believe that is the proper point of view which we should adopt in the interest of the future welfare of this country. The leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low), although he made a good impression, at least upon me, is still a provincial. In my opinion a few years or perhaps a few months of experience in this house will broaden his outlook as compared with the views he expressed in his speech this afternoon.
In this time of transition immediately following the end of the war many problems will have to be faced, but one can well say that Canada is prepared for any eventuality. For our returned men we have on our statute books about the most advanced legislation to aid their return to civil life that can be found in any country in the world. We have a Department of Reconstruction and Rehabilitation with a minister at its head who has proven his valour during the war while leading the Department of Munitions and Supply. We have at the head of the Department of Agriculture a minister as active as any minister of that department has ever been, and if there has been any prosperity to that class of our population one can well say that Jimmy Gardiner has done his bit. We have a Minister of Finance who has held out successfully against inflation, and whether the meaning of my words at this time is rightly understood by all, I suggest that the same minister who so successfully contended against inflation during the war will place this country in a position in which it will compare favourably wth any other country in the world. That is no mean compliment to pay one man and it is due to the Minister of Finance to make that statement. I have no doubt we can trust him in making Canada a prosperous country to live in now that victory has been achieved. But, above all, we have a Prime Minister who has given the best part of his life, which is not a few years, as anyone knows who is acquainted with his past record, in an effort to raise the standard of living of our people generally and to establish better relations between labour and industry. And what is more-and these are my concluding remarks-he has made of Canada an important nation of the new world.


Mr. J. O. PROBE (Regina City):: In spite of the glowing account of my hon. friend opposite, who has in his dramatic manner told us that all is well within the confines

The Address-Mr. Probe
of our country, I wish to record, at this stage of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, certain observations that I know my constituents of Regina look upon as dealing in paramount fashion with the well-being of our city itself and which, while carrying special weight there, are typical of urban problems right across the Dominion of Canada, my hon. friend to the contrary notwithstanding.
These topics, to which I wish to refer sketchily, are full employment and housing. As an overseas veteran recently discharged, and with some four months' activity in the Department of Veterans Affairs attempting to settle some of our comrades' problems, I feel I can speak for that large body of younger men and women who are now looking to us to reabsorb them happily and satisfactorily in the peace-time life of our country. Nor, while I am a new member of this house, am I so naive as to feel I am going to alter very greatly the crystallized ideologies or the prejudices of the more mature and expert members.
The present government has assumed office on the pledge of full employment coupled with a rising level of social security, all placed on a free-enterprise platform. In a broadcast to our Saskatchewan citizens on the eve of election the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) as well as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), as I remember, emphasized the fact that in the Liberal party were to be found business abilities which, by inference at least, were not to be found in the C.C.F. or in other parties asking for a mandate from the people, and which are so necessary in this imminent transition period from war to peace.
And so on June 11 the Canadian citizens gave the Liberal party its somewhat shaky and uncertain order to go ahead and finish the job of making Canada a place fit for heroes to live. The best planning efforts of the Liberal party in the transition period are, I think, in the matter of veterans affairs, with some rather important exceptions. I wish to congratulate the government on the gratuity principle, on the plan for continuance of interrupted vocational or university education of veterans, and on the idea at least embodied in the term "reestablishment credit".
One very great defect in the gratuity system implemented by the government is that with the changes from time to tiftie in the clothing grant for example, varying from as little as $35 to a high of $100, certain inequalities have been caused to veterans, depending upon the date of discharge. I feel that this
should be amended to bring every veteran, regardless of date of discharge, up to the maximum receivable, and I further suggest that this maximum of $100 is far too low at present prices for clothing to fulfil its purpose, that of decently outfitting a person as a civilian.
Then there is one special group, those who were called out under G.O. 139 and then discharged in the early years of the war. They have been entirely excluded from the application of the clothing benefit. They, too, have served and deserve as careful consideration as the veterans who by chance, were discharged more recently. The amount per month allotted to veterans attending university or taking vocational training, as pointed out by our leader this afternoon, is definitely inadequate for the purpose intended.
I wish to repeat his proposal of this afternoon in this regard. He stated at that time that the pay and allowances of the service veterans should be used as the basis for continuance of education benefits, with a minimum of $25 a week, instead of having the present scale of $60 monthly for a single veteran, with $20 additional for a wife, $12 for a child, and so on. The reestablishment credit, which had as its purpose, I presume, from its name, the reestablishment of the veteran in his civilian business, or other self-supporting capacity, does not make it possible for a man who wishes to go into private business to start off without great financial debts. If it is the government's desire to foster free enterprise so-called, it seems to me that returning veterans have been definitely discriminated against in the practice of the reestablishment credit benefits, which do not come even close to the cost of setting up in the simplest business.
Then the provision of $30 monthly pension for the dual service pensioner is another inadequacy if it is desired to keep together more than the body and soul of the veteran who has served in both wars. Why not provide this man with a pension adequate to maintain his self-respect and make him feel that his country did appreciate his sacrifices. Since election day, as indeed before, the rumblings in our part of the country, of this stormy, halting transition with unfulfilled and unfulfillable promises of the once mighty political party, legislating planlessly or with the limited plans of its planning bodies, were evident to Regina constituency. Rumours of impending lay-offs in our largest single employer, Regina Industries, were current as soon as Germany had surrendered. With an election in the offing the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) assured the premier of
The Address-Mr. Probe

Saskatchewan on May 14 last, that there would be no large scale lay-offs at this plant until October. But by June 18, a week after the election, a weekly schedule of discharge notices was reaching the employees, and today this plant, which in January, 1943, had a peak staff of fifteen hundred employees, has a skeleton crew turning out obsolete Bren gun tripods for the Chinese government.
I have been informed by Mr. Wyatt, president of the Regina Industries plant union, that the record of Regina Industries production is as creditable as that of any war plant in Canada. When our plant went into the production of six-pounders it was predicted by competent experts that Regina workers could not do the job, and yet they did it on a more favourable unit cost than even the Peterborough, Ontario, plant which had at that time some sort of record for efficiency. To all intents the efficiency of our Regina workmen has no place in the Canadian industrial economy following the reconversion period. For I have now been assured that the building which produced our quota of war materials will be henceforth used as a military ordnance repair depot, and the expensive government-owned equipment scrapped or shipped east for private factory replenishment in this area.
Some of the hon. members may recently have seen a replica of the Arromanches installation on exhibition at the Chateau Laurier or elsewhere. I saw the original when I landed on the Normandy beaches last summer, and marvelled at the ingenuity of the scientists and the engineers who had conceived the daring plan and put it into effect in that great invasion. If our Liberal friends are sincere in their desire to build a greater Canada I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that they invoke the assistance of men and women like those who built "Mulberry" in the business of rebuilding Canada. The magnitude of their task for the invasion of France did not appal them. The fact that it had never been done before was no deterrent, and as they gave no thought to the dollar costs in a war emergency I feel that we have people of their ilk who can and will build and plan as wisely in the peace-time production of Canada that we now desire to employ our workers' talents to their full.
To make Ottawa a memorial, as suggested in the speech from the throne, is a worthwhile undertaking; to make every community of Canada a living memorial to the wisdom of our statesmen is still more desirable. In the city of Regina as elsewhere, families of servicemen, as of others, are in immediate danger of being with no shelter of any kind against 
our Saskatchewan blizzards this coming winter. One family that I know, with five children, and the father employed in a bakery at $120 a month, was evicted in June from a rented shelter, and last week this family were still living in a tent provided by the city for them at the time of their eviction. There are other cases like that in the city of Regina. Wartime Housing is rushing to completion at its best speed some two hundred houses of substandard construction. Our city council is putting up some sixty two-room pre-fabricated shacks with no plumbing or indoor water facilities. A hundred and thirty-five civilian families had no accommodation in Regina a few weeks ago; 141 service families were registered in the city as having no winter accommodation; 411 returned families had applications in for housing, and the stream of men returning from overseas is not lessening. In spite of every effort on the part of citizens' committees of our city the army and air force quarters in Regina could not be secured for temporary easement of this situation; yet to-day's press contains a statement to the effect that these buildings, or those of them which are on private land, are to be turned over to War Assets Corporation for sale, dismantlement and removal to private individuals. And this *with a western winter just around the corner!
Housing in all of Canada is a national emergency. We are well over half a million houses short of meeting Canada's present housing needs under any standard one wishes to set up. The obsolescence of buildings, coupled with a marriage rate for Canada in the past six years of over a hundred thousand yearly, creating need for dwellings in which to start their newly-wed careers, with returned men and women needing homes for the first time, with sensational building costs, wdth no government planning apparently to meet the emergency, with no stockpiles of suitable materials, with only insurance companies to look to for funds at high interest rates, we have the most glaring example of the inadequacy of capitalist enterprise to meet national needs.
May I say that according to the reconstruction report of this government, even in old Tory Britain in the twenty years before the war public bodies there, in a country committed to private enterprise, were building dwellings in the ratio of two to one compared with private investment companies. May I suggest to the government that it meet this problem as it claims to have met the problems of the war. I ask that the government take over as a national measure all problems connected with building. Finance the entire cost by an issue by the Bank of Canada, on a revolving fund basis, for, say, $500,000,000

The Address-Mr. Martin
yearly to be used to provide housing materials and erect the houses, for the next five years. Lend this money directly to the families in need of homes on a sliding interest scale of, say, three per cent for five years, two per cent for five years and one per cent for the balance of the amortization period of twenty or twenty-five years. Waive the requirement for down payments, which is the biggest single obstacle to building at the present time; and use the interest that has been charged the owner as an unemployment insurance fund to meet the payments as they become due if and when the home owner finds himself out of work. Turn the productive activities of our craftsmen to the making of materials on a huge national emergency basis. Put a proper price ceiling on the materials created. Encourage architects and town planning engineers to lay out homes in congenial, livable communities. Build these on a modern basis for use and for enjoyment, and you will meet an immediate need; you will eliminate most of the juvenile and adult moral delinquency which has been on the increase for the last number of years, which is caused by the unspeakable conditions in which the vast majority of Canadians now live.
If the government were to do this, the Prime Minister would have a more permanent and worth-while memorial, in the well-being of all Canadians, than the beautification of Ottawa, splendid as that idea may come to be.


Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I wish to join with those who have congratulated the mover and the seconder on their outstanding speeches, outstanding not only because they were delivered with great ability but because they represented a point of view which I think reflects the temper of present Canadian public opinion. These two hon. gentlemen, new members of this house, have made a contribution of which they may be very proud. It is a happy circumstance to know that not only do they come here as representatives of two important constituencies, those of Kenora-Rainy River and Gaspe, but they come also, together with other returned men in this parliament, as representatives of those Canadians on whom has vested the primary responsibility of making Canada's contribution to this war so successful and so memorable.
We begin a new parliament, sir, a parliament that will be faced, as indeed the world will be faced, with great and challenging problems which will deeply affect the welfare of our people and all the peoples of the world. I think one should not hesitate, however, to
survey the past six years through which this country and the other free nations of the world have had to pass; fantastic years, in which in order to achieve victory governments and peoples were compelled to resort to measures which otherwise would not have been even contemplated. The change from a peace to a war economy which took place during 1939 and 1940 causes those years to stand out in bold relief, and must be remembered when we come to appraise the task that now lies before us. The united nations have won the war against great odds. They won largely because for the time being they were prepared to suspend their differences and overlook even conflicting ideologies in order to achieve a common purpose. The war was won largely because there was a determination on the part of the united nations to bring about a spirit of unity and cooperation. In this country and in this parliament, in spite of our political differences, in spite of the fact that some sit to your right, Mr. Speaker, and some to your left, as we look back over these six years of war I believe that as a people and as a parliament we may be proud of the contribution Canada has made. Canada can walk down the avenues of the world with her head high, and say to all who would look, "We are not ashamed of the contribution we have made." I think it only fair to the membership of this house that we say to those who sit opposite that the contribution of the opposition, the contribution of the government and the contribution of the people of Canada is something of which in the over-all picture, despite any differences that may have existed, we may all be proud.
There is a standard for the future. This government, faced with the tremendous responsibilities which it is assuming, can make its contribution more complete if it has the understanding and cooperation of all groups in the country and in this house. During the war that cooperation in its essentials was not lacking, and I would simply echo the hope expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) this afternoon that in the deliberations of the future we may look forward to the same understanding and the same cooperation from hon. gentlemen opposite, so that together we may give the country the lead which I know it is prepared to accept.
In that spirit, Mr. Speaker, I have risen to discuss some problems which are of more than ordinary interest to this nation at the present time. Before doing so, however, because I believe leadership in a country does mean something; because if there is not faith in the institutions of government and in the
The Address-Mr. Martin

nation's public men there is bound to result a mischievous situation, might I say that it is a matter of no ordinary significance that for the fifth time in his career the present Prime Minister of Canada is charged with the responsibility of leading the government of this nation. In the history of our country few public men have been as richly endowed with the qualities of leadership which have enabled the Prime Minister to make his contribution to the progress of Canada.
In the speech from the throne an effort is made to give to Canadians generally the feeling that we belong to no mean nation. The problems that lie ahead are not going to be resolved if there is a lack of faith in ourselves or in our country. The fact is that at the end of the war we stand as one of the important nations of the world; fourth in the production of war minerals; well up as a naval and air power, and having contributed almost a million men and women to the armed services. We have a country of which we may be proud, and it is one of our responsibilities to see that Canada emerges along the lines which her greatness warrants.
It is for this reason that in the speech from *the throne the government has sought to establish in the national life certain necessary-symbols-symbols which will make every boy and girl and every adult in this country proud of the fact that they belong to Canada, that they belong to this nation now more than seventy-five years old, a nation which extends from sea to sea, and has not only a heritage but a future that is undoubted and unmistaken. To that end I do not think one should overlook the decision of the government to clarify and to regularize the status of Canadian citizenship.
We should not hesitate to acknowledge our responsibility as a member of the family of nations. But at the same time we should not hesitate to recognize the contribution this country has made throughout the war, a notable contribution which has won for this nation a true certificate of nationhood. The right to' be able to call ourselves citizens of Canada is one which is in keeping with our dignity, in keeping with our achievements and in keeping with our aspirations.
During the war the government has been faced with the responsibility of directing the war effort of Canada. While the war was in progress it sought to anticipate- some of the problems that would face us in the period1 of reconversion, and in the longer post-war period. We were in no different position from that of other countries. All one has to do is to read the newspapers and the
iMr. Martin.]
reviews to see that the problems now facing us are the problems which are facing governments in other parts of the world. The problems facing us at this time are problems which, are facing other governments with different social and economic ideologies. This seems the best proof that, no matter what one's basic political and social policy may be, one does not escape the mischief of the kind of problems with which, in this day, governments have to cope.
The government's plan of social security is one which is closely related to the present situation. It was this government which brought in the scheme of old age pensions, and it was this government which only recently made a proposal to make certain extensions in, the old age pensions provision.
Our family allowances scheme, accepted in this house with only one dissentient, represents a forward measure which, in terms of public investment will result in an expenditure of $250 million a year, distributed among our people, particularly to the people who need assistance. This is indeed a form of public investment which one cannot look upon as only an idle gesture, but rather as one which has a definite relationship to some of the programmes upon which hon. members who have taken part thus far in the debate have suggested we must enter.
Unemployment insurance, introduced by the present government in 1941, at a time when the nations on our side were not certain of victory, when the problems of war were extremely difficult and1 hazardous, has resulted in the creation of a fund of a little less than $300 million. This was not offered as a means to cure, but as a means of relieving those who found themselves unemployed. Despite what one may think as to its adequacy, it is a measure which has gained an important function in our current situation.
The whole problem of reconversion, not without its difficulties, and not without creating its surpluses of man-power here and there- and I prefer to approach the problem squarely and factually-has had a real measure of success. In the language of the Economist of only two weeks ago our reconversion plans have been stamped by those associated with that responsible publication as being among the foremost and most responsible of those of any of the united nations.
While the war was on, in many plants we tapered off gradually to meet the problems which now face us. It should be remembered that difficulties attend other countries, as well as our own; and the fact that we have now in a number of localities a surplus of labour

The Address-Mr. Martin
is perhaps not all that one might desire. But in the light of the transfer from a wartime to a peace-time economy, no man in his right senses, attributing to governments all the frailties of human nature could expect that the situation would be basically at the moment otherwise. The fact is that this situation is true of other countries in the world. One has but to read the figures respecting reconversion in the Soviet Union, in Great Britain and in the United States, to realize that fact. I mention this, not to criticize their government, but to indicate the immensity and universal seriousness of the problem.
The government has not proceeded planlessly. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwel), in his excellent contribution to the debate to-day, spoke about the desirability of planning. Well, planning in the sense of trying to be able to create a formula which will meet every situation, may be possible; but that kind of plan, in my judgment, would compromise something in which I know the hon. member is as much interested as I am, namely, man's most treasured right to human liberty.
The government to-day must, of course, plan. Planning, in the sense of preparation, planning in the sense of spending hours of study, hours of research, hours of blue-printing and all that sort of thing, are necessary to-day. That sort of thing, sir, is going on and has been going on in this country. One has only to examine the briefs submitted by this government at the preliminary conference held a short time ago between the dominion and the provincial governments to obtain evidence of the fact. I venture to suggest that the voluminous reports which are in the nature of briefs presented by this government to the provincial governments for their consideration, have, perhaps because of their voluminous character, not yet fully impressed themselves upon the membership of the house.
Those who have studied these briefs, those who have written about them-and I am not referring to anything of a partisan nature- have referred to them as perhaps the most im-portanlt and significant proposals made by any country of the united nations since the end of the war.
Those proposals, in the provisions they make for social security, and in the provision they set up for adjustment of the relationships between the dominion and the provincial governments, along with the plans to meet the objective of high employment, are significant and represent the effort of this government to prepare and to plan for the challenging period
that lies ahead. It does not help the situation very much to suggest that the government has no plan.. The government has plans and a large part of those plans is embodied in the dominion-provincial proposals about which I would want to say something to-night in a general way.
The government states that when it confirmed by its signature the declaration of Philadelphia, when it gave expression to the Atlantic charter, when it went to San Francisco, when it joined with the other nations in urging a programme of high employment, the government meant to do that very thing. Its whole plans are designed for that very purpose. This government is determined that it be given a chance to implement these plans. This government is determined to implement these plans.
In the first instance the government affirms that its plans represent aims in the post-war period no less conclusive than in war. It is the aims of the government through these proposals to adapt the functions of the provincial and federal governments to the most practical considerations in order to achieve a high level of employment. One is constantly faced with the suggestion that while the government has waged a war diligently, while it has worked long hours and the like, it has brought no vigour to the kind of problem and to the situation now facing us in the world and at home.
At the civil service level, a civil service of which this country has every reason to be proud, there has been a painstaking effort along this very line. At the parliamentary level, through the reconstruction committees, many of the proposals of which are embodied in the government's programme, consideration has been given to the planning of this period of reconstruction and post-war. Then at the government level-as one member of this house who has recently joined the government I can say this-the head of this government is prepared to resort to those measures that will achieve the purpose. There is an abandoning of reaction. The administration is prepared to go boldly ahead. I was never more convinced of that than I have been since I have been a member of the government.
The government believes at the moment that the bulk of employment can be provided by giving private initiative an opportunity of providing that employment. In the period of the slack it is believed that the job can best be done through a system of public investment, to be implemented at the most opportune time to put the plan into effect with the best possible results.

The Address-Mr. Martin
There are certain circumstances and certain considerations that must be borne in mind. We must give to industry-by industry I do not mean only the factory; I mean agriculture as well-every opportunity to provide outlets for the goods and services produced. Every effort must be made to see that we recover our former markets among the nations of the world. This country, dependent as she is to the extent of thirty-five per cent of her national income on what she sells to other nations of the world, is dependent more than ever upon collaboration between nations, is dependent more than ever upon a satisfactory measure of commercial relations with other countries. During the war we had an expanded war production, and this places upon all of us the responsibility of seeing that there is afforded an opportunity of an increased output, fcr both domestic and export purposes, with a resulting increase in personal income for all Canadians.
Because of our dependence upon the export market the government is compelled, perhaps as it never has been compelled, to seek to have the most satisfactory relations with other countries of the world. To that end it is part of the policy of this government-perhaps no part of its endeavour is as important-to make sure that it does its bit in removing from commercial intercourse with other nations those needless trade barriers that have so often in the past proven to be provocative of friction and of trouble between nations. I think we cannot overlook the fact that this government has provided, along with only one other country of the world, Mutual Aid, as we call it, and has thereby created employment at home as well as provided assistance to our allies. This government will shortly embark on a programme of extensions of credit to other countries. This will have a twofold objective. First, it will provide work at home and, at the same time, it will fulfil our humanitarian obligations to other nations.
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) -I hope I am not anticipating what he may say-brings down his programme of international credits there will be a more vivid realization of what this means in providing employment. We shall then realize the number of countries in the world that have often been extolled in this house as models, and who are now asking for credit to tide them over during the difficult period of the present and the immediate future. One will be amazed, first of all, at the extent of the requests made for financial help, and, second, that we have been expected and are able to meet these requests.

The relation of this to the securing of a high level of employment is that in providing these extensions of credit in amounts that are of very large proportions we are thereby furnishing an opportunity to our people to obtain a living for themselves and for their families through the work that will thus be created. As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) has suggested to-day, and as the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell) has indicated, the government must be prepared to state in bold terms what it intends to do to meet this objective of a high level of employment. These objectives are to be found in the proposals of the government which were laid before the provinces.
This dominion-provincial conference, the preparatory stage of which has been set, at which the provinces were given an opportunity of learning what the federal government had in mind, will finally be resolved at a later date. It demonstrated a remarkable measure of understanding and cooperation between the ten governments of this country. This objective of a high level of employment the government proposed to meet, first, by facilitating private initiative in the production of employment; second, by promoting bold action by the state in those fields in which the public interest calls for public enterprise in national development; third, by providing through public investment employment for our human and physical resources when international and other conditions adversely affect employment and, fourth, by providing against age and uncertain individual risks, against such hazards and disabilities as unemployment, sickness and old age.
That statement which characterizes the government's programme is a statement which upon analysis will be found to be the kind of thing that has been suggested by several hon. members to-day. There is no effort to meet the problem by clinging to old labels or to old ideals. The government is determined, with its sense of responsibility in this situation, to resort to those measures, whether through public or private investment, which will provide our people with the kind of heritage and security which we all in this house, regardless of party, know they are entitled to and toward which we must aim. So it does not help to suggest that any one group has any exclusive panacea for many of these gigantic problems. Whether or not other parties in this house are prepared to resort to measures which are said to be unorthodox, to achieve these purposes, this government in its statement of policy laid before the dominion-provincial conference a course of action which, in the

The Address-Mr. Martin
language of one of the commentators, is as bold as any government in the united nations since the war has been prepared to embark upon.
Many of these problems which we face will not be solved without understanding and cooperation. They will not be solved by pitting one group against another, by creating needless suspicion or hate. The government believes that labour, which properly is looking for opportunities of income, is an important group in the community and in the nation. No man need apologize for the attitude of the Prime Minister in the whole period of his public life as to his attitude toward labour. No prime minister of this country has had a more sympathetic understanding of the right of the workers to protect themselves and to do so by means of organization. And I believe that no government has done more than the government under his direction to extend to that great body of Canadian citizens those rights which the trade union organization of this country has persisted over the years in trying to obtain, and which in its broad essentials has now obtained.
During the war the government recognized the desirability of cooperation between labour and management-between labour, management and the government in the prosecution of the common endeavour. At the beginning of the war it said to employers, "We recognize the desirability of employers entering into collective bargaining arrangements with the workers." A few years after the war began, recognizing that there were sources of friction between management and labour, in the adoption of P.C. 1003 it did something which labour leaders, including the president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, the heads of the Canadian Congress of Labour, and other groups, recognized as having provided labour at long last, on a national basis, with a charter in which there was adequate recognition of labour's rights as well as its responsibilities. With the extension of that principle through labour-management production committees, industrial councils and the like there was reflected the determination of the government during war and peace to give industry direction and leadership whereby it hoped that labour, management and capital would be able to work along lines of common endeavour instead of at cross-purposes.
Labour has made great gains during the war. The trades union membership of 300,000 in 1939 has risen to a little over 700,000 at the end of the war. These are gains which should not frighten anybody. A strong trade
union movement is a good thing for Canada, and the government believes that it can achieve for labour and, indeed, for Canada gains which are legitimately theirs. In its plan of reconversion and other post-war measures the government proposes to encourage the same cooperation between labour and management which it has sought to achieve with the help of labour itself during the war. Without this understanding there will be no solution of the kind of problems which face us in this debate and during these days.
The Minister of Supply and Reconstruction (Mr. Howe), under whose direction Canada's war production attained tremendous proportions, has instituted the principle of industrial councils. To some, the progress resulting from this endeavour may not seem as great as was anticipated. A problem remains to be faced. Perhaps more can be accomplished through the agency of conciliation and persuasion than by any other method. The satisfactory relations between employers and workers in Great Britain and in other older countries have resulted from a policy of persuasion and conciliation. In the opinion of this government the problems which fifty years ago attended labour and management in Britain, and which now face, our newer country, can be dealt with in the same measure and through the same agency. In meeting this problem, as a member of this government, I say to this house, as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) will say when he comes to speak, this government is determined to exert its utmost power to see that the gains of labour are not lost, that labour shall not be compelled to forfeit its right to bargain, to protect itself through its own organization along designated lines, and if existing legislation does not seem always to be adequate to the occasion, upon the presentation of suggestions for improvement the fullest consideration is given to them by the departments concerned. This was revealed in the statement of the Minister of Labour as to proposals laid before the provinces in the recent conference, proposals embodying changes in labour legislation which will depend upon the attitude not only of this government and of labour, but of the provinces themselves, to whom under our constitution is reserved the important field of labour legislation.
So I say, Mr. Speaker, taking the cue from the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, that you cannot have a satisfactory solution of the problems of reconversion unless there is a proper relationship between the government and labour and between management and labour. I take the cue and say that this
The Address-Mr. Martin

government is determined to do everything within its power to see that these relations are satisfactory and are maintained. It wishes to guarantee to labour the right to organize; it wishes to give labour an opportunity of sitting down with government and with industry, of being informed of its problems, its purposes and its intentions. It means to make labour a partner in the great effort which now faces this country.
I say these things because they are basic in a successful handling of the tremendous problems which face us at the moment and in the months that lie immediately ahead.
The Prime Minister, with representatives of the party led by the leader of the opposition and the party of which the C.C.F. leader is the head, went to San Francisco a few months ago to make a contribution, with the other free nations of the world, to a mechanism to maintain order among the nations of the world. In a debate like this, where the government's general policies are being outlined, is it amiss *to rise in one's place and say that we have reason to be proud of the part which that delegation played at San Francisco? The contribution made by the Prime Minister, the contribution made by every other member of the delegation, including the former acting leader of the Progressive Conservative party, and the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation were notable. And if that organization, the united nations charter, does not emerge with success, none of these problems that we have discussed here will succeed. For never in the history of the world were we so dependent for security at home as we are to-day upon the measure of collaboration which must persist between ourselves and other countries of the world. That is why basically in the government's post-war plans, in the government's reconversion plans, is its policy of collaboration with the other nations of the world so integral.
I would call the attention of the house particularly to the contribution made by Canada to the framework of the social and economic council, a social and economic council designed by the nations to provide on an international level for those policies which will give opportunity to the various countries to furnish high levels of employment and to make provision for social security. In the language of Mr. Evatt, no country made a greater contribution to the important work of the social and economic council than did Canada. In fact, in the present provisions of the social and economic council dealing with measures for high employment, dealing with measures for better working hours, dealing with measures for better health, nutrition and so on, Canada

was responsible practically for rewriting the whole Dumbarton Oaks proposals which were presented to the San Francisco conference and now form a part of that charter which was intended by article 5 of the Atlantic charter to be given to the masses of the world. Therefore, in considering this post-war policy, in considering this policy of reconversion, one should not hesitate to mention the contribution made by Canada to the social and economic council.
My final word is this-and it is where I began. The problems of the war were met in this country by a united people. Apart from our differences in this house, the contribution of parliament itself during the war was on a high level. Let each of us dedicate himself anew to the new task that lies ahead, in the same spirit of understanding, in the same spirit of cooperation. That guaranteed, we can go on to levels that will place us first among the nations of the world.
On motion of Mr. Lalonde the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 1047 p.m.
Tuesday, September 11, 1945.