1946-03-18

WILD LIFE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, respecting the Jack Miner National Wild Life Day.
(Mr. Bracken.]
He said: I deem it a high privilege to move the introduction of this bill, seconded I may say by another great friend of the late Jack Miner, the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette), which proposes that April 10 be proclaimed as The Jack Miner National Wild Life Day. It would seem to me that April 10 is a fitting day on which to initiate and proclaim such an act. At that time of the year all varieties of insectivorous birds return to Canada from their winter resting place in the south. Everyone knows the value of insectivorous birds to the country's production. At the same time these great wild fowl, the Canada goose, and ducks as well, are leaving their southern winter home and flying back to our own* Arctic ocean area to nest. I cannot do better than quote what the late and celebrated Irvin S. Cobb said with reference to the la,te Jack Miner, because many words at this stage of the bill would be superfluous. Mr. Cobb said of Jack Miner that he was "the greatest practical naturalist on this planet." He was indeed the greatest conservationist of wild life on this planet, and in his memory I am very happy to move the introduction of this bill. I heard Jack Miner say on more than one occasion: "I am not so much interested in the number of spots on the woodpecker's tail as I am in the preservation of the species." That was his life work-' conservation. He was Canada's greatest conservationist, and April 10, when the birds are coming back, would be a fitting time for schools, humane societies and other organizations interested in wild life to inform their pupils or members of the value to Canada of wild life conservation.
< Motion agreed to .and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. RODNEY ADAMSON (York West) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 3, to amend the Railway Act.
He said: This bill is identical with the one I introduced at the last session of parliament. It merely extends the power of municipalities adjoining or contiguous to cities, but which are in fact physically part of the same metropolitan area, to pass by-laws dispensing with the statutory sound warning, by bell and whistle, at specified level crossings within the confines of the said municipalities. It confers the same power on urban municipalities which may be designated as townships or villages as on those designated as cities or towns, which have this power by authority of the Railway Act as it now reads.

Dominion Elections Act
The amendment does not constitute a blanket authority, as every crossing covered by such enabling legislation must be inspected by the board of transport commissioners, who must be satisfied with the safety measures provided at each crossing so designated.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 4, to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1938'.
He said: This bill is exactly the same as bills I have introduced on other occasions, seeking to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1938. The purpose is to remove the disqualification imposed on inmates of institutions for the poor where such persons are disqualified from voting at a provincial election. The removal of this disqualification will enable all such worthy persons to vote at federal elections whether they are qualified or not to vote at provincial elections.
The paragraph proposed to be repealed reads:
(k) dm any province, every person who ds an inmate of an institution which is maintained by any government oir municipality for the housing and maintenance of the poor, if such person is by the law of that province disqualified from voting att an election of la member of the legislative 'assembly of that province, and did not serve in the military, naval or air forces of Canada in the war of 1914-1918.
The disqualification, which I am trying to have removed is one that should have ceased tc operate many years ago. We are supposed to be moving into a new world, and the fact that some people have been or are housed in any institution maintained by a municipality, county or province, should not disqualify them from voting at a dominion election. There are now only three provinces that adhere to the old law-Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Ontario-and they ought to be modernized by parliament so far as the Dominion Elections Act is concerned.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 5 to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
He said: This bill also is one that has been introduced before. It was talked out at the last session. I do not know what its fate
will be this session, but the purpose is to amend the Wheat Board Act of 1935. Under that legislation the wheat board is at present restricted and the board has to use the facilities already available for the sale of wheat, as provided by the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. In my opinion, and in the opinion of every farmer organization as well as of many other organizations in western Canada, this is not desirable, nor is it in the interests of the Canadian people as a whole. I should like to have the support of the house in order to have this bill carried at the present session.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 6, to amend the Department of External Affairs Act.
He said: When the Department of External Affairs Act was passed in 1912 it was provided tJhat the position of Secretary of State for External Affairs should be filled by the Prime Minister. That section still remains. The purpose of this bill is to revoke the section so that the position of Secretary of State for External Affairs may be filled by any member of the government.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[Stage Direction]
INITIAL PAYMENTS FOR 1946 CROP On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In order to- assist Canadian farmers in formulating plans for seeding O'f the 1946 crop, will the minister state what the initial payments for 1946 wheat crop and other grains will be?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I spent the morning in. a discussion with the Canadian wheat board and my colleagues of the wheat committee of the government, and I hope to be able to make a statement within a day Or two.


[Stage Direction]
INCREASE IN MAXIMUM PRICE On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin) I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the widespread protest
The Address-Mr. Bracken
[Stage Direction]
from the prairie provinces against the proposed two-cent increase in the price of gasoline, effective to-day, would the government he prepared to reconsider its action and rescind the order permitting such an increase?
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (.Minister of Finance):: This is an increase in the maximum price which may be charged for gasoline, and was the result of an order made by the wartime prices and trade board. However, since the withdrawal about January 1 of part of the subsidies paid on importations of petroleum it has been well known that this increase would necessarily follow.
I should explain to the hon. member that the subsidies were by no means entirely withdrawn; that from now on currently we are paying $3,500,000 a year in subsidies which all goes in reduction of the price of petroleum products in the prairie provinces, and that no subsidies are payable in respect of similar products in other pants of Canada. It was our feeling that if we are ever to reduce our subsidies with a view to eventually getting rid of all of them, to continue to pay very large sums for the subsidies which would be necessary in 'this particular area would not be justified. Therefore there was a partial withdrawal of the subsidy resulting in this price increase.
I have had so much correspondence about this matter and so much consideration has been given to it already that I am afraid I cannot promise the hon. member any reconsideration.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fernand Viau for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.	[DOT]
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition) :: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last His Excellency read to us the government programme for the session. On Friday a motion was made for its approval. The debate on that, motion affords hon. members an opportunity to discuss not only what has been outlined in the speech from the throne but any other matter that may be regarded as of importance. But before I proceed with the subject matter of my remarks may I refer to the fact that since we last met here two among our members have been signally honoured by His Majesty the King: the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) have been made members of the imperial privy council. I wish in all sincerity to extend to them both my most hearty congratulations. I know of no two men more worthy of that high honour, and I know of no honour
[Mr. Zaplitny.J
the bestowal of which has been more acceptable to or more generously received by the Canadian people.	-
My remarks this afternoon will not be brief.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


John Bracken: I am glad I have one
supporter. Before I get through I'shall be making recommendations that the debate on the speech from the throne be shortened, but today I am not going to practise what I preach, . because I expect it will take about two hours to persuade this house that it should shorten the debate.
First I shall touch upon the subject matters mentioned in the speech from the throne; then I shall deal rather briefly with the business side of government. After some discussion of the procedure in this house, I shall refer to a matter that has been of very great public interest in this country durihg the last few weeks, namely, the espionage charges. I shall close with a discussion of foreign relations, a question which has an important bearing upon our success in dealing with our own domestic problems.
The speech from the throne indicates that ^ high level of employment is the fundamental aim of the government. I am sure it is the aim also of every hon. member in this house. But, is the government achieving it?
In these days it is the duty of the modem state so to organize its economy that every individual able to work and desiring to work shall have an income from his efforts commensurate with his contribution and adequate for a reasonable standard of living.
In spite of all its promises to give full employment the government is failing to do so. The records of the bureau of statistics indicate that as of the middle of February last there were more than 250,000 unplaced applicants registered with the national employment service across Canada. The number of live claims for unemployment insurance was 145,000. The number of unemployed veterans drawing out-of-work benefits was 37,000. In addition there are still in the armed forces large numbers of men not engaged in productive service, and there is an unknown number of unemployed who are not registered. In these days of astronomical figures these amounts may not impress this house, but rtben I say that in the thirties, in the ten years of the worst depression this nation ever knew, the average number unemployed was about 450,000, these figures do become impressive. The plain fact is that Canada now has an unemployment problem of serious proportions on its hands.
The whole reconversion programme has bogged down. It is not a reconversion programme; it is a status quo programme, a

The Address-Mr. Bracken
bits and pieces programme. Let me illustrate. On May 22, 1945, before the election, the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) is reported in the press as having said:
There are 180,000 high priority jobs iat present unfilled dm Canada.
Then, after paying a compliment to hon. gentlemen to my left, he said:
Out C.C.F. friends have been predicting gen-emal unemployment during the transition period from war to peace in Canada.
Then he continued:
There is no such situation existing, and I see no signs of there being any in the future.
He went on:
Reconversion is about fifty per cent finished in Canada.
That was last May, nine months ago. On February 11, 1946, according to a press report, the same minister had this to say, on. the same subject:
"Canada's reconversion job as about fifty per cent done," Hon. C. D. Howe said at a press conference to-day. The Reconstruction' minister painted a bright picture for production, employment iand national prosperity over the next few years. "Our exports are good," Mr. Howe asserted, "far above the level required for full employment. They will remain high during this year 'and next. This is mainly but now wholly due to loans to buyer countries, including China."
Apparently, as I said, the Minister of .Reconstruction believes in the status quo. Reconversion was about fifty per cent finished last May and to-day is still about fifty per cent finished. Well, at least we can be thankful that we have not gone backward in the meantime.
The fundamental criticism of the government is that its approach is negative rather than positive. It seeks ways in which to correct the ills of unemployment, but does little to prevent unemployment by the creation of new opportunities for work. That I regard as the basic weakness of the government's approach to the problems it is facing to-day

attempting to cure them rather than to prevent them.
Recently the government issued a publication on the future population of Canada. I am surprised that the government has given no evidence that it has examined the implications of this report. On page 32 of bulletin F-4, "The Future Population of Canada," it makes the astounding prediction that even at the end of the century, fifty years from now, the Canadian nation will have no more than fifteen million people, or only three million more than it has now. On page 9, this document indicates that in 1971 the total population of Canada, based on present trends, will be only 14,600,000. In the whole of the maritime provinces there will be only
a million and a half people; in Quebec, 4,700,000; in Ontario, 4,400,000; in Manitoba only 850,000; in Saskatchewan only a million, in Alberta only a million and in British Columbia less than a million.
If that is the goal this government accepts for Canada, it is a doubtful compliment to the initiative and enterprise of the Canadian people. I wonder if this had anything to do with the "middle-power" philosophy of the government, which it proposed in the days before San Francisco. The Canadian people ought not to rest content with this challenge to their future.
On- another page in this document it is indicated that after the end of the present century the population will begin to decline. Not merely is it going to be only fifteen million, but at that time it will begin to decline.
Either this country is capable of maintaining more than fifteen million people or it is not. If this is to be the extent of our future, it is time we knew it. If this prediction for our future is erroneous, we should find it out. I do not believe Canada's future is limited by any such narrow horizon. It anticipates an increase of only 100,000 people a year for the next thirty years. The natural increase is
150,000	a year. If these figures are true we shall not be able to maintain our own natural increase. I have travelled over every section of this country; I have seen its developed and undeveloped resources, and I say to the government it ought not to rest content under this indictment of our future.


Mr. GLADSTONE:: Those figures take no account of immigration.


John Bracken: This is a document from one of the government's own departments, and I say if it is going to take that objective as our aim we ought to find out what is wrong with things in Canada and make some plans to correct the situation. The government has been making economic examinations by fits and starts. Is it not time the government undertook an examination of our economic structure as a whole, with a view to relating our problems and policies to our economic possibilities? Are we to sit still under -the suggestion that on one-half of this continent we are going to be content with fifteen million people.
What the government is achieving is not higher incomes by increased production, but a partial redistribution of existing wealth on the basis of scarcity. What we should be aiming to do is to place the emphasis on raising standards by increased production rather than by the division of a restricted production. Production alone is the source of material

The Address-Mr. Bracken
goods or wealth. Some of our Canadian laws discourage production, thereby lessening the supply of material goods and thus working against a high standard of living for our people. Canada is not now giving to all men who want to work, and thereby produce, an opportunity to do so.
One of the chief weaknesses is the lack of team play between workers, business, agriculture and the government. There is no spirit of unity or sense of partnership between these four segments of Canadian enterprise. The government's policies have not given us a harmonious working arrangement, and the government alone is responsible for not having brought these different interests into a closer and friendlier relationship. When Canadian laws are such as to bring about a sense of partnership and team play in Canada, production and wealth will expand for us all, and the standard of living will be raised.
With respect to the rehabilitation of returned men, the speech from the throne suggests that the government proposes to reconstitute the committee on the "veterans charter". There is widespread criticism of the manner in which the government is carrying out its responsibilities in connection with the rehabilitation of returned veterans. Many veterans are out of work, and many of these unemployed veterans are not in receipt of benefits. Furthermore, a great number of those who are in employment do not find themselves in satisfactory work.
A survey of reestablishment trends was published by the rehabilitation information committee covering the Montreal area. If this is a typical sample of rehabilitation trends throughout Canada, it is no wonder that the Canadian information service so severely criticizes the government's administration of veterans' rehabilitation. Maclean's magazine of March 15, 1946, summarizes what it had to say in this way:
Frusitiration 'and disappointment,^ borne with fortitude-that's the typical condition of the demobilized veteran; and it's our own fault, not his.
The magazine is quoting a report of a committee appointed by the government. The report means that in spite of all the eloquent phrases and glowing promises made by the government, the government is failing to bring about a satisfactory rehabilitation policy.
I come now to another serious matter, namely, housing. The speech from the throne tells us that the demand for houses exceeds the supply-as though that were news to anyone. Among the major failures of government administration is that of housing. In no field has its ineptitude been more glar-

ingly apparent. The government's housing policy, from the beginning, has been characterized by lack of cabinet teamplay. People seeking houses have been bombarded and confused with political promises made by cabinet ministers. But still they cannot get bouses. The shortage of houses in Canada has been variously estimated at from 300,000 to 700,000. There were insufficient new houses constructed in the ten years before the war; and during the war there was not enough building to offset obsolescence or to meet the needs of new families. The result is greatly accumulated needs at the present time.
The government's own reconstruction committee estimated Canadian requirements at at least 60,000 houses a year for the next ten years; and this estimate in my opinion gave too little consideration to the needs of rural Canada. But even on this estimate, the government is falling pitiably short of the objective.
It is beyond my comprehension to understand why the government should have applied controls to almost every other thing within the economy of this country, and allowed the price of houses to get so much out of hand that it is far beyond the means of the returning veteran or the average man to buy one. ,
The government parades its generous rehabilitation allowances for returned men. But it fails to parade the fact that these allowances, however generous, are all lost to the veterans who, under these conditions, are forced to pay inflated values for houses, whether produced under government plans or otherwise.
From what I can gather, the housing situation to-day is worse than it was a year ago, and offers little promise of a satisfactory solution. The failure of government administration on housing has been complete. The present situation in Canada to-day is a disgrace, and the government cannot help knowing it.	,
Housing is our number one national emergency. Many veterans returning from the . fighting fronts are unable to find homes. Many families are living in hovels and garrets. The consequences to the nation are little short of disastrous. How can we build a healthy, contented nation in such a condition of unrest?
It is not that the situation could not have been avoided. Even the government itself' believed that it could have been avoided.. Do hon. members remember the election posters which proclaimed to all and sundry that Liberal policies meant 60,000 homes immediately? Yes-not next year, or even, next

The Address-Mr. Bracken
month, but immediately. This was last May-tea months ago. Some of them promised a million new homes in ten years.
Do you remember those advertisements, Mr. Speaker? I am sure you do. You probably used some of them yourself. Do you remember the beautiful advertisement protraying a house which would appear to be worth at least $S,000, and alongside which appeared the caption: "What! You're buying that lovely little home for only $13.82 a month ?" I have a copy of this advertisement in my hand, and I should be pleased to show it to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and to the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) so that they may refresh their failing memories. Here is what this Liberal election advertisement says:
We are planning for at least 600,000 housing units, iand perhaps 1,000,000. No matter where you live, yo*u will be able to reside dm a comfortable home of which you cam be proud.	.
The Liberal government believes that it is the right of every family to own' its own home- and live in it. The new housing plan is one of many brought -about by the Liberals to provide the people with genuine social security now.
That was last May. This copy advocates the election of the distinguished hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Sinclair). I wonder what the people of Oshawa think of it to-day. I wonder how many are buying homes at $13.82 a month. I wonder how many veterans are getting suitable homes at all.
The housing situation is a festering sore on the body politic, an inexcusable blot on Canada's war effort. Could it have been avoided? Certainly it could have been. When one assesses the causes of the situation, he realizes that this government during ten years of office could have avoided the trouble.
What were the causes? They were lack of planning in advance; lack of coordination of government agencies involved; divided authority; divided responsibility; failure to tie in with provincial and municipal authorities; government frustration of private builders; the monopolizing of building materials; rigid controls holding up production of necessary fixtures. In addition there was the usual story of laws against production impeding recovery.
I have no words in my vocabulary adequate to condemn the lack of unified and aggressive action in this matter. A national emergency exists. During the war we met the national emergency courageously and forthrightly. Surely we shall not be less resolute in peace.
I now come to a discussion of agriculture and food. The speech from the throne tells us that the most pressing problem demanding immediate attention is the food problem. That is a fact we have known for monthsthat is, everybody except the government. We heard about their new policy first in the speech from the throne. Then instead of taking the advice that he gave to the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) to go to church on Saint Patrick's day, the Prime Minister comes out on that day with a new programme on agriculture.
It Is only a few weeks since the government held an agricultural objectives conference with the provincial governments on the subject of the agricultural programme for the coming year. At that conference there was no substantial change made from the programme of last year, yet since last year the world picture for food has changed very greatly for the worse.
Every one will recognize that a nation of 12,000,000 people cannot be expected to prevent starvation all over the world, but no one expects it to. We are only expected to do what we can. Famine can be offset only by food, and food can be saved by those who have it and increased by those who grow it. Canada should be helping in both directions. Our criticism of the government in this respect is that it has made no major effort to revise its last year's plans to meet the more pressing demands of this year. We have heard nothing since we last met of an organized plan to save more food until, as I said, we had this announcement in the speech from the throne and then the present announcement made yesterday by the Prime Minister.
The stubborn attitude of the government in connection with the food prices is in sharp contrast with the action of other important food producing nations. Only three weeks ago the United States government made important upward revisions in its food objectives for 1946. They have raised its goals for wheat, com and soy beans by at least one million acres each. Increased seedings of other crops are also called for. Australia has requested her farmers to bring her wheat acreage back to pre-war levels by seeding four million acres more this year. Except for the belated statement of the' Prime Minister issued on Sunday we have heard nothing since we last met of an organized plan to save more food. We have heard nothing of any plan to increase the production of food.
In his long prepared statement on the food crisis the Prime Minister spent more than half his time extolling the productive efforts of the farmers of Canada during the last four years. I join with him in that, because they did a good job. It is all very well to talk of the past, but what we want now and in the immediate future is more food. The government admits that the food crisis will last for from
The Address-Mr. Bracken

two to four years, but in all that long statement there was not one word about the efforts being made by the government to increase food production. The government confines its efforts to increasing the amount of wheat and oats exports immediately available out of the present crop. Surely the government realizes that this is a more serious emergency than that kind of policy will meet. The greatest needs are for this year, and the second greatest needs will be for the year after this.
Commenting upon the dominion-provincial conference objectives the Prime Minister says that no further statement is required in respect to the target for the 1946 wheat acreage. The farm population is urged to plan its farming so as to produce the maximum quantity of food during the next three or four years. There is only one saving grace. Even if the government does not know how to produce more food, the farmers do, and that is by producing more wheat. So we can look for a greater seeding of wheat this year, not because of the government's recommendations but in spite of them, just as the farmers will produce less hogs and dairy products this year in spite of the government's asking, recommending, and hoping for more. Just so long as the government has a so-called objectives conference and puts out pious hopings, recommendings and askings and does not give any other incentives to change, then just so long will the farmers of Canada pay little heed to them.
The government called the agricultural conference of last December an objectives conference. As I said, they put forth recommendings, askings, estimates and mostly hopings without any clear guidance in the form of varying price relationships to guide the farmer into the required or hoped for production.
The ridiculous results have been these. The government asked for four per cent more hogs; they will get twenty per cent less. They asked for two per cent more milk; they will get two per cent less. They asked for five per cent more butter; they will get five per cent less. They asked for the same wheat acreage, but the farmers are ignoring them and will soon seed more acreage. Our reports indicate that that is what they are planning to do. Is it any wonder that the farmers do not accept the government's agricultural suggestions? Unless there are some material incentives in the place of mere suggestions and hopes, they will not change their plans to suit the government.
We have had no call from the government until to-day's announcement in the house for a major effort to save food. There has been no call at all for a major effort to produce food. Those are the only two ways in which we can help. I believe that the Canadian

people, if appealed to in a national drive for the conservation of food, will respond generously. I believe if the farmers are given the lead and the necessary incentives in the way of more farm labour and, in some cases,, increased price, a considerably larger volume for export can be achieved. The amount that will be obtained from this request to save more food will be considerable, but it will be infinitesimal when compared with the amount that could be obtained by an increased acreage of wheat.
I believe the people of Canada can save enough food and produce that much more to raise materially the standard of nutrition in Britain, or, if it is used elsewhere, to make a material contribution to the lessening of the ill effects of under-nutrition and semi-starvation that exists in some areas. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), according to press reports, holds the view that the acreage _ of wheat ought not to be increased in this emergency . As I have said, the Prime Minister has taken the same position on behalf of the government.
I hold a different view. I hold the view that wheat acreage can be increased, and that it can be increased without serious risk to good farming practice and without lessening the normal acreage sown to feed grains. I hold the view not only that wheat acreage can be increased to a considerable degree to help meet this need, but that it ought to be increased for this emergency and that the government ought to come out and say so.
I know that there are lingering fears of the depressing effect of wheat surpluses on wheat prices and wheat deliveries. I know the arguments about the need for cereal grains for feed for live stock. I know the argument that in dry areas a certain proportion of the land should be allowed to lie fallow to conserve moisture for next year's crop. It has been my business for thirty years, both in research and in practice in connection, with farming, to understand that. But I know also that the only way to get extra food for hungry people is either to share what we have or to grow more. We have done splendidly in both directions, particularly in the line of production, during the last few years, but we can do more.
I know we need to encourage live stock production. I suggest no diminution in efforts' in that direction', but this is not the time to be increasing it or trying to maintain it on the basis of war-time demands. To-day in western Canada nearly one-third, thirty per Gent, of the cultivated land dhvoted to growing cereal crops lies fallow each year, producing nothing. Prior to 1941 the normal

The Address-Mr. Bracken
amount lying fallow for that purpose was about twenty-five per cent. We have increased the percentage of fallow land lying barren every .year since we started paying ipeople to grow less acres of wheat. The wheat acreage of western Canada can be increased by nearly four million acres by going back to the percentage of summerfallow that was used prior to the time we started paying people to summer-fallow and not to grow so much wheat. We do not need to reduce the acreage that is being used for feed crops for animals.
Just in that connection let me point out to hon. members one fundamental fact. An acre of land devoted to the production of cereals and producing fifteen bushels of wheat to the acre will provide a million calories, one of the chief measures of nutrition in human food. If that same amount of cereals is fed to hogs, then the calorific value of the bacon and other hog products produced will be reduced to
250.000	calories ; and if it is fed to beef cattle the calorific value will be reduced to less than 100,000.
In thickly populated areas famine is not overcome by feeding to live stock cereal grains that can be used to feed people. The cereal crops fed to human beings give more than four times the amount of food value than the live stock products grown from the same amount of cereals would give to them.
I am not suggesting that we should get out of the live stock business. We need it to balance our agriculture. But we have to-day
19.400.000	acres of summerfallow out there growing nothing. The acreage in fallow under pre-war conditions wotdd be about fifteen or sixteen million. By going back to that amount of summerfallow we can get three or four million acres more to grow wheat, which would give us thirty or forty million bushels; and in this way we will do many times more to help correct famine conditions in Britain or somewhere else than will be accomplished by all the effort to save food-though I am not discouraging the government in that policy. Save food by all means. I know that summerfallowing is good farming practice in dry areas, but in time of need it may be better to summer-fallow a little less and grow more wheat to help supply this need.
The Prime Minister's statement on food policy will be a stunning blow to the food producers of Canada. It is a defeatist statement, and it places Canada in an embarrassing position compared with what other nations are doing. The dairy farmers were looking for higher returns to encourage them to increase milk production, which would not necessarily call for a very largely increased use of grain.
The wheat farmers are willing to seed more wheat in the 1946-47 emergency. They are looking for more positive action.
Under present policies, food production in Canada this year will decline. Farm labour is scarce and dear. Farm costs are rising. The price ceilings and subsidies that were sufficient during the past few years are not high enough to-day to call for an expanded food production. This is the simple fact. Why are people going out of these lines of agriculture which require a lot of labour? Because of the very greatly increased cost. If the government is really anxious to help starving Europe it must provide for increased returns to food producers. The dairy farmers must have higher prices to stem the decline in milk production. Wheat farmers need to be allowed to get more of the world price if they are to seed three or four million acres of this land which will otherwise lie fallow this year, if they are to decrease the amount of fallow land from 19-4 million acres to about 16 million acres. All they have to do is, instead of summerfallowing a hundred acres, to summerfallow eighty and use the other twenty for crop.
I trust that the government's new plans will be revised further and that they will encourage greater production of cereals than their objectives conference accepted. I am pleased to note that the government's plans will include a programme for the prevention of waste of food in Canada, and I trust the government will revise its system of subsidies to provide the price incentives needed to bring forth additional production.
That means more labour for Canadian farms. Labour has been tempted away by high wages. A good many farmers feel that they cannot pay those high wages to get them back, and a good many people do not want to go back. It means price incentives which will meet the increased costs of that labour and encourage, while the scarcity of food exists, the greatest production of food that it is possible to achieve in Canada. This does not need to bring about any continuing change in farm practice. Farmers could increase the amount of summerfallow later on, from twenty-five per cent of the total to thirty per cent if there is reason for doing so. They can easily change now from letting thirty per cent lie idle to letting twenty-five per cent lie idle and thus produce more. They did not change from the old practice of letting twenty-five . per cent lie idle because they thought it was wise; they changed because they were paid to change. We paid the farmers to sow fewer acres. Naturally they sowed grain on the best prepared land1, and so, after paying them to grow less, we actually got more. They sowed
The Address-Mr. Bracken

on. the better land and, with better weather and other conditions to help, the smaller acreage actually gave more wheat.
I come now to the question of restrictions and controls. The speech from the throne indicates that the government is planning to remove certain controls but to continue certain others in order, as it says, to prevent inflation. For the purposes of war this government established a system of price and wage and other controls. The nation was behind it in this principle, if not in all the details of its application. These price controls were applied in war time for the purpose, among other tilings, of discouraging the use of labour in the production of unessential goods where more essential things were required for winning the war. The war is now over, but the controls in considerable degree still remain. The government's policy of decontrol is so slow and so lacking in skill and foresightedness that the dangers of inflation increase. This danger threatens because of one or both of two causes-too much purchasing power, or too little goods.
I do not need to tell this house about the vastly increased purchasing power now in the hands of the Canadian people. The Royal Bank of Canada states in its monthly letter of February of this year, that bank deposits in currency alone totalled $468 per capita compared with $224 per capita in 1039. In 1939 the average monthly deposits amounted to $2-6 billion; in October, 1945, this had increased to $5-6 billion. Notes in the hands of the public increased between 1939 and October of last year from $216 million to $999 million. Eleven victory loans were floated, in which twenty-three million individual applications were made. The total bonds purchased amounted to some $12 billion. Additional surplus purchasing power was invested in $170 million of war savings certificates and war savings stamps, and $225 millions of compulsory income tax savings. A great deal of this surplus purchasing power cannot avoid being released over the next few years, and thus increase the danger of inflation.
The second danger arises from a continuing shortage of goods. A measure of control on some things is necessary; but what the government seems to forget is that by its policy it is perpetrating the very conditions that it seeks to correct, namely, the shortage of goods. The people of Canada want goods, and they want work. They do not want to see machines lying idle while those who can operate them go without work, while those with the money to purchase goods have to go without them.

The government seems not yet to have learned that price controls in peace time are laws against production. What is required more than anything else to-day to head off threatened inflation is increased production. With all respect I suggest to the government that in perpetuating unnecessary controls they are defeating the very objectives they seek to reach and are postponing the early restoration of normal peace-time conditions. I do not urge the government to engage in rash efforts of decontrol, but I do urge the government to prepare and make public, now that the war is over, a planned programme to relax wage controls on low-wage people and to free the productive processes of the country by relaxing those price control laws against production, which were made necessary in war but which in times of peace discourage what is most essential to the production of needed goods.
The speech from the throne indicates that the government is going to ask the house to approve the loan to Britain. A few days ago the government announced that it had negotiated a loan to Britain in the amount of $1,250 million, interest free for five years, and had made certain other adjustments in British-Canadian financial relations.
From the point of view of the selfish interests of Canada, the loan is amply justified. On grounds of simple justice to an ally and senior member of the commonwealth, which had suffered more severely than any other in this war, as well as on the grounds of reestablishment of good will and faith and peace in the world, no reasonable alternative is open to us. Britain sacrificed not only the blood of her sons but a quarter of her material wealth. Now, having done perhaps more per capita than any other people in the world, they find themselves having to pay tribute to other nations because they have to borrow from those nations in order to buy the goods they need. I think we have every justification for supporting this loan; we see justification for it on purely selfish grounds. The money will be spent here to give employment in this country. As a matter of fact, it is an unemployment measure for us as much as anything else. From our point of view we support the loan, not alone on the ground of British and world welfare, but on the ground of our own self-interest.
But we might as well understand what we are doing. The public has been allowed to think of this as a loan of $1,250 million. The facts are that, apart from the loan, there are several other agreements and transactions having to do with our financial relations with

The Address-Mr. Bracken
Britain. Among these are the cancellation of the United Kingdom debt to us of $425 million, arising out of the commonwealth air training plan; also provision for the extension of the 1942 interest-free loan to Britain until 1951, a loan which originally, I understand, was $700 million and which has been reduced now to $500 million. In addition there is the settlement of war-time claims and counterclaims between Britain and Canada, including the cost of food and other supplies furnished Britain since V-J day.
Speaking of these huge transactions, we sometimes overlook their full implications. What this loan in fact means is that for five years the Canadian taxpayer will pay interest on it which, even at 2i per cent, will be $30 million a year, and at the same rate on the extension of the 1942 interest-free loan he will pay $14 million. On the $425 million obligation which has been -written off, the Canadian taxpayer will still have to pay $10 million a year in interest, and eventually the principal as well. These figures total an annual payment exceeding $50 million for each of the next few years.
At the same time it is well that we appreciate that after all it is a contribution to prevent unemployment in Canada till trade is once more resumed. We have unemployment now. I ask anyone in Canada who opposes this measure, what unemployment would be like if we did not lend this money to Britain and have it spent in Canada in order to give jobs. As I said, it is in fact an unemployment prevention measure, to be paid for by the Canadian taxpayer to the extent that interest and principal are not fully paid by the borrower, the British taxpayer.
With some members of the government I went through the difficulties of the depression years of the thirties in Manitoba-the difficulties encountered in connection with unemployment-and I suggest that if we had been doing then some of the things that we are doing now we would have come through that condition much better than we did. In the whole of those ten years this government spent only one thousand million on relief. Now, in one loan to another country, to buy goods from us, which will enable us to give jobs to our people, it is raising and giving a loan of $1,250 million.
I come now to export credits. The government says they have extended certain credits. There is on the statute book an Export Credits Insurance Act giving the government power to advance credits to foreign countries to an amount of $750 million. I believe-


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John Bracken: Since the house prorogued, it is reported that a number of credits have been extended to different countries. I make'no comment on this. We support the idea in principle. I should like, however, to ask three questions which I hope the minister will answer in his budget, though I would appreciate it if he could give the answer sooner. I wish to ask that the Minister of Finance axivdse us, at the next sitting if possible, all the countries to which credits have been advanced and the amount advanced to each. We see reports of these things in the papers, but I would ask the minister to inform us of the interest rate and terms of payment under each of these loan transactions. I also ask that the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance advise us of the financial position as between this country and Russia, what mutual aid has been given and received, and what credits or other transactions have occurred since the end of the war.
The speech from, the throne refers to trade -exports and imports. This country, like many others, is seeking to save itself by increasing its exports. Somebody has told us that three persons out of every eight have jobs in Canada because we have an export business. In this connection I trust the government has learned the lesson that the last two decades have taught so clearly, namely, that nations cannot continue to export and be paid for their exports if they do not import. The nations of the world are all trying to export. Only in recent months has there been a general recognition that we have to import if we are to export.
In connection with trade matters I have two questions to ask the government. The United States government has announced plans for calling an international conference on trade. The government of Canada has been invited to attend. The United Kingdom government has invited the commonwealth countries to a free conference on the same matter, and I presume Canada will attend. In this connection I wish to ask, and I think that parliament is entitled to know, what attitude the Canadian government will take at those conferences with respect to the question of empire preference.
We are hearing much about trade agreements which the government has been negotiating with other countries. I would ask the government to make a statement at the earliest possible moment as to the terms of any agreements made since the last report was made to the house, and the present state of any negotiations now under way.
The Address-Mr. Bracken

I want to refer briefly to a matter not mentioned in the speech from the throne, the question of cartels. The government tells us it is entering into agreements with the governments of other countries to permit a wider volume of international trade. The government tries to do this with a view, among other things, to increasing employment. At the same time the business of production and trade is, in some instances, falling under the domination of cartels and other production and trade agreements. Those who enter into such cartel agreements have no primary responsibility for employment, and may in some instances be defeating the purpose of constructive trade laws. This government appointed a commission to inquire into the question of cartels in Canada, and that commission has presented a report. Recommendations have been made. I am surprised' that, having this report in its possession, the government has made no reference in the speech from the throne as to what it proposes to do about the recommendations the commission made. What the Canadian people will want to know, and what this house will expect to be told, is what steps the government proposes to take to implement any or all of four or five recommendations the commission made.
I should like to refer to one other item not. mentioned in the speech from the throne which has to do with another report. Last year the government set up two commissions, one to deal with the taxation of family corporations and annuities, and the other to deal with the taxation of cooperatives. Both these commissions have reported. The findings of the commission dealing with the taxation of family corporations were implemented in full in so far as the commissioners were in agreement; but upon the other report no action has been taken and none has been suggested. I am aware that this is a matter to be more fully dealt with in the budget. I am referring to it now to suggest to the Minister of Finance that we shall expect some statement from him upon it. What I wish to ask is that the government advise us what it proposes to do with respect to the findings of the commission on the taxation of cooperatives. I do not want to anticipate what the minister will say in his budget, but this is one of the things we shall expect to hear about.
The taxation laws on the statute books of Canada are an accumulation of makeshift measures of over a quarter of a century and are based on no scientific taxation principle whatever. Like Topsy, they have just

"growed"; and they have outgrown the capacity of the government for effective administration.
Generally speaking the taxation structure is obsolete. I think I am only saying what the government itself knows. The administration has been driven into becoming autocratic. Not only have the taxation laws become a hodgepodge of hit-or-miss measures improvised to meet the pressing needs of revenue and without regard to their effect, but many of them are fundamentally unsound in that they are regressive, discourage production, and thus defeat their chief legislative purpose, that of securing the maximum revenue with the least damage to our economy.
I am sure we were all glad to hear from the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) that a major reduction in taxation is to be effected in the coming budget. In its report of his address at Renfrew on March 11 last, the Ottawa Citizen quotes him as follows:
The budget for the coming year will be reduced. It is Laird to say how much. .We cannot know until after the dominioin-provinoiiafl conference, but it should ibe down some fifty per cent.
This is an important statement, especially when it comes from the Minister of National Revenue. I presume that a statement of this importance was not made without the approval of the Minister of Finance. With such a big reduction as has been promised, we will expect that when the budget is brought down it will announce an all-round tax reduction of fifty per cent. When the Minister of National Revenue accomplishes that, I think we shall be prepared to replace the present Minister of Finance and appoint him.
I come now to the question of labour relations. During the war, both organized and unorganized workers played a great part in our success. Since the war, labour in Canada on the whole has displayed commendable patience in waiting for the government to complete its reconversion programme, which the election advertisements told us would make "jojbs for all". It is to the credit of labour and its leaders that during the period of waiting for the fulfilment of election promises, Canada has suffered from labour disputes in a lesser degree than some countries. But, despite labour's patient waiting, nothing is suggested in the speech from the throne to help bring confidence to labour in its search for a secure position in our economy. Nor is there even a word of tribute to labour for the part it played.

The Address-Mr. Bracken
In the past the British North America Act has been cited by the government as the reason for our having no national labour code. To an extent this does present some difficulties, but there is nothing to prevent parliament at this session from passing a national . labour code covering government services, crown companies, government contractors, transportation services, such as railways, steamships, canals, et cetera.
A proper labour code covering these employments would be an indication of good faith on the part of the federal government and would lend encouragement to the provincial governments to join in the national code, or to make their own in conformity with it. It would constitute an example and a model. It would help greatly to achieve industrial stability and industrial peace throughout Canada.
The national code should provide for the certification of trade unions; make possible collective bargaining in keeping with present-day trends in harmonious labouremanagement relations; provide for minimum wages sufficient to establish decent standards of living, maximum working hours, a minimum age for those entering employment, equal pay for equal work, regardless of sex; vacations and statutory holidays with pay, and the setting up of. administrative machinery truly representative of labour, management and government.	[DOT]
I do not suggest that the obligations of the government would be concluded with the passage of such legislation. I believe that there rests upon the federal government a responsibility to give leadership, and that the government should at once summon a dominion-provincial conference on labour relations to set in motion plans for, what might be called a charter of industrial peace and progress of Canada. This is a matter distinct from the taxation problems now occupying the attention of a dominion-provincial conference, and should be considered separately. At such a conference, an attempt should be made to secure agreement on the major principles of labour relations on their merits, and an agreement on the part of the provinces to pass the required uniform statutes to bring about a standardized procedure from coast to coast in Canada. It is not enough to pay lip service to the cause of labour. Definite and specific action is required if labour is to be brought into that real partnership in our economy without which harmonious and proper national development is impossible. The goal of full employment can be achieved only by a true partnership of labour, industry, agriculture and the government. This goal cannot be achieved 63260-^3
unless we can find a way to lessen the losses of time, wages, money and production that arise, if our economy is constantly disturbed, by strikes and lockouts.
I come now to another matter not mentioned in the speech from the throne, a matter which was the subject of a good deal of discussion here last year. I refer to the question of orders in council. The Canadian government claims to be a responsible government. Parliament delegates sparingly its authority to the government, yet in war time much of its legislation was enacted by order in council, sometimes behind the back of parliament and even when parliament was sitting. Once the war was over it was expected that this practice would cease. We fought this issue in the last session of parliament. Parliament nevertheless granted the government a modified form of this authority. In doing so we were assured by the government, or so we understood, not only that orders in council would be made available to us but that there were no secret orders in council. It now transpires that there was at least.- one secret order which had been in existence for two months at the very time the government gave us the assurance that there were none. We were misled generally on the question of there being no more secret orders, and we were misled specifically when the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) stated, as reported in Hansard of December 6, 1945, at page 3026:
That is not a secret order, and there are no secret orders.
I feel sure the Minister of Justice did not mean to mislead this house, but I say quite frankly that when that statement was made we were misled, because there was then in' existence a secret order in council which came to light only a few weeks ago. Last session parliament granted the government special emergency powers, but these were granted in the expectation that no orders in council would be withheld from us. We certainly had a right to expect that the government would not mislead us in so serious a matter. Whatever justification the government can now make for having passed this secret order in council, it certainly misled this house last year. Will the government say now whether there are any other secret orders in existence?
The speech from the throne states that demobilization is proceeding rapidly and that most of the veterans are home with the exception of a few in the occupation army. This government has had much to say about the status of Canada as a nation. It has spread abroad the idea that Canada is to play its part as an important power in the maintenance of international peace. It has sub-

The Address-Mr. Bracken

scribed to the united nations organization, committing this country to do its fair share in the maintenance of peace. In that spirit it undertook to share the duties of occupying enemy territory in Europe, but it has recently announced that we will no longer share these duties.
With the policy of bringing back to Canada those who went abroad to fight the war, we are m agreement; but according to peacetime plans announced by the Minister of National Defence we are to have a standing army of 25,000 men. Meanwhile the government gives us no indication as to whether the occupation forces that are being withdrawn are to be replaced by any other troops. This government committed itself at San Francisco to sharing in the responsibilities of peace. Having sent an occupation force into Germany, it now withdraws that force, leaving Britain to assume Canada's self-imposed task. What the people of this country expect and what parliament desires is a satisfactory explanation of that procedure-not as to bringing home the boys who went away to fight the war, but as to the government's sudden change of policy in respect to sharing the occupational duties with our allies. What we want to know is whether the government is backing away from the international responsibility it assumed at San Francisco, or some other explanation that will justify leaving to Britain alone the burden of occupying the , British zone in Germany.
Now I should like to say just a brief word on dominion-provincial relations. The speech from the throne tells us that the coordinating committee met in January, and progress was made. It is to meet again on April 25, and we are told that we may have some legislation arising out of that meeting. Throughout the life of this government this problem has been before the Canadian people. For ten years it has been before it in an intensified form, yet the government has been scarcely able to keep abreast of the problem, Jet alone accomplish its solution. The government knows the problem; it has known it for years, yet it has permitted inequities to continue. This parliament, if I do not misjudge it, will expect the government to see to it that whatever weaknesses are inherent in our dominion-provincial set-up are corrected in such a way as to assure a reasonable standard of social services for Canadian citizens in whatever part of the country they may happen to live. I think the parliament of Canada will support such a policy, and I sincerely trust that the representatives of this government and the 
representatives of the provinces will be able to accomplish an understanding that will achieve this objective.
I have now referred to most of the matters touched upon in the speech from the throne, but parliament and the House of Commons has .more to do than pass and administer laws. The parliament of Canada is a big business institution. The business of government in Canada is the biggest business in Canada, and it affects US' all very intimately. For five minutes I want to refer to that business. I referred to it a year ago, and the Prime Minister did not like it. He thought it was a matter for the budget, but this is the last opportunity to raise these matters before the budget is brought down, hence I want to leave these suggestions with the government before that time.
Before the war the government's annual expenditures were, in round figures, $500,000,-
000.	In the last fiscal year they were ten times that amount, over $5,000,000,000. I am not at the moment [DOT]criticizing that. In 1950, with the war five years behind us, it has been estimated that unless the government mends its ways we shall be spending between $1,500 million and $2,000 million a year; in other words three or four times what we spent in the peace-time years shortly before the war. At the moment I am presenting these facts only in order that we may look at them and try to figure out how best to meet the situation.
In the war years about half the cost of the war was paid out of taxes ; the other half became a mortgage on the taxpayers in the form of debt. In the last year before the war our gross debt was $3,700 million. At the end of the fiscal year ending in 1945 it had grown . to $15,700 million, or more than four times the pre-war amount. At the pace at present indicated by the government, the gross debt in 1950 it has been estimated may approach $20,000 million which, even at 2& per cent, would carry an i annual interest burden approaching the total of all government expenditures in the year before the war.
With respect to taxes, the government collected from all sources in the year before the'war, in round figures, the sum of $500 million; and in the 1945 fiscal year it collected more than five times as muph or over $2,600 million.
What is the result of all these increased expenditures, increased debts and increased taxes? In 1929 the government took just eight per cent of the people's total income in taxes. In 1939 it took over twelve per cent. In the war years it took much more, for which we make no complaint. But when the end of the war is five years distant, if we are

The Address-Mr. Bracken
to judge by the way government commitments are piling up now, the proportion of the people's income taken in taxes by the-government is likely to approximate twenty-five per cent. This may va*y four per cent or five per cent eiiher way. What the taxpayers will think of that tax load, when they protested so vigorously against paying eight per cent before the war, it is not difficult to guess. '
I have four general criticisms and one suggestion with respect to the government's conduct of its business affairs.
1.	The government is going too deeply into debt, and conducting its business too extravagantly, having in mind the possibility of a lower national income or a set-back in our economy, once the immediate domestic and post-war needs are met.
2.	The weight of the taxation to carry the heavy load imposed upon us by the government is discouraging production, both on the part of workers and on the part of business.
3.	Government extravagance, inexcusable at any time, is criminal at a time like this; and the government has shown no evidence that it is capable of checking that extravagance. In this connection ! trust that the committee dealing with war assets will be set up early and that it will get to grips with a situation which is far from satisfactory in the minds of many people in Canada.
4.	The government has completely failed to live up- to its election promises with respect to reduced taxation and, in this regard, has misled the people. They were promised reduced taxes, and this condition has not been forthcoming. I suggest that, whatever else it may do, it is imperative that the government increase the exemptions allowed to the lower income groups.
I now approach a question which may be somewhat of a surprise to hon. members- although I do not think it will. This is a matter which has been considered from time to time for many years and about which very little has been done. I refer to the matter of government procedure. I have been discussing legislation and administration, and have touched briefly upon the business arrangements necessary for the carrying out of that legislation. I should like now, in a constructively critical way, to look at the procedure we follow in the house to get our work done.
I watched carefully last autumn the procedure of the first session of the twentieth parliament of Canada, and tried to appreciate its maze of forms and conventions. After faithful attendance and critical observation throughout the whole session I formed several definite impressions. I had already learned to respect 63260-3J
the necessity for rules based on the precedent of long years of British parliamentary practice. But British parliamentary practice has left us far behind. Our Canadian practice is still in the ox-cart stage of half a century ago. The theory seems to be that because these were once regarded as good and because they came to us from the mother, of parliaments, there is not much we can do to effect improvements.
I found that the procedure followed was centred too much around legislation; that it invited talk to occupy too much the right of way. I found, also, a too-meticulous worship of outmoded rules, and I found that the business of government was relegated to a secondary place. We know the brief time that was allowed to consider the expenditure of about S3,000 million of the people's money.
I found that this worship of outmoded rules was leading us into dictatorship in the form of order in council government, and this to the detriment of a really effective and responsible parliament. My impressions and suggestions can be briefly stated as follows:
1.	I found the procedure to be slow, clumsy, wasteful of time and excessively conventional.
2.	I considered that the rules required simplification and modernization, and to be made more% democratic and more practical.
I trust that the government will not take offence at my next impression. It is this:
3.	I reached the view that the government allows itself to perpetuate these antiquated forms because they enable it the better to thwart the opposition and to protect its own interests as a party in control of the procedure of the house. I am frank to say that I was in the position the government now occupies, for more than twenty years, and I know how these complex procedures get in the opposition's way. I was convinced that, whatever merit these rules may have as a whole, they succeed in frustrating private members of the house.
4.	I reached the conclusion

(a)	that the debate on the speech f-rom the throne should and can be shortened;
(b)	that the legislation brought before the house should and can be expedited;
(c)	that the budget and the estimates both should receive far more consideration than government procedure allows.
5.	It is my view that-
(a)	The debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne could be shortened by agreement among the parties as to the disposition of time. To such mutual agreement, for the sake of expediting business, I am prepared now to commit this party.
The Address-Mr. Bracken

(b)	The legislation can be expedited by dealing in the house with only the main principles of measures introduced, and by referring to committees the consideration of the detail they contain.
(c)	with respect to the budget and estimates, it is my view'-
(1)	That the estimates, as is now customary, should be tabled immediately after the speech from the throne is disposed of.
(2)	That the budget should come down at the same time or closely following. This has not been the rule. What do we do now? We vote away millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money, before we know how much we are going to get by way of revenue or what changes in taxation are proposed. Then, after having done that, the Minister of Finance comes here and says, "We have undertaken to spend so much; we will have to raise a revenue of this amount." I suggest that this is not business-like, and that members of the House of Commons ought to know what the provisions are for the raising of revenue at the time they are passing the expenditures.
(3)	That motions to go into Supply should be made at least once weekly, on a day when such motion is debatable, so that members of parliament may not be denied the right to discuss matters they may regard as of pressing public importance. In Great Britain, where they adjourn a little earlier than we do here, I understand the adjournment motion is debatable. My suggestion is made so that hon. members may not be denied under the rules the right to raise matters of major public importance at least once weekly.
(4)	That much more time should be allowed for consideration of the estimates and that definite days from the beginning of the session should be set aside for this purpose.
I do not think we should be giving the major part of our time at the beginning of the session to the consideration of legislation with the temptation to do too much talking and then be crowded into pushing money appropriations through without due consideration. The unseemly and unbusinesslike rush in voting away the people's money at the end of each session is a procedure unworthy of a responsible parliament. It is in our hands, the hands of the members of the different parties in this house, to remedy this matter. I am prepared to sit in and help. I suggest that the way to proceed is to have, not a large committee with everybody having different ideas as to how to do

it but a committee made up of a few people determined to modernize the rules and ready to go about doing it -
(5)	That the estimates of each department should be referred to- a committee for the consideration of detail, the discussions in the house to be confined as far as possible to major items.
The government may not like some of these things, but the members of the House of Commons are entitled to know more of the details than they now get.
(6)	It is my view that the whole committee structure of the house should be revamped, many of the present committees having no relationship to reality and some of them seldom functioning. There should be ten or more committees to cover the work of the different departments of the government. Each committee should have the power to review orders in council. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how many members of the House of Commons have read one-hundredth part of the orders in council that have been passed by this government? We just do not know what they contain. As I say, each committee should have the power to review orders in council affecting the work of the committee, to consider estimates, to ask questions relating to any departmental matter of public interest and to consult any or all officials. The members of the House of Commons are relatively ignorant of what is going on in these departments because we do not have access to the people who know the details. In the house there are 245 people who want to ask questions, but the great majority have no chance to ask them.
Each committee should have the power to consider the public accounts of the department concerned. Coming into this house from the outside, I thought one of the most serious criticisms was the failure of the house to use the public accounts committee. It is not for the sake of trying to prove that somebody is a rogue. I do not think anyone sitting over there is a rogue and I hope you will not force us to wait until we think you are rogues before you let us get into these departments and ask what is going on in order that we may know the people's business better. I think it would do the government itself a lot of good to find out the things that are there that need improvement and that the government itself would like to remedy.
These committees, if allowed to develop, could become a really effective aid to more businesslike and constructive parliamentary government. It is my opinion that if some procedure such as I have suggested were

The Address-Mr. Bracken
adopted we could get through the work of the session in three-quarters of the time and do much better work.
1 come now to a question which was not mentioned in the speech from the throne but which has been the subject of great public interest during the last month-espionage. The speech from the throne mentioned many things, most of which, as I have said', were mentioned when parliament met last year, but one thing it did not mention. It did not mention the one matter above all others that is occupying the attention of the Canadian people to-day. It did not mention the espionage proceedings that have been so much before the public.
On the day the government made its first announcement with respect to this matter I was given some intimation by the Prime Minister of the nature of the facts that bad come to the attention of the government. On the same day, after the announcement had been made public, I issued a statement to the press that the government was to be commended for proceeding to take action on the basis of the facts in its possession. I have not since varied from the position that I took on that day.
When oaths are violated against the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, when information is improperly conveyed by civil servants in high ranking positions to the government of a foreign power, when these civil servants hold important positions as some did in this case in departments of government, such as the national research council, the office! of the British high commissioner in Canada and one in a very confidential position in the office of the Prime Minister of Canada-


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Not in the Prime Minister's office, in the Department of External Affairs.


Mr. GRAYDON:: A department the Prime Minister presides over.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is not the Prime Minister's office.


Gordon Graydon: The Prime Minister presides over it.


John Bracken: I am glad to be corrected by the Prime Minister. It is more correct to say that one of these persons was in a very confidential position in the office of a department over which the Prime Minister presides. When, as we were informed the latter part of last week, these things are being done in some instances because of a higher loyalty than that to Canada, then under sucli conditions it is high time that the facts of the matter should be speedily and thoroughly investigated and exposed and that those charged, if found guilty, should be brought to justice and that the public service of Canada be purged of all such influences of disloyalty and disaffection.
But there is a well recognized procedure that modem states follow in such instances, and that procedure guarantees certain rights to individuals who are charged with crimes against the state. In this case some sections of the public have become alarmed. It is charged that the government has resorted to star chamber methods and has denied to individuals certain rights guaranteed by law. We commend the government for searching out enemies of the state, particularly in the field of conspiring with representatives of governments of other powers, but the Canadian people in large numbers have become concerned lest in the carrying out of this duty the government is invading one of the inalienable rights that British justice has secured for individuals. It is feared by many that a dangerous precedent is being established.
In this respect, criticism of the government may well await the government's fuller explanation of its departure from ordinary procedure in such matters. But we will expect a clear and explicit statement from the government as to why, in its judgment, such extraordinary procedure was necessary. Until that statement is forthcoming the government cannot expect to be immune from doubt on the part of many who, while wishing to search out the guilty, will wish to preserve inviolate the rights of individuals that British justice has not denied for generations past. The Prime Minister last week, in reply to questions, promised to make a full statement on this matter in his speech to follow mine to-day. He answered it partly the other day. I wish now before he speaks to direct some questions to him, which I trust he will answer in the course of his address.
The order in council initiating the proceedings was dated October 6, 1915. One question I would ask is this: why was this matter held in suspense from that date until a few weeks ago? I am sure the Prime Minister will be answering that; probably he would have done so in any event, if I had not asked it.
Will the Prime Minister advise the house whether this matter was the subject of discussion with the governments of the United States and Great Britain?
Will the Prime Minister give us some indication as to how widely these subversive

The Address-Mr. Bracken
activities have extended throughout Canada? It may be that he cannot answer that definitely.
In seeking information on this matter, I have no thought of embarrassing the government. This is a matter which may have very far-reaching consequences for all Canadians; and I believe that the ends of justice and the interests of Canada will be best served by the government taking the parliament and people of Canada into its confidence, and making the public fully aware of the extent and seriousness of the matters involved. We are anxious not only that the public service be purged of all such subversive influences, but also that we as members of parliament 'Can assure those who sent us here that we are taking effective steps to ensure that there will be no recurrence of these activities in the future. I feel sure that these are matters with which the Prime Minister will deal to-night.
I come now to a matter which the government, in the speech from the throne, indi-[DOT]cated was very important. Its words were:
The future of our own land of every country [DOT]depends upon success in the task of world recon-sbruattion, and the establishment of -am enduring peace.
That is a question not of our domestic affairs but of our international affairs. 1 want for the remainder of my remarks to deal with the question of foreign policy.
We are met here to-day at a critical time in the affairs of a troubled world. The nations are facing one of the great cross-roads of human history. They have no choice but to make solemn and far-reaching decisions. Upon those decisions-the wise charting of our future course-the destiny of mankind very largely depends. I agree <vith the government when it says that this is an important matter. The alternative paths become clearer day by day. They are clearer now than they have, ever been before. We can have peace and progress or we can have anarchy and the reversion to worse conditions than the dark ages. The choice is in our hands to make.
In the first glow of victory of last May, and again in August, when the welcome news came that the war was over, the vision of permanent peace and progress appeared to be realized. Since then, slowly but inexorably, the fearsome knowledge has been borne in upon us that we still have another fight to win: this time a battle for peace, a battle that is quite as urgent, quite as difficult, and in some respects harder to fight than the battle for victory in war. The end of armed hostilities we now recognize as but the com-
meneement of an even more stubborn and relentless battle for peace and progress among men.
I have used the phrase, "the battle for peace and progress." There is no better phrase for what lies ahead. It will be a battle, a great and unceasing struggle against all the forces that have been the cause of war and poverty and pestilence in the world. On the side of right will be ranged the intelligence and sanity bequeathed to us by the accumulated wisdom of generations of mankind, and against us will be ranged all the dark forces which have denied the peace and prosperity and well-being which is the gift of science to this generation if we have but the collective wit to use it.
In war we met German aggression by our own aggression, German destruction by our instruments of destruction. We must now by sanity disarm aggression, substitute production for destruction, and settle our international disputes, not by the blood of our sons but by the force of reason.
In recent months optimism has given place to pessimism. Recurring waves of hope, of cynicism and of fatalism have swept across the world. It has become fashionable to be critical of the united nations organization. It is easy for men of little faith to predict its failure. As for myself, I am not one of those. I believe that a good beginning has been made in the building of a new international order, one which eventually will be strongly based on moral precepts and the rule of law. This new order of diplomacy is suffering growing pains. Plain speaking has replaced drawing-room courtesy. The nations of the world have reached a point of crisis.
It is a time for steady hands, a time for restraint, a time for caution, a time for sanity in both our thinking and our speaking. In these days we must recognize that enduring peace can be founded only upon the intellectual and moral solidarity of all the nations of mankind. Peace based upon political and economic expedients will not survive. The defences of peace must be soundly laid on the basis of free exchange of knowledge and ideas and resources throughout the world and a recognition of the rights of all peoples to govern themselves without dictation from outside. .
, The united nations organization is the present hope of mankind for world peace. To that organization this parliament has already given its unanimous allegiance. That allegiance we shall never withdraw. The obligations assumed we shall carry out. There are some wffio fear that this organization may fail.

The Address-Mr. Bracken
But it can succeed. It will succeed, if ordinary people the world over are helped to recognize that peace is the responsibility of all, not merely the responsibility of delegates of governments.
Where does Canada stand in this picture? What is our role to be? In this new world of science and modern transportation Canada has suddenly discovered herself to be the geographic and strategic centre of the continents. In the past we have thought ourselves protected by the oceans and isolated from the spheres of influence making for war. Bounded by three great oceans, we appeared to be a favoured and protected unit in a world that had not learned to live without war. If ever that were true it is certainly not true to-day. The three oceans no longer isolate or protect us. On the contrary they but provide an uninterrupted highway over which hostile agents of destruction can search us out between dawn and daylight from any angle of the compass. Any global map shows us where we are, in the centre of the great land masses of the globe, a possible modern Flanders in a world war.
Our geography has become at once our greatest danger and our greatest challenge. We have no choice now but to throw our weight positively in the direction of peace and order in the world. We are not mere spectators of the international scene. From this time on we are actors as well as spectators on the world stage. Those sacred acres of European and other soil "which are forever Canada" will not permit us again to shirk our responsibilities as a nation.
To make our full international contribution Canada must have a continuous and consistent foreign policy. Improvisation is not good enough to ensure continuity. To ensure the full assumption of our world responsibilities it is imperative among other things that a separate ministry of external affairs be created. Foreign policy is too vital to be left to the spare-time direction of a harassed Prime Minister. I was glad to hear the announcement this afternoon that the Prime Minister recognizes that he is already carrying too heavy a load, and that provision is being made so that sometime, I do not know how soon, that load may be shared by someone else.
Canada is now an international power. Her responsibilities in the cause of peace are potentially heavy. Her obligations are great.
Complacency in the past has been the scourge of our generation, and unpreparedpess and appeasement the cause of war. All this complacency, unpreparedness and appeasement will have the same results in the future
as in the past. Let them be cast off now and forever. Canada is now invested with the moral responsibility for sharing the price of world peace, and I venture the solemn prediction that unless we are true to the sacrifices of our sons we will be equally guilty with aggressors for any anarchy that may again confront us.
We have paid a terrible price for a war that could have been prevented. Our default was not wholly in lack of military preparation. It was also in a negative attitude of irresponsibility. Everyone preached about rights, but little was heard about responsibilities, and the dictators saw in this attitude a lack of unity of purpose and of faith. Furthermore, there were in our midst people who exalted novel and foreign types of government and at the same time condemned British institutions upon which our Canadian way of life was built.
Dictators preached that our democratic institutions were decadent. After world war 1 we placed all the emphasis on status, autonomy, political decentralization; meantime, the technological forces of the universe were driving nation states against their will toward world inter-dependence and forced cooperation.
I do not raise these matters for the purpose of recrimination, but I trust that from now on there will be less irresponsible talk on the part of public men in this country. Canadians will expect that public men will not again seek votes in certain parts of this country on the basis that they, if elected, will keep the qountry at peace and that their opponents, if elected, will drive the country into war.
The ultimate solution is of course a world government, but humanity will have a long and hard road to travel before that utopian objective is achieved. In the meantime, this parliament must decide what part Canada is to play in our journey along that road. [DOT] What then is to be our policy? Where in fact do we stand? Let us be done with any doubts on that matter.
We see before us a world dividing into blocs and spheres of influence. It is recognized that there are now three great powers. Does anyone here wish to see these major spheres of influence reduced from three to two? What would the next step be? It would be a contest between two powers for world domination, and Canada would find itself in the front line of that contest.
Surely that is a prospect that none of us can contemplate with, equanimity. I suggest therefore that the preservation and strengthening of the commonwealth of British nations is at this stage in our history the best hope of permanent peace in a world dominated by three spheres of influence. Within that family

The Address-Mr. Bracken
of nations there is now no single dominating land power. Its organization by its very nature makes for peace and not for war. Positive knowledge by the world as well as by members of the commonwealth that Canada means to be a loyal partner in that family of nations will do more than anything else to give it the moral power and prestige now so essential to the cause of world peace.
If we .now fail that great family of British nations and it should thus be made weaker at this critical time in the world's history, Canada will, eventually find itself but a satellite of the United States of America, at first to become dominated by it economically, and later on to become absorbed politically into that great republic.
I am one who does not think that Canada can achieve her highest destiny by weakening the family of British nations only to become eventually a forty-ninth state in the American union. If any such world calamity as the break-up of the fraternity of British nations should occur, the North American continent would find itself eventually an island in a potentially unfriendly world, a consummation which I feel sure no friend of world peace can look forward to with an easy mind.
Looking at the geography and political structure of the world at the moment, I am of the firm belief that the British commonwealth and empire, with its ramifications in all corners of the world, constitutes the greatest cohesive element in that structure of world unity which is now for the first time taking a definite form in the minds of men. Let us then preserve the important balancing factor in the three spheres of influence that dominate it. Let us strengthen that community of nations called the British commonwealth. Let us be proud to acknowledge our faith in it and the part we are to play in it. Let us no longer be hesitant to say that we will do our part in preserving it. Let any nation that raises the ugly prospect of destroying peace in our time know that we in Canada are a firm and loyal partner, not alone within the family of British nations but in the larger family of the united nations as well, and that we are prepared to take our part and assume our obligations within both.
Mr. Speaker, in some of these remarks I have been critical of certain of the policies of the government and its administration of them. I wish now to move, seconded by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon):
That the following words be added to the said
address:
"We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that Your Excellency's advisers have:

(1)	Fiailled to meet the needs of veterans and workers by planning .reconversion so as to avoid unemployment .and dissociation ;
(2)	Failed to .take adequate and timely action to ensure the provision of suitable housing for Canadians;
(3)	Failed to adjust their agricultural production plans to meet the altered conditions of the world's demands;
(4)	Failed to relieve the tax burden particularly on low income groups."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mir. Speaker, when my
hon. friend, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) continued the debate following the mover and the seconder on Friday last, he very appropriately introduced his remarks by reference to the departure of the then Governor General and the arrival in the near future of the Governor General designate. I should like immediately to join with him in what he said with respect to both govemors-general. We have parted with Lord Athlone and with Princess Alice, with the deepest regret. I believe that regret has been felt in all parts of Canada.
I am sure the house will be pleased to know that on Sunday I received a telegram from Lord Athlone from Washington expressing very warm appreciation of the manner in which the citizens of the capital had turned out to greet him and Princess Alice on their departure, and referring more particularly to the feelings which they will always cherish in regard to the years they spent in Canada. Lord Athlone used the expression (hat their association with the people of this dominion will be for each of them an imperishable memory.	*
As the house is aware His Majesty the King has designated 'Lord Alexander of Tunis to be the successor of the former Governor General. I think I am correct in saying that when Lord Alexander's appointment was announced there was not only approval but rejoicing in all parts of Canada that one who had played such a brilliant part in the great war, and who. as their Commander, had been so closely associated with Canadian troops in the battles in Sicily and in Italy, and in the victories- there achieved, was to come to this country as the representative of the king. The approval given at that time, and the expressions of feeling, have deepened since the announcement was made. I need not say any more at the moment than that I am sure that when Lord Alexander arrives in Canada he will receive one of the warmest welcomes ever extended to any representative of the crown in this country.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
My hon. friend also very kindly made reference to the speeches delivered by the mover and the seconder of the address, my friends and colleagues in my party, the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Viau) and the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Winters). I should like to join my congratulations very warmly to those of the leader of the opposition. The mover and the seconder with the 'accustomed modesty of young and new members credited their selection as being a compliment to their constituencies. I may say I think the constituencies may feel complimented by the manner in which they were represented in the speeches which were made by their representatives in this house. The hon. members come not only from two of the very important but two of the historic regions of Canada. At the moment; time does not permit me to speak of St. Boniface and its relation to the development of the Canadian west, or of Queens-Lunenburg and its association with the development of the maritimes, and the place which each of those constituencies holds to-day in the industrial and commercial life of our country. But I should like to say that there were other reasons as well which caused my colleagues and myself to feel that we would wish to have these two members, in particular, address the house at the beginning of this debate. They are among the younger men who came into parliament for the first time after the last elections. I should think that for that reason alone we as their colleagues in: this house have reason to be proud of the addition which has been made to the debating strength of the house by their presence here. But they are also veterans of the great war. May I say that naturally the people of Canada would wish to have as those first to participate in a great debate, members of parliament who have taken their part in the service of their country as members of the armed1 forces.
In recent years both of the hon. members have also taken an active part in the public service of Canada. In different ways they have been public servants holding trusted positions, and have filled them in a manner that was most creditable to themselves. These are but some of the reasons which caused me to extend the invitation which I did. May I repeat how pleased all their colleagues were at the manner in which they addressed the house. I think I may associate members of all parties in the congratulations which I now extend to them.
There was just one thing, perhaps, that I found a little embarrassing in their remarks; it was the extremely generous way in which 63260-4
they referred to myself and my leadership of the party. I have no doubt that that will be offset before very long by something from the other side which may help to adjust the balance; but I should like to say that if I have been spared through many years to hold the position I have it is due above all else to those who I have had immediately around me as my colleagues in the cabinet and, other members in the House of Commons in the party to which I belong. In enunciating Liberal policies I have sought as best I could to give expression to what I believed to be the views of the Liberal party in Canada. Through the years that I have held my present position I have been extremely fortunate in having about me colleagues second to none any prime minister has ever had in his cabinet or as loyal followers in parliament.
I come now to my hon. friend's address of this afternoon. Here may I note at the outset what he has said, and rightly said, about what may be said in a debate on the speech from the throne. My hon. friend intimated tha,t, after all, the debate on the speech from the throne is partly formal procedure for the purpose of opening parliament and therefore should be made brief in order that the house may get down to business- the business about which he said a good deal this afternoon-and not lose too much time. He did not set us the best example in the matter of shortening the debate. May I say that I am ready to join with him and the other leaders immediately in seeking to work out an agreement as to shortening the length of the present debate. I think it is desirable that the debate on the address should be brief; but may I point out that when it comes to making these arrangements it is not always as easy to bring about the result as it is to tell others what should be done. If there were only my hon. friend and myself, the two of us, or myself and any one of the other two leaders, we could I think come to an agreement; but where there are one, two or three leaders of the opposition, not to mention one or two others who feel they have a sort of right to lead as well, it is very difficult to get an agreement by which all parties will be bound. ' However, I do hope we may come to ^ome agreement at once in regard to the length of this debate.
Then, with respect to the rules of the house, of which my hon. friend has spoken, may I say that the government intend to recommend the reappointment of the committee on the rules of the house. I hope and pray that the committee ma3r get down to work immediately and that it may be able bo present to parlia-


[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
ment at an early date something in the way of a revision of the rules which will help to shorten the discussion. I am not going into the various points my hon. friend raised this afternoon. Many of them have been raised over and over again in this parliament for years by others who have had just as high motives as those of the leader of the .opposition in the proposals they have made. But this House of Commons is a big institution; it is the master of its own house. It is not the government that is responsible for the rules and much of the procedure; it is the house as a whole'.
In connection with proper procedure may I say to my hon. friend that I believe the one thing above all others which will help is that we recognize there is an appropriate time for everything. With all due respect may I say that to-day my hon. friend tried to cover nearly every subject that is likely to be discussed in the course of the present session. That is a pretty big order; it has taken a good deal of time. He has spoken on employment, on housing, on repatriation, on the loan to Britain, on credits; he has made a budget speech as well as a speech on the address. Not only that-he concluded with a lengthy speech on foreign policy. May I suggest that if he wants to improve the procedure of the house from now on he select one topic at a time, limit the number and not try to cover everything in the course of the debate on the address.
John Bracken: Would you confine the leader of the opposition to one topic on the speech from the throne?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, by no means; as my hon. friend rightly said, the speech from the throne affords an opportunity to discuss anything. But I should have thought in the. light of the amendment he has proposed what my hon. friend would have done would have been to make one general blast; that he would have come out and said in one short denunciation that everything the government had done was wrong, and that as a matter of fact they had failed to do anything. He could have greatly shortened his speech if he had just put it into those few words, but he lost the effect such a statement might have had by first of all running through a long list of topics and trying to exhaust all that he could say on every single one.
However, my hon. friend failed to point out to the house that while employment may not be all that we would wish it to be; while housing may not be all that we would wish it to be; while repatriation may not be all that we would wish it to be, and so on in

regard to all these and the other subjects he has mentioned, nevertheless, Canada is to-day in. a better position than any o,ther country in the world. When one hears from'all the countries that are really struggling with their problems to-day, whether it is the United States, whether it is the United Kingdom, whether it is Belgium or Holland or the other countries of Europe or other dominions that were involved in this great war-I am not referring to enemy countries because we know they are all destroyed-from every one . of these countries comes word, "We wish we could be like Canada. We wish we were in the position Canada is in." No other country in the world stands as high in the eyes of the world as Canada stands to-day, and I think it an unfortunate thing that the one view to the contrary should be expressed in this House of Commons by one of our own Canadian citizens, the leader of one of our political parties. That is the corrective I want to make 'this afternoon to what my hon. friend has said. As far as employment is concerned there is not, in any other country in the world, as large a percentage of men employed as there is in Canada at this time; nor is there, may I point out, another country in which there has been as little in the way of industrial strife. That is a very important thing. It has not been a matter of chance. It has been a matter of the policies of this administration over many years and, may I say, it has been due in very special measure to the exceptional ability of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) of this government in adjusting labour relations. That is something to be proud of, something this country can, I will not say boast about, but at least feel a tremendous satisfaction in, namely that we have had such a record of comparative industrial peace since Y-J day.
In regard to rehabilitation, my hon. friend knows that as far as the return of our forces from overseas is concerned we stand very much in the lead in the numbers that have been successfully repatriated. Certainly we have not been able to meet the situation in its entirety, but what country has, not only at this time but at any time? What is needed it seems to me is a proper sense of proportion in these matters. In regard to-housing the speech from the throne mentions quite clearly that the demand is in excess of the supply; but here again I ask, in what other country, relatively speaking, is there a larger proportion of houses available than in this country?


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, go on.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I ask my hon. friends to mention any other country. Will they say that in Great Britain they are in a better position as far as housing is concerned? Will they say that in the United States they are in a better position? Will they say the position is better in Belgium or in Holland; in Australia or New Zealand, South Africa or anywhere else? As a matter of fact when one compares Canada with these other countries in the matter of housing we make a better showing, in relation to our numbers, than any other country at the present time.


Mr. MACDONNELL:: Give us some figures to prove it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend's leader is the one who made his statement to begin with, and perhaps he will give us his figures.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Give us the figures.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend will just bide his time he may get his chance for leadership, before his life is over.
The leader of the opposition next spoke about food production and agriculture in general. I would again ask him: Can any hon. member in the opposition point to any country in the world which has made a finer contribution in the last few years than has Canada, and which to-day is continuing to make a finer contribution in the export of food stuffs to help other countries?
Then my hon. friend found fault with controls. Again I wish that he might take a little more to heart what other countries are saying about Canada in this respect. I wonder what country would not give a great deal to be in our enviable position, because of our antiinflation policy and the successful manner in which it has worked out? Will any hon,member mention any country which has dealt more successfully with that most difficult of all problems, namely, the combatting of inflation?
The truth is that my hon. friend has not stopped to ask himself where this country would have been but for the government's policies in all these matters. I ask the people of Canada to think deeply on that point when they are asked to express condemnation by those who are saying the government has failed in this, failed in that or the other thing.
All one has to do is to compare the relative costs of living in Canada with those in any other country of the world to realize that in Canada the government's policy has been a great help to the masses of the people, and has 63260-ii
been more successful than similar activities have been in other countries. That is the kind of emphasis that is needed.
My hon. friend has said that we failed to do this and to do that. The truth of the matter is that my hon. friend has failed to grasp what our policies'-framed not at the last moment, but 3'ears in advance-have meant to Canada, and what they mean to-day.
Had we not introduced and passed at a previous parliament legislation setting up the Department of .Health and Welfare, with its administration of family allowances, and the Department of Veterans Affairs-again, administering. the best measures for veterans to be found anywhere in the world-my hon. friend would have found a situation very different indeed from the one to be found in Canada to-day.
Had we not provided in advance for the Department of Reconstruction, to replace the Department of Munitions and Supply, thereby making preparations in advance for the work to be carried on most effectively in the post-war period, I wonder where we would be to-day. And may I add this-and I do not think the fact will be disputed,-that the Liberal, Conservative and every other political party in this country is loud in its praise, and rightly so, of the magnificent work done by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). In like manner the veterans of this country are loud in their praise of .the magni-ficient work done on their behalf by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie). War veterans to-day have in Canada a charter all hut completed, in which is to be found legislation related to the many sides of their work and of their lives. Again I say the like of this is not to be found in any other country.
My hon. friend did say he approved of the loan to the United Kingdom, and I was pleased to he'ar him say that. I believe he appreciates, as do all thoughtful persons who have given study to the condition of the world to-day, the sacrifices made by Great Britain during the war, and the position in which she finds herself to-day in seeking to meet her obligations. I believe it is realized that if Great Britain is to be maintained in a position where she can play a helpful role among the nations, then' she must be reestablished in a way which will help toward that end.
My hon. friend spoke of a gift. This is not a gift; it is a loan. True, it is being made for a long period of time; and I have no doubt in the world that an my hon. friend has said if the loan were not made this country

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
as well as the United Kingdom would find itself in a very difficult position within a short time.


John Bracken: Did the Prime Minister
understand me to say it was a gift? I did not mean to say that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe the
hon. member did say that, because I made a note of it at the time. It may have been a slip on his part, and I am quite prepared to accept his word. It is wise, however, to make it clear that we are making a loan. However this is one of the matters which will be discussed at considerable length, later in the session, and I feel I need not take too much time in discussing any aspect of the measure at this time. I expect the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) will introduce the necessary legislation, and at such time will speak at some length upon it.
My hon. friend touched briefly upon financial and trade matters which, as I have already said, are directly related to the budget. I believe we might well defer consideration of these matters until we are discussing the budget.
Mr. Speaker, I might take considerable time in reviewing other matters discussed by my hon. friend; but, as he has said,-and I believe I have his words before me-the matter which above all others occupies the attention of the people to-day is the deplorable question of espionage and disclosure of secret information to a foreign power which so unfortunately has come to the fore.
Having in mind what my hon. friend has said, namely that this disclosure of secret information to a foreign power is attracting keen attention throughout the country, I felt I should take it up at the earliest oppo'rtunity. With that in mind I announced a day or two ago that I intended to deal with this matter when speaking to the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
As I am about to deal with this new subject, Mr. Speaker, it would I think, meet with the convenience of all hon. members if you would call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed1 at eight o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, on Friday afternoon last I expressed the hope that hon. members of this house would read with care the interim reports which had been presented by the two justices of the Supreme Court of Canada who are acting as commissioners to conduct an investigation into the

disclosure of secret information to unauthorized persons for communication to a foreign power. This afternoon my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, asked me to take the house and the country into my confidence with reference to matters pertaining to this investigation. May I say at the outset that in this I am necessarily confronted with one serious handicap, one to which I have referred in a statement which I have given to the public, namely, that the whole matter is one which is sub judice at the present time. For that reason there is very much that I should like to impart to the house and to the country which unfortunately I will not be able to impart and which cannot be given to the house or the country until those who have been or may be committed for trial have had their trial and evidence has been taken in public upon which verdicts will be based.
I have been asking myself at what point one would necessarily have to draw the line with respect to what is not permissible because of matters being sub judice and, up to what point matters might be discussed quite frankly. I am right I believe in assuming that anything that took place of which I had knowledge up to the time of tire appointment of the commission and which influenced the government in its action with respect to the course it took in appointing the commission and in acting on the advice of the commission in certain particulars would be a matter that I should be quite free to discuss openly, being careful all the time not to. say anything, if that is possible, that would in any way prejudice the trials that may take place.
I do not think I can do better in speaking to the question itself and, giving to the house at once some idea of its vast significance and importance than to quote from the first interim report of the royal commission. I am not disclosing anything that should not be disclosed because of sub judice reasons if I quote from a published report which is in the hands of all hon. members of parliament. Therefore I would bring immediately to the attention of the house the gravity of this question and its far-reaching significance and importance by reading what the commissioners have said with respect to the inquiry they are holding, what they have found thus far, and what they have felt should be given as soon as possible to the public. On page 11 in the document which was tabled on Friday last relating to the proceedings of the royal commission will be found the following paragraph:
The evidence establishes that a network of under-cover agents has been organized and developed for the purpose of obtaining secret and oonfidemitiial information particularly from

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
employees of departments and agencies of the dominion government and from an employee of the office of the high commissioner for the United Kingdom ini Canada. The evidence reveals that these operations were carried on by certain members of the staff of the Soviet embassy at Ottawa under direct instructions from Moscow. The person directly in charge of these operations was Colonel Zabotin, military attache of the embassy, who had as his active assistants in this work Lieutenant-Colonel Motinov, chief assistant military attache, Lieutemant-Colonel Rogov, assistant military attache air, Major Sokolov, of the. staff of the commercial counsellor of the embassy, Lieutenant Angelov, one of the secretaries of the military attache as well as other members of the staff of the military attache, all of whom, as well as the agents whom they employed in the pursuance of their activities, were, in the interests of secrecy, known by under-cover names.
In the next paragraph will be found the following:
We have had before us a former employee of the Russian embassy at Ottawa, Igor Gouzenko, the cipher clerk of the military attache, who lias described this organization, and its functioning, and who has produced original documents, the authenticity of which we accept.
I need scarcely say that these paragraphs describe as serious a situation as has existed in Canada at any time. If the house has had to wait some little time for the information which I intend to give it this evening, it is because the government have been only too conscious of how serious this situation is .and how far-reaching its repercussions may be.
Perhaps I cannot better take the house into my confidence than to begin with an account of how I personally became informed of' this situation and how the government became aware of it. Hon. members perhaps recall that when the first session of this house opened on the 6th of September last we met .in the morning to choose a Speaker and the proceedings were to begin at eleven o'clock. Hon. members rpay have noticed that at that time the house was kept waiting, for a few minutes at least, before I found it possible to come in. What had happened was this- I was informed that morning by the undersecretary of state for external affairs that a young man from the Russian embassy had been to the office of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) asking to see the Minister of Justice. He said that he had most important information to impart to the government, that it disclosed a situation which threatened very seriously conditions in Canada, that it was an extremely serious situation and that he wished to warn the Canadian people with respect to it. He said that he had in his possession documents which would make wholly clear what he was saying and he wished these documents to be in the possession of the government. He said that he had
taken these documents from the vaults of the Russian embassy and also from among papers which he had collected over a short time with a view of making the disclosure which he now wanted to make.
I was asked what should be done in these circumstances I replied that I thought this was a case where we could not be too careful or too cautious; that this man represented that he had come from the Russian embassy; that we could not say whether the documents he had in his possession were fabrications or not; that we did not know what his own state of mind might be, or how responsible he was; that we knew nothing of the circumstances which had caused him to leave the embassy and come .to the government and that I thought he should be told to go back to the embassy with the papers he had in his possession.
He had been anxious to see the Minister of Justice. He bad not seem tbs' Minister of' Justice. He told his story to the secretary of the * Minister of Justice, who. gave a full account to the under-secretary of state for external affairs, and he gave me the particulars which I have just mentioned.
What I felt most important was to see that nothing should be done. which would cause the Russian embassy to believe that Canada, had the least suspicion of anything which was taking place there, or which could be regarded by them as unexpected in the circumstances.
This advice was given to the man who came, whose name has been given in. the commission report-Igor Gouzenko. He was a cipher clerk in the Russian embassy. He had been in the embassy in Ottawa here for some two years, associated with the military attache. Prior to those two years he had been for a couple of years in the secret service in the U.S.S.R. He had been trained particularly in ciphering and deciphering messages. That, he claimed; was how he had got possession of the documents to which I have referred.
Perhaps at this point I should indicate what I subsequently learned about Gouzenko's movements. Apparently he left the embassy around six-thirty in the evening of the day prior to the one at which he went to. call at 'the office of the Minister of Justice. He left with the papers in his possession and went from the embassy to one of the newspaper offices in this city. It was to the Journal that he went and told1 his story to one of the persons whom he found in the office. He wanted to see the editor. The editor was not present; but, I am tolfl, he gave a fairly full account of what he believed the people of Canada should know, wbat be wished to,

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
impart, and seemed very anxious that full publicity should be given to the statement which he -was making. He, claimed that his purpose was to let the Canadian people know of a situation, about which he felt they should know. I understand -that though -his story seemed fantastic he was told-as he had documents with him-that he should go and see the mounted police, that if he had information of this kind they were the persons he should see.
He went back to his house that night. Next 'morning he came to the office of the Minister of Justice. Not seeing the Minister of Justice he then left for other parts. He had his wife and little child with him. During the course of the day-I need not relate all his movements-be visited the office of the crown prosecutor in the city and spoke there about his situation, again wishing to give publicity to -the information that he had. During the afternoon- her left his little chil-d with a neighbour to be oared for, while he and his wife sought to meet -others -and discuss the sd-tu-a.-tion with them. Then, at nigh-t, he went to his home, and when he was there he asked immediate neighbours, a gentleman and- bis wife, if they would be kind e-no-ugh t-o look after his little child; that he wia-s very fearful that -something might happen to him that night, that he felt -that by this time it would hav-e been discovered that he -had left the embassy and had taken with him certain papers which- were of significance, and that he might expect to- be killed- in the course of the evening unless -he g-ot protection. The persons in wh-om be confided his situation took him into t-heir apartment along with the little child and had them -all stay in one of the rooms. Meantime the gentleman whose apartment it was, seeing the fear and the dir-e-ad which he had, went to the city police and told them of the situation and asked that protection should- be given to him. Arrangements were made with the police to- -be in the near vicinity lest -there should be any incidents.
About midnight there was an incident. His apartment was entered by four persons

I believe he maintains that it was broken into. At any rate, the four persons who entered the apartment were from the Russian embassy or connected with it. The city police wanted to know from them just why they were there. They claimed immunity, being members of the embassy. No arrests were made. They were allowed to return to the embassy. In the meantime, Gouzenko had been safe, secreted as he wras in the other apartment. Later in the evening another visit was made to his apartment, but nothing came of it and Gouzenko asked the city police if they 
could put him in contact with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He said that he had information which he thought was of importance to Canada and, indeed, to his own country if it could be disclosed, and that he would like to give this information to the government through the police.
He was promised that he would be taken to the mounted police where he could tell his story. Later in the morning he was take-n to the mounted- police, and he gave a full statement, producing the documents that he had in his possession, and asked for protection for his life and the lives of his wife and little child. They were given protection by the police.
The documents we-re then very carefully studied together with other information he gave.
Let me repeat, from the outset I felt that the situation with which we were confronted was on-e that could not be viewed too circumspectly. I felt we must make sure what type of person- Gouzenko was, and what the motive was that prompted his action. I have come to the conclusion, from the statement which he gave to the police, that his motives were just as he himself described them, a desire to expose a condition which he thought was intolerable and which wras likely to work injury to our country and- to his own country as well. To the police he made a Very careful statement in- which he said that he had been in Canada for a couple of years, had been immensely surprised when he came here to see the freedom of the people, the way in which democratic institutions worked in this country. He said- that he had been very greatly impressed with .the way in which general elections were conducted, the different political parties speaking freely in the open, having candidates who opposed one another and the like. It- impressed him deeply in contrast with what he had seen in- his own country. He said he felt that, having- witnessed for two years what this country was doing to assist its ally with munitions, money and food, and in every other way, and at the same time affording to himself and to others every facility that could be e'xtended in the way of freedom, he could not stand it very much longer, and he had made up his mind that, regardless of what the consequences might be, even if it were life itself, -he owed- it to the people of this country and to his own people to reveal the condition of affairs as he had come to know it at first hand. And having made up his mind in this way, he then began to gather some of the documents which he felt would be absolutely convincing in themselves if made public.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
I wish the house to note that his actions corresponded with that profession. He did not come to the goverpment in the first instance. He went to a newspaper office, and he paid a second visit to a newspaper office with a view to having the documents published and having his story made public. He later came to the police to give them the full story, and the documents which were in his possession.
One may take what view one wishes of Gouzenko. I have stated my impressions as gathered from what evidence has come before me. But what I attach importance to in speaking to the house to-night is not the individual and what he said but the documents which were produced. Some of these documents are in the handwriting of some of the persons who have been examined by the commission, while some are in the nature of transcriptions; many of them are cipher messages that have been sent back and forth; some are messages that have come from Britain to Canada and passed on from Canada to the U.S.S.R., and there is much that relates to plans and records that have to do with the manufacture of munitions, explosives and the like.
It is upon the documents which are in possession of the government now, and which will be made public as the. trials proceed, that such subsequent action as was taken by myself and my colleagues was based. We have not acted upon hearsay. We have taken the reports which have been made to us by the police, and which are verified and authenticated by the documents themselves.
These documents disclose among other things that Canada was being made a base to secure information on matters of very great and grave concern to the United States and also to Great Britain; that information was being sought through agents here with respect to many matters that were of the utmost concern to Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom.
I speak of myself personally because I must take the main responsibility. In fact, I am prepared to take the whole responsibility if necessary for the steps that have been taken, though the Minister of Justice and myself were together in considering and dealing with the questions that had to be considered. There come times, however, in a government when, sooner or later, the decision as to what course is to be taken has to be made by the head of the administration.
I realized at the outset that this was no small matter, not a domestic matter only, by any means'. We could not ignore the evidence that there were in our public service a number of
trusted employees who were giving information to agents of a foreign po,wer to be of assistance to the foreign power and that it was clearly necessary that there should be an investigation. It was inevitable that an investigation-would have repercussions, having regard to what might be revealed, in many parts of the world, and for that reason one had to consider other nations as well as one's own before taking a step that might come to be considered premature.
I should perhaps have mentioned this as a central feature of the Gouzenko statement. He claimed that what was being created in Canada was a fifth column; that it was being created through Russian agents in contact with the members of the public service and others in this country and that it had extended very far; that the infiltration of this effort had gone in very wide directions and for that reason there was the necessity for the completest investigation. I felt it was my duty, regardless of what might come, immediately to inform both the United States and the United Kingdom of what had been disclosed here and to let those two countries know of the government's intention to have the matter investigated.
My hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, asked me to inform the house to-night whether, when I visited the United States and the United Kingdom, I informed the authorities there of what I have told the house this evening. I did. I felt my first duty was to visit our immediate neighbour the United States, to see the President and let him know that there were certain matters being revealed to us here which caused me to feel that Canada might be being used as a base for the discovery and the imparting of information that was of concern to the United States, and I was most anxious to have the President know that- we intended to have the whole matter fully investigated.
Before I say anything further I think I ought to let the house know what was the kind of information that was in my possession at the time that I decided to visit the United States and Great Britain, and here again, so that I shall not be imparting any information that might bear on what is sub judice, I shall, I think, be safe if I take the statement which appears in the first interim report of the royal commission and quote what is set forth there. I should like to make it clear that it was during pretty much all of the month of September that the investigation was being made by the police. I was being informed of what was being brought to light, and pretty much the whole case as it has since been developed

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
contains information that would have a bearing on some of the trials about to take place. In that report Mr. Williams recommended that the best course to pursue would be to appoint a royal commission and to obtain as commissioners the best persons it would be possible to secure. It was on that advice that the government came to request the services of Mr. Justice Taschereau and Mr. Justice Kelloek, two members of the Supreme Court of Canada. Here, again the government realized that questions as to the liberty of the subject and of individual freedom were certain to arise in the exploration of the extent and development of this system of espionage, and that it would therefore be most desirable and indeed, absolutely necessary to have as commissioners persons who, above all, wduld be most anxious to protect the liberty of the subject, and to see that justice was done-and justice only.
I have heard hon. members opposite speak about the importance of upholding justice, and of having justice followed in every step in this matter. That is why, to the exclusion of all others, two justices of the Supreme Court of Canada were selected. The government did not know where in Canada it could find two persons who would be more certain to uphold justice in every particular, or who would be more zealous in protecting the freedom and liberty of the subject than would two justices of the Supreme Court of Canada. I hope this will be kept in mind -by hon. members if at any stage they are inclined to criticize some of the methods which necessarily have been adopted to fulfil the purpose of the inquiry.
I said a moment ago that there had been other conferences. Hon. members will recall that in December there was a meeting in Moscow at which the Secretary of State for the United States, and Mr. Bevin, the Foreign Minister of the United Kingdom, met with Mr. Molotov in Moscow' to discuss matters of mutual interest and concern. That would not have been an appropriate moment at which to have gone into this matter. Had an investigation been started at that time in Canada, it might conceivably have been said, or it might have been thought that it had been planned with a view to making difficulties in connection with that particular meeting.
Then there came the united nations meeting in London, the preparatory commission of the united nations organization, the meeting of the assembly and of the security council.
It was most important that these bodies should be organized with as little as possible >
in the way of mistrust, suspicion or recrimina-
[Mr. Mackenzie King.l
tion. Here, again, was another factor which entered into the judgment of my colleague, the Minister of Justice and myself as to the time at which it would be most appropriate to begin proceedings.
And here may I make a statement which I think it is important to make. My hope had been that it might be possible to have an inquiry which would attract very little in the way of public attention, at least until matters were in such shapje that only those against whom evidence seemed to be conclusive would be apprehended and committed for trial. I thought that possibly we might have members of the public service whose names unfortunately have been brought into this situation examined by deputies and ministers of the departments, in the presence of the Minister of Justice, and that the matter might' be dealt with in that way. That illustrates only one of several ways in which we hoped the matter could have been dealt with so as to have as little effect as possible on international relations.
A moment's consideration, however, made it clear that anything of that nature was wholly impossible. In the first place it would not have been possible to have made more than a yery limited inquiry. And in this situation, because of its vast proportions, it was all important that if there was anything to it at all we should go into it thoroughly and see that nothing was left undone winch could possibly be done to clean up a 'filiation of the kind.
I now come to the questior of the apprehension of the persons who hai e been detained. This afternoon my hon. friend asked me to explain when speaking this evening why the order in council passed on October 6, giving authority to the minister to have individuals apprehended and detained, was not made known to the House of Commons at the time the Emergency Powers Transition Act was passed and a question was asked as to whether there still remained any secret orders in council under the War Measures Act.
The explanation, in a word, is this:	I have
[DOT]spoken about a very trusted official who had left Canada to go to England, who was to make contact there with certain persons, who had, as we have reason to believe, very important information in his possession, and who was in a position to give perhaps as much in the way of information as almost any other with regard to certain aspects of research on atomic energy, and matters pertaining thereto.
Contact was to be made in London on October 7. It was understood that if this person should make contact and thereupon be apprehended and brought before the police for


[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
examination, a similar step would have to be taken here with respect to the others in Canada who were believed tb be in a similar -position. October 7 being the date upon which this man was to be apprehended in London, if caught in the act of making the contact it was thought he might -make, it was understood that on the same date we should make similar arrests here.
The War Measures Act was then in force, and the order in council was passed in my absence on the recommendation of the Acting Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice.
I would have done exactly the same, had I been here, so as to give authority for the apprehension of persons here the moment it was thought desirable that such steps should be taken.
However, the contact in London did not materialize. One of the reasons it may not have was that it had been known in certain quarters for a couple of weeks at that time that a good deal of information was in the hands of the government here, but it was still thought probable that the expected contact might be made. However, as it did not come at that time, the matter here -was also held in abeyance. No steps were taken at all under the order until the time came when in was thought necessary and advisable to take the course recommended by counsel and approved by the commission.
Up to that time use had not been made of the order; it simply lay in abeyance until the [DOT] beginning of the time at which the commission asked that certain, individuals should be apprehended and brought before them for interrogation and to give evidence. I doubt very much-the Minister of Justice -will speak for himself-whether the matter was in the mind of the minister as to that particular order still being on the list when he was asked in the house whether there were any other orders.
I confess that I never thought of it. I was here, I think, when some one asked if there were any other orders. The order had lain dormant; it had not been iised at that time.
I imagine that that would be the reason why the minister made no mention of it. Even were we to assume that he had knowledge of it, I think it would have been most unwise for the minister to have disclosed to parliament and to the country at that time that there was such an order, and that under it persons could be apprehended for the purpose of the inquiry that has since taken place. What I would, have done and what I think the minister would have done if it had entered into his mind would have been to have told my hon. friend and the leaders of the other parties in confidence that the order was there
and that it was being kept intact in case use might have to be made of it a little later on. That is the position as I see it.
Let me emphasize this fact. Before any persons were apprehended at all, the commission had examined carefully the man Gouzenko to whom I have referred and all the documents that had been presented to the police. The commission met in camera for a week before any one was apprehended. The two justices of the Supreme Court of Canada were satisfied in their own minds beyond any doubt that the documents that were before them were authentic, and it was the documentary evidence they had that caused them, when the commission counsel expressed the view that certain persons ought to be apprehended and detained until they gave their evidence, to recommend to the minister that he issue the orders for apprehension.
May I ask hon. members this question? All that I have described thus far and much more was known to the minister and myself at the time the commission was appointed. While the commission sat we were further informed of what the commission themselves had found wfith reference to the documents and to the situation generally throughout the country. If, knowing all that, the Minister of Justice, when the commission recommended that in order to get to the bottom of this thing it was necessary to apprehend the different persons whom they named, had refused to accept that recommendation, had refused to act and had said, "Well, we will have a political question; the question of the freedom of the subject and the like will come up and for political reasons we had better not take any steps," I ask, what would have been the responsibility the minister would have had upon his head to-day before this house?
It is an easy thing to criticize others for taking particular steps before all the facts are known. I believe that already many criticisms have been made which would not have been made if the facts had been fully known or even partly known as I have explained' them to-night.
At the time the commission asked that certain individuals should be apprehended, I gave out to the public a statement which I think I ought to read at this moment because it helps to make clear the caution with which the government was proceeding from beginning to close. This was issued by myself on February 15:
Information of undoubted .authenticity has reached the Canadian government which establishes that there have been disclosures of secret and confidential information to unauthorized
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
persons, including some members of the staff of
a foreign mission din Ottawa. In order to make possible the full investigation which the serious-. ness of this information demands, the government has _ appointed Mr. Justice Taschereau and Mr. Justice Kellock of the Supreme Court of Canada to act as royal commissioners to hear evidence and to present a report which will be made public. The commissioners have appointed as their counsel Mr. E. K.. Williams, K.C., of Winnipeg, Mr. Gieraild Fauteux, K.C., of Montreal, and Mr. D. W. Mundell of the Department of Justice; the commission has already commenced its investigation, which is proceeding in camera.
Let me emphasize that the commission had been sitting a week at that time or longer. They had made perfectly certain that the persons whom they were asking should be apprehended were persons whom, upon the evidence before them, they felt justified in asking to have detained. My statement continued:
Upon the application of counsel, and having regard to the serious nature of the evidence already adduced before the commission, the commissioners recommended counsel to apply to the Minister of Justice for orders for the interrogation and detention for that purpose of a number of persons known or suspected to be implicated. This action has been taken to-day. The persons involved include some now employed Sr who have been employed in a number of departments and agencies of the government.
It is the intention of the government that, after the report of the royal commissioners has been received, prosecution will be instituted in eases in which the evidence warrants it. It would not be proper at this stage to make a more complete statement or, in particular, to make public the names of those concerned. Some of them appear to have been far more deeply and consciously involved than others. Some will probably be found to be more or less innocent instruments in furthering activities much more serious than they may have imagined. Obviously, the whole matter should be treated with caution and reserve, pending the time when it will bg possible to issue a fuller statement. Until the investigation by the royal commissioners has been completed the case remains sub juddce.
In other words, there again the government, on the one hand, was taking every step possible to make the fullest possible investigation and, on the other hand, to protect persons or the liberty of persons, to protect the names of persons until the very last moment at which some disclosure would have to be made with regard to what had been done in violation of the Official Secrets Act. This step -was in part to protect these persons themselves, some of whom to-day are on trial. Until the last moment everything was done to keep their names out of the press.
The authority granted to the commission was to investigate persons who were or had ' been in the public service, and that is as far as the commission has been investigating.

I must confess that I regret, as every member of the house regrets, very deeply that the work of the commission has taken as long as it has. When the commission was appointed we hoped it might be a matter of only a few days that any of the persons would) have to be detained, but perhaps I have told the house enough for hon. members to realize how extensive this inquiry necessarily is. In order that the inquiry may be as thorough as possible the commissioners have gone about the taking of evidence in a way that will leave no stone unturned to establish the facts. We have indeed reason to be grateful to the commissioners for the manner in which they have given unremittingly of their time and thought to their exacting duties. Particularly are we indebted to them for the manner in which they have sought to guard against publicity being given to the names or actions of any persons until this became wholly imperative.
Perhaps I should deal for a moment, before concluding, with some of the international aspects of this matter. The hopse will have noticed, as the public have, that in the statement I gave out I made no mention of any country by name. But before giving out this statement I did ask the charge d'affaires of the Russian embassy to come to my office: I read to him the statement, and I told him that the country to which reference was made was the U.S.S.R. Hon. members will have noticed that it was the Soviet government itself which was the first to state that Russia was the country that was referred to in that statement. There has been no communication from the government of the U.S.S.R. to our government other than a statement which was. handed to our representative to the U.S.S.R. at Moscow and to which much publicity was given in the Russian press. That was the statement which made light of many aspects of the statement I had given out, but which did have this significant paragraph in it, that the Russian government admitted that the military attache had taken a course of action here which was, I think the term used was, "inadmissible", and that he had been recalled. May I say that in the course of this inquiry three or four other persons have since returned to Russia from the Russian embassy;- this at the instance of the Russian government itself.
This brings up, of course, a very large question, that of the relations between Russia and Canada. Some persons may feel that we ought to sever relations, as they would say, by having the Russian embassy withdraw from Canada. I hope that no view of that kind will be expressed by anyone in a

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
responsible position. We in Canada want only the best of relations with the U.S.S.R., as we do with every other country, and we must not be too ready to judge until we know all the circumstances connected with the particular situation. I believe it is true that there are agencies working, may I put it, at the side of the Russian embassy which are doing things that possibly are unknown to the ambassador himself and members of his immediate staff. That may be so and it may not be -so. At any rate I am not going to be the one to judge as to who has knowledge of this and who has knowledge ot that. The time will come when all this can be worked out and, I hope and pray, will be worked out in a manner which will let us get rid of whatever there may be of wrong and evil in the whole business and establish the friendliest of relations on a true and sound basis, one which will be above suspicion in every way.
It has I think been said that I should perhaps have smothered up this business altogether, that it vyas bound to have serious implications and that it might have very serious consequences. May I say, Mr. Speaker, I have done what I thought was right, and I have yet to find that taking the course which is right is doing other than following the course which will prove the best in the end. I cannot imagine anyone in a responsible position wishing to smother up a condition of this kind. That would only help to spread the evil through the country, and extend it through time, until, perhaps, consequences very serious indeed would arise. The best way in which most social ills can be cured is not by penalty but by publicity. The light of day will cure much in the way of evil that nothing else is able to cure. That is a belief which I have held all my life in regard to all questions that have to do with social evils of different kinds. I am sure that as a result of the present inquiry once the whole situation has been cleared up, we shall all be able to breathe more freely, with greater confidence in each other, and in other countries.
I think in the statement issued by the Russian government it was said that I ought first to have let their government know about these facts. Well, I did think at one time of going to Russia myself and of speaking with Generalissimo Stalin in. reference to it. What I know, or have learned of Mr. Stalin from those who have been closely associated with him in the war, causes me to believe that he would not countenance action of this kind on the part of officials of his country. I believe that when these facts are known to him and
to others in positions of full responsibility, we shall find that a change will come that will make a vast difference indeed.
However, I did ask myself the question, were I to attempt to convey to the Russian government what I knew, without documents, which I could myself explain and prove, might I not be met with the statement that, after all, as it was Canadian government officials who were concerned, we had better clean our own house first? If. the time should come when it would be of any service in helping to meet this situation, I am prepared to take any step at all [DOT] that may be deemed advisable with a view to having it cleared up in a manner which will not only maintain but strengthen friendly relations with that great power.
May I add this word. The Russian statement mentions that Canada's action had been taken because of some feeling that Mr. Bevin, the British foreign minister, had as a consequence of discussions which took place at the security council. Let me answer that by drawing the attention of hon. members to the fact that the security council met months after the time at which this information came into the possession of the government. The security council meetings were something apart altogether. Our action here had no possible connection with events in the security council.
One other thing which is being said is that the alleged actions of the persons being detained were due to the secrecy with respect to the atomic bomb. I had a letter only yesterday from the secretary of one of the councils of Soviet-Canadian friendship, stating that all this had grown out of the fact that Russia was being denied information which the United States, Britain and Canada had with respect to the atomic bomb. May I impress upon the house this fact,-the disclosures of which I have been speaking to-night go back to 1943 and 1944. The organization for the purpose of espionage of which I have been speaking has been in existence for thr&e or four years in this country, and the greater part of the information which it obtained or sought to obtain was secured before anyone knew anything about the atomic bomb outside of those in the immediate know. The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, if I recollect aright, on the 6th of August and at a later date in that month, the 9th of August, I think. Documents in the possession of the government are in large part prior to that time altogether. This espionage business has not arisen out of the atomic bomb in any way or any secrecy in connection with it. Now that the atomic bomb is a known factor, uni
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
doubtedly information is being sought in that connection, but the espionage net which has been, referred to to-night has been in existence for a much longer time that the past seven months. It was the Sth of September when the documents came into the possession of the government.
I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything about the statements which have been made in reference to myself as being antilabour and anti-Soviet. My feeling towards the great mass of the people in this and other lands and what should be done to improve their position is well known in this country. In regard to Soviet friendship I recall that a year or two after first, coming into office twenty-five years or so ago the government of which I was then the head was the one which promoted an "Aid /or Russia" fund, to help the starving children of that country. I did what I could to help further that great movement at that time. I have dohe what I could to further the Soviet-Canadian friendship movement. I have spoken on the platform in Toronto in support of it. and on the platform in Montreal in support of it. The government of which I am a member has given aid to Russia in munitions and in food and assistance in other ways. It is the same government that invited the Russians to come and open a legation here, the same government that has sent an ambassador to Russia. All through, from the beginning to this hour, my attitude and the attitude of those who sit around me and with me on this side has been one of furthering to the utmost the friendliest and best of relations with all countries. And may I say that none of us will ever forget the heroism of the Russian people. None of us will ever forget their sacrifices and what we all owe to them, along with those of other countries in saving the freedom of the world. We are. not going to let. these years of sacrifices and the sacrifice of millions of lives go by in order that allied nations may become separated rather than drawn together into one great family.
I wish to conclude by saying that I hope that members in the course of the further discussion of this question wiH be very careful not to attempt to judge any country or any individual until we know all the facts as fully as we can possibly know them.
As far as the Russian people are concerned I am as sure as I am of anything that the Russian people are just as anxious for friendly relations with Canada and with peoples in other parts of the world as our own people are. But in this country, as in some others, there are persons who for their own selfish ends will do man)' things that would not be count-
enanced by the great majority. We have seen how a few men may get power into their own hands, and how, power once secured, they will do with it for selfish and ambitious ends many things that are not approved by their fellowmen. What has happened in this instance may have been the action of a few men which I am certain would not be countenanced and will not be condoned by the Russian people. 'So far as this matter is concerned, I intend, with whatever little power I have, to unearth whatever may be wrong, and for the remainder of my life to devote my time to trying in every way possible to see that the greatest amount of friendship and harmony and good will is promoted between all peoples, and between the Russian people and the people of Canada, in particular.
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Big-gar):: Mr. Speaker, to-night I find myself in a somewhat difficult position. We have heard a story which I think has impressed itself upon the house and will undoubtedly impress itself further, and it is very difficult now to enter into a discussion of the speech from the throne or even of the remarks of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I realize, however, that we are late in meeting this session, and that there is a desire on the part of the house to proceed with its business. Therefore I shall refrain from doing what I might otherwise have done, ask the house to allow me to call it eleven o'clock, and proceed to say what I have to say to-night.
First I should like to make some comments on the speech which has just been made by the Prime Minister. I think that in view of the very uneasy international situation we should follow his advice and be careful in the phraseology we use in discussing what has been placed before us to-night. If I may say so. the first thing I would remark is that in reality we are discussing events which have led up to charges against Canadians and British nationals in this country in peace time. Espionage is the word that is used in this connection, and I think wrongly used, because espionage can, in my opinion, properly and best be defined as the sending of persons into an enemy's country in order to watch what the enemy is doing. But here we are dealing with persons of our own nationality who, it is alleged, have violated their trust, and who, if found guilty, will invite punishment under our Official Secrets Act. I think this should be kept in mind in discussing this matter, and that is why I try to make that point quite clear.

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
I say, too, that if the accused are found guilty after a fair and proper trial, they must be dealt with according to the law as laid down by this parliament. It is no excuse, as some cynics in this country are suggesting, to say that' all nations employ foreign agents. We are not trying a foreign power; we are charging our own nationals with an offence against their fellow citizens which, if proven, no right-thinking person can possibly condone. That I think should be made abundantly clear, because some sections of the press in our country and in the United States have publicized this matter in a way which I believe has tended to complicate a very difficult international situation.
The Prime Minister's statement of February 15, which he read to the house to-night, was couched in careful and I think unprovocative language, and I regret that some sections of the press did not exhibit that sense of responsibility in discussing the matter which characterized our Canadian newspaper's during the war. Such newspapers may have overlooked the fact that a violent press campaign directed against Russia would be regarded in a country where there is no free press, as the official attitude of this country. Considerable mischief has arisen because of that. It has lent colour, too, to the charge in the communist Labour Progressive papers in this country, widely quoted in the Soviet union, that Canada and its government are engaged in a plot against what they are pleased to call the left wing of the labour movement or in an anti-Soviet campaign, when I am confident that nothing is farther from the truth. Actually the fact is that everyone with any sense of responsibility realizes that the peace and welfare of the whole world depend upon what? Upon the establishment of friendly relations and confidence among all nations, and particularly between Russia and the English-speaking world. Failing to achieve this, lacking this hope, the united nations organization will be shattered. Upon our understandings and good relations the future of mankind depends.
In this atomic age the united nations organization must be made to work so that we may proceed to the establishment of government at the international level. I believe there is no other way of preventing a terrible catastrophe, a third world war, in which, with the new weapons and scientific knowledge we now possess, millions of people may be wiped out in a single night. And when I make that statement I do not make it as my own. Had I been present in December when the matter of the atomic bomb was discussed-unfortunately I was ill'-I would have told the house that early in December I heard some of the leading scientists who were responsible for the discovery of atomic energy and the making of the atomic bomb make that very statement; that with the knowledge they now possess it is possible in a country like the United States, by planting atomic bombs in the industrial centres, to destroy as many as forty million souls in a, single night.
Now I want to say something about the method pursued by the government in the handling of this situation. I appreciate the difficulties; I appreciate the defence of the government's procedure which the Prime Minister has offered this evening, but I believe there has been too much secrecy, too much mystery in the government's handling of the matter for the public good. The air has been full of rumours, some wild but many which subsequently proved well founded. This has been bad and. may I say to the government, indicates serious leaks from persons who might be expected to show a greater sense of responsibility. A case in point is that of the arrest of the representative of a constituency in this house. A week before the action was taken a dispatch to a London newspaper quoted in a Montreal newspaper, I believe the Montreal Herald, said that such action was about to be taken, that the Prime Minister would denounce a member of parliament in the bouse -when we met. WeH, the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Rose) was arrested the day we met, and the next day the Prime Minister informed the house that the unknown agent who had received information from an accused for the benefit of Russia was believed to be the representative in parliament of the constituency of Cartier, Klontreal. There have been other similar news items.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that I saw the item to which he refers, and if my recollection is aright it stated that I was going to complain about something having been revealed in regard to some secret session of parliament. Nothing of the kind that I know of has entered into the present situation. More than that may I say that I had no knowledge that the report which was received from the commissioners on Thursday would be made at the time it was. It was that report which necessitated the arrest of the hon. member. There have been leaks, I admit, but that was not one of them.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, I am very glad to get the Prime Minister's assurance; but he states there have been leaks, and indeed it was at least quite a coincidence that a
The Address-Mr. Coldwell

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
but also in other parts of Canada. If this is to be successful we must survey the soil, utilize the water of some of our rivers for irrigation, and drain marshlands and swamps in some other parts of Canada. This will mean, too, at a time when we may need it very badly, productive work for thousands.
There is already a great deal of unemployment. It is useless to say that conditions here are better than they are in some other countries. I do not know that that statement is true, nor would I accept it until I have figures which will prove that statement. But even if it were true, the fact is that we have to-day considerable unemployment. Figures from the Department of Labour tell us that employment increased by 170,000 between July, 1945, and January 24, 1946. It is estimated that nearly a quarter of a million are without employment now.
Let us not be complacent about this. The governor of the Bank of Canada warns in his last report to the Minister of Finance, dated February'8, that:
Looking to the future there is no reason for complacency. Most of our real problems of postwar adjustment are still ahead. The backlog of demand will not be large in relation to productive capacity when- industry has been fully reconverted and inventories built up to normal levels. The prevailing optimism on the North American continent is dangerous if it diverts attention from the conditions which have to be faced.
There is too much, I think, of a prevailing optimism on the other side of the house. So far, in spite of what the mover and the seconder of the address in reply said in this regard-and may I take this opportunity of doing what I should have done earlier on behalf of my party, namely of congratulating them upon the able manner in which they moved and seconded the address in reply- so far, in spite of what they said, we believe the present administration has failed to plan adequately the reconversion from war-time to peace-time needs. Without a full employment plan, satisfactory national wage and farm policies, standards of living will be forced down and all will suffer.
Inextricably linked with reconversion and the maintenance of employment at the highest possible level are the problems of bousing and of settlement of returning veterans in satisfactory civilian employment. Even veterans who wish to enter into farming operations are met with endless delays in obtaining decisions regarding the suitability of the land and sometimes, I may say, the suitability of their wives to go with them on the land. I have no doubt that most hon. members have had many cases of exasperating delays and investigations
[Mr. Coldwell. 1
brought to their attention during the recess. There is a dangerous sense of disappointment and frustration abroad in this country. The red tape in the Department of Veterans Affairs and many other departments also must be cut, and cut quickly. We in the C.C.F. believe that there can be no true democracy without economic democracy; that there can be no true freedom without economic freedom. The time has passed when, liberty often meant merely the liberty to starve and be homeless.
, We believe, further, that only social ownership of the principal means of production and distribution will permit economic security and political stability. I know the government believe otherwise. Very well, but it is up to the government to make their system work and as yet it is not fulfilling the promise made last June of jobs for all.
Closely allied with this condition is the problem of housing. Housing conditions in Canada are deplorable. They are a disgrace to a country possessing our wealth and resources. For years before the war private enterprise failed to provide adequate housing; yet the government has entrusted practically all our needs to private firms again. There is not a single city or nation that I know of which has solved its housing needs through private enterprise. Any successful programme has invariably been accomplished through a properly planned public housing system.
The government, through its .Curtis report, admits that 700,000 houses are required in the country, and this is only half the number required to house the nation in reasonable health and comfort. One needs only to look north from this building to see the truth of that statement. The provisions of the National Housing Act make it impossible for the average citizen to build with any assurance that he caD complete the payments on a home. No provision whatever has been made for adequate low rental houses within the reach of the low wage group.
We are told' that 50,000 houses will be built this year, but there is little evidence that even this inadequate objective will be reached. Canada is faced with more than a grave problem in this respect. It is indeed a national emergency and should be treated as such. I believe the proper planning of the use of material and labour could provide this year 100,000 new houses. This would give employment, so it is estimated by those who know how to make such estimates, to more than a quarter of a million Canadian workers in all branches of the building and allied trades.
The unnecessary export of needed building materials should be halted There is no need
*

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
for Canada to provide the United States with materials for luxury building when people are , homeless. I have been told by people who have visited the Pacific coast, San Francisco, Los Angeles and so on, during the winter that they have seen magnificent homes being built in those states of No. 1 Canadian lumber. These are mansions that are costing many thousands of dollars, and I say that we have no right to export lumber for luxury homes when we need homes for our people so badly. Non-essential and deferable building in Canada should be prohibited and supplies rationed so that top priority may be given to housing which costs under $5,000 per unit.
In conjunction with such a policy crown companies should be set up to break the bottle-necks created by monopoly industry, and workers should be trained in the needed building skills just as they were trained for war-time industry. A long-term housing plan should be introduced immediately which would co-ordinate the resources of the federal, provincial and regional authorities to ensure that sufficient houses are constructed.
Linked, as I have already said, with the housing and unemployment difficulties facing the country is the problem of the returned veteran. -Thousands of young men who have served our country so well in war have found neither jobs nor homes upon their return to Canada. Many are living only on their army savings and gratuities. Many are forced to take inadequate jobs because they cannot find work which offers either promise of security or anything else. Thousands have been forced to discontinue needed schooling because of lack of living quarters and high rentals, which make their allowances inadequate to meet their needs.
This afternoon the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) referred to the survey of the Montreal area which was recently published by the rehabilitation information committee. Many other hon. members may have seen this survey, so that I am not going into that, although I had intended to do so. Referring to married veterans the report stated:
Most of the personal difficulties arose lose from psychological than material obstacles, such as housing need and inadequate income, against, which veterans and their wives were struggling calmly and courageously.
I regret to say that I have run across some cases, particularly of brides who have recently come to this country and who have had to find temporary accommodation with their husband's relatives who were strangers to them. In many cases this has had a disastrous effect upon these young couples who have come, on the one side, as newcomers to a
land which is strange to them. This condition of affairs is an indictment of the lack of policy in this regard on the part of the government and .it also endorses the warning the governor of the Bank of Canada gave.
There is much more that I could say if time permitted, but I see I have just three minutes left. I should like to say something about the dominion-provincial conference and the possible agreements, agreements which have been delayed too long. I should like to say something about a national health programme, old age pensions at a lower age vyth increased amounts without a means test, federal grants for education and the needed comprehensive programme for the building up of a Canada in which our people may find not only the means of life but the amenities of life as well. To sum up, I wish to move an amendment to the amendment that was moved this afternoon by the leader of the opposition in order that we may place our position clearly before the house. This is seconded by the hon member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) and reads:
That all the words of the 'amendment after the word "that" be struck out and the following
substituted therefor:
"We respectfully submit, however, that in the opinion of this house, Your Excellency's 'advisers in their reliance on private enterprise have failed to propose the comprehensive national planning which the present emergency demands;
We submit further that such planning is essential in order to achieve full employment, provide for the adequate rehabilitation of war veterans, assure the maintenance of stable and adequate farm income, build urgently needed homes for the Canadian people, and attain the high volume of both agricultural and industrial production which alone will enable Canada -bo provide a rising standard of living for our own people 'and contribute to the pressing needs of war-ravaged countries in such a manner as to help lay the basis far a lasting peace."


Mr. SOLON LOW (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, this has been a very heavy day; and, since the hour is late, I am sure hon. members would welcome an adjournment. I therefore move the adjournment of the debate.


Major James William Coldwell: I think we should go ahead. I felt the same way, but I went ahead, and I think the business of the house demands that we should proceed. I am objecting to adjournment now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand that some arrangement has been made by the whips that my hon. friend would have the right to adjourn the debate. I was informed of that just a little while ago. If that is the case, I do not think we should go on.
Food Agreements


Major James William Coldwell: Our whip knows nothing about it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not know anything about it.


Major James William Coldwell: This was done last year, you know, at the same time.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.15 p.m.
Tuesday, March 19, 1946.