1946-03-22

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That a select committee be appointed to examine the expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for national defence and demobilization, and foT other services directly connected with the war, including the disposal of surplus war assets, and to report what, if any, 
economies consistent with the execution of the policy, decided by the government may be effected therein, and that notwithstanding standing order 65 the committee shall consist of twenty-five members, namely: Messrs. Benidiqk-son, Black (Cumberland), Bradebte, Cleaver, Cote (Verdun), Dion (Lake St. John-Roberval), Golding, Homuth, Isnor, Jackman, Knowles, Lalonde, MacdonnaH, Marier, Marquis, McGregor, Mcllrait'h, McLure, Michaud, Probe, Reid, Shaw, 'Smith (Calgary West), Stewart (Winnipeg North), Wdnloler, with power to send for persons, papers and records; to examine witnesses, and to report from time to time to the bouse.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, I believe hon.
members are anxious to have the select and standing committees set up as soon as possible. Last year there was some complaint that we were lax in. having some of the committees constituted at an early date, in particular the select committee on expenditures.
If I thought there would be any debate on this motion I would not press it at this time. I should imagine however the house would be glad to have the committee set up at once. If that is so, I should be pleased to have the house proceed with my motion.
The motion offered this year is in exactly the same terms as the motion passed at the last session. The personnel of the committee is, I understand, the same.


Mr. BRACKEN:: Mr. Speaker, we are agreeable to having this committee set up, and to proceeding without debate.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I should like to say the same thing.


Mr. KNOWLES:: May I ask one question: I communicated to the whips the fact that there is one change we should like to make. Apparently my communication was not received in time. The suggestion is that t>he name of Mr. McCullough (Assiniboia) be substituted for mine. If the change is made now it will obviate the necessity of having it made later.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps hon. members would permit the motion to carry, following which a motion could be made to substitute one name for another.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Later:}
The house having reverted to motions:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the motion to set up a select committee to examine the expenditure defrayed out of moneys 'provided by parliament for national defence and demobilization be amended by substituting the name of Mr. McCullough (Assini-*boia) for that of Mr. Knowles.

Pensions and Reestablishment


John Bracken: I assume there will be no objection on the part of the government to substituting other names if there is a desire to make a change.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. During the session changes are made of certain names on most of the committees. The intention is to follow the same practice.


Mr. CHURCH:: Mr. Speaker, I object tc the appointment of this committee for the reasons that I gave last session. The time has gone by for a committee of this house-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the motion to appoint the committee has been adopted. The motion before the house is merely to provide for a change in the personnel and is not debatable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: I wish to say that I object to the system which has been adopted of appointing committees after ' the expenditures have been made. It is nothing but a postmortem-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: The motion to appoint the committee has already been adopted by the house. We are now on orders of the day, and if the hon. member wants to put a question, it is his privilege to do so.



PENSIONS AND REESTABLISHMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): moved:
That -a select committee he 'appointed: 1. To consider all! legislation passed since the commencement of the war with the German ireich relating to the pensions, treatment, and reestablishment of former members of His Majesty's [DOT]armed forces and of other persons who have otherwise engaged in pursuits closely related to war;
2. To prepare and bring in one or more bills to clarify, amend or supplement the above legislation;
With power to send for persons, papers, and records; to print its proceedings, and to report from time to time to the house;
That the provisions of section 1, standing order 65, :be waived in, respect to this committee.
And that the said committee shall consist of the following members: Messrs. Abbott, Adamson, Archibald. Ashby, Baker, Belzile, Benidick-son, Bentley, Blair, Blanchette, Bridges, Brooks,
Bruce, Olaxton, Oleaver, Cockeram, Croll, Cruick-shank, Dion (Lake 'St. John-Roberval), Dorion, Drope, Emmerson, Fulton, Gauthier (Portneuf), Gibson (Hamilton West), Gillie, Green, Halle, Barkness, Harris (Grey-Bruce), Herridge, Isnor, J'Ubras, Kidd, Langlois, Lapointe, Lennard, Marshall, Mackenzie, Macdonald (Halifax), MacNaught, Merritt, Mitchell, Moore, Mutch, Pearkes, Power, Probe, Quelch, Ross (Souris), Sinclair (Vancouver North), Skey, Tremblay, Tucker, Vdau, White (Hastings-Peterborough), Whitman, Winkler, Winters, Wright.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have the cooperation of the house in following the same procedure as has been followed with regard to the previous motion. This is practically the same wording that we had in the resolution of a year ago, and the personnel of the committee is the same with the exception of one or two changes which have been made by agreement.
It is intended to continue the excellent work which was done a year ago by the committee on veterans affairs. The committee will review if necessary the three measures that were passed by this house and deal with the Pensions Act, the Veterans Land Act, and the act dealing with fire fighters and supervisors that was before the veterans affairs committee a year ago. It will deal with any new suggestions that were made to the committee, such as amendments to the Soldier Settlement Act, and it will deal also with civilian personnel who are protected now by orders in council but who are not protected by statute. These and other matters which will come before the special committee on veterans affairs will I think have the general support not only of the members of the committee which functioned so excellently a year ago, but of the house generally.
Mr. BROOKS:: I understand from the minister that the terms of reference are exactly the same as last year and that this committee is to consist of sixty members as the committee did last year. I stated last year that I thought it would be well to have all returned men on this committee, and I am still of that opinion. However, I am not pressing the point.
I am pleased indeed that the committee is being set up and will start to operate soon. I know that last year members of the committee found it difficult to attend the meetings while carrying out their duties in the house. We were working long hours, sometimes morning and afternoon, and toward the latter part of the session we had to sit while the house was sitting, which I think all members will agree is not a good thing.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I should like to ask one question. Will the fact that this com-
Veterans Affairs

mittee is sitting preclude any discussion in the house, say on matters having to do with the Veterans Land Act?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Last year the Veterans Land Act was amended in the special committee and it went through this house. There were certain members, the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) being one, who asked that their rights be preserved if they had any further suggestions to -make. .
. Mr. ROSS (Souris): That is not my point. Are we to be precluded from discussing these matters when the committee is sitting? Questions pertaining to the Veterans Land Act may come up in the house. It is near the spring of the year, and these matters are urgent. Will the fact that the committee is sitting prevent discussion under some relevant item under consideration inj the house?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is a matter* of the rules of the house. I do not know the nature of the discussion my hon. friend is referring to, but I shall be very glad to discuss it with him at any time.


James Arthur Ross: 
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So far as I am concerned there is no desire whatever to debar the hon. member from referring to the things he has in mind.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I wish to direct a question to the
Minister of Transport. In view of the widespread unemployment situation in Nova Scotia can the minister give the house a statement on what progress is being made with regard to the proposed causeway across the strait of. Canso? If that project can be expedited it would greatly relieve unemployment in that province.
Hon, LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):	The hon. gentleman was good
enough to send me notice of his question. I am unable to give him a complete report at 
this stage. When the estimates of the Department of Transport were under consideration last year I told the hon. member that there were four proposals which had been put forth by the engineers of the department. The acceptance of the different proposals will depend upon soundings or borings to be taken in the gut of Canso. Some of those borings have been taken, but not all. Because of weather conditions it has been impossible to complete the soundings, but as soon as the weather clears, perhaps early in May, it will ' be possible to complete them and1 we can then come to a conclusion as to which of the alternative suggestions should be adopted.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. KNIGHT (Saskatoon City):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, of which I am afraid I gave him short notice. Has the government received complaints about the insufficiency of allowances to student veterans attending university, and what action, if any, has been taken in thal^ regard?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs):	The parliamentary committee of 1!H5 recommended that consideration be given by the governor in council to increasing the rates set forth in parts 2 and 3 of the schedule of rates to the post discharge reestablishment order. The government gave consideration to the question of inadequacy of allowances to student veterans attending university, and it was found that only four students of some 25,000, have withdrawn for financial reasons. The matter is receiving consideration.



VETERANS LAND ACT-REGULATIONS FOR CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFICATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Will he consider an immediate change in the regulations governing the Veterans Land Act which compel joint approval by the board of the veteran and his wife before issuance of a certificate of qualification under the Veterans Land Act, and discarding the present regulations which prevent a veteran with an overseas wife from taking advantage of the act without hardship and long delay?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, on a point

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
of order, I must say that I did not receive notice of the question. In any case it must ' stand as a notice.



P. E.I. CAR FERRY INQUIRY AS TO PROGRESS OF CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens):
I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Transport. Is he prepared at this time to make a statement regarding the construction progress of the S.S. Abegweit, the new steamer for the Borden-Tormentine ferry?
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) :: I am informed by the contractors that, provided the subcontracts are maintained according to schedule and the machinery is delivered on time, it is expected that the Abcgu-eit will be ready for delivery about the 30th of September.


Mr. McLURE:: Thank you.



OMISSION OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND FROM MAP OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): Is the Minister of Trade and Commerce aware of the fact that a branch of his department published a map of Canada on which the province of Prince Edward Island is not even shown?
James Horace King: Order. It is the practice that when an hon. member puts a question, it is not to give information to the house, but to seek information from a minister.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I asked a question.



PRIVILEGE-MR. CHURCH REFERENCE TO REMARKS IN DEBATE ON MARCH 21

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege, to refer to remarks made last night, as reported, at page 163 of Hansard, by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard), who followed me in the debate on the address. It is seldom that I rise to a question of privilege, but 'the hon. member misquoted me last night. My reference was onljr to creating at a time like this more embassies and envoys all over the seven seas and dividing Britain's foreign policy when we all should act together. I never referred to the very fine staff of the Department of External Affairs, or to the head of it, the
Prime Minister, who has so many talents. My references were confined to the sending of envoys abroad at a time like this to countries- where we already have commercial agencies. I object to the hon. member attributing to me words I never used. I have never objected at any time to visits of members of parliament abroad, because I believe that that is money well spent.



SPREADING OF PAYMENTS FOR DELIVERIES- INCOME TAX

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MaeKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, in my absence from the house yesterday, I understand that the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) asked a question regarding the spreading of wheat payments in connection with income tax. I never intended to suggest when speaking on the subject that this announcement would be made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I think it would be made by the Minister of National Revenue or the Minister of Finance. In any event, as the question involves government policy, it cannot be answered at the moment.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 21, 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, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Bracken, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. ANGUS MaeINNIS (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne usually outlines the policy of the government for the session. When I heard the speech read by His Excellency at the opening of parliament my reaction was a hope that the people of Canada were not looking for very much this year, because if they were, and if there is not something more in the government's programme than there is in the speech, they certainly will be disappointed. In the speech last year it was mentioned that we were building a new world. As we did not finish that job last year I thought there might be something in the speech this year to indicate that we might be going on with that job. But there is nothing of the kind in the speech. There is no reference to the brave new world. As a matter of fact the speech gives every indication of being the work of tired men who are looking backward to the old world rather than forward to a new one.
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
[Stage Direction]
I represent a working class constituency. I have a fairly long association with organized labour and other working class movements, so I wish to say something about the aspirations and the fears of the working people, not only of my own constituency but of Canada, as I see and understand them.
Perhaps the greatest fear to-day among the workers is that of unemployment, the fear that we may be slipping back to the days and the conditions prior to 1939-and I have a fairly good idea that other people besides the workers have this same fear.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) replied to the criticism of the leader of tne opposition (Mr. Bracken) last Monday on unemployment, he brushed that criticism aside by asking this question: Though employment is not all that we would wish it to be, where is there a country better off than Canada?
An lion. MEMBER: Hear, hear.
Mr. MaeINNIS: My hon. friend says "hear, hear." Then the Prime Minister went on to compare conditions in Canada with those in the United Kingdom, Belgium, Holland and other parts of Europe. Such sophistry is begging the question, because conditions in Canada are not comparable with conditions in the United Kingdom or in the countries of Europe. The war destroyed the economy of almost the whole of Europe; and in the United Kingdom, if the country's economy was not destroyed by war, the whole economy was converted to war purposes. But in Canada the same war made this country greater and richer and more able to provide for the people than ever it was before. So it is sheer nonsense to compare conditions in Canada at the present time with conditions in almost any other part of the world. Perhaps the only comparable country is the republic to the south'of us. The fact of the matter is that at the present time we have unemployment on a large scale. I would urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and other members of the cabinet not to be too offhand about it, because the 263,000 who were unemployed at the date of the last report, and the others who do not know how soon they also may be unemployed, are not offhanded about it. Perhaps of itself 263,000 is not an alarming number; but it is alarming in view of the world's need and Canada's need of goods.
I am aware of the fact that unemployment is not yet acute, that there is no mass suffering such as we had in the thirties. The reason of course is that we have made some provision against it. There are the unemployment insurance benefits; there are also the

sayings made during the war when work was plentiful, and service pay, and the like. But these resources, however large they may be, are limited, and are a mere stop-gap. What is causing the workers worry to-day is not so much the present unemployment, although it is bad enough, but the fact that no plan is being prepared to obviate the conditions which brought about such disastrous results in the thirties. There are no plans for public welfare, and the position of the average worker is as- it always has been-the harder he works the sooner he is looking for another job. Until we get away from that, and the worker has assurance of continuity of income, there will always be that worry.
The only reference in the speech from the throne to unemployment is typical of the old thinking in the new world upon which we are entering. I read from Hansard, page 1:
The maintenance of a high level of employment and national income is a fundamental aim of government policy. Employment and income alike are bound up with the restoration -and expansion of world trade. To the productive employment of vast numbers of Canadians, export markets are essential.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is old stuff. It was dinned into our ears all during the depression. I appreciate as much as anyone does the value of export trade, but export trade will not put an end to unemployment and distress in this country; it will make for unemployment unless we are prepared to make trade a two-way affair. That is, unless we are prepared to accept imports in the full measure of our exports and to distribute to our people the national income so created, foreign trade will not help us very much. I believe we shall have to approach full employment, the elimination of unemployment, in a time of peace in somewhat the same way as we proceeded during the war. We put an end to unemployment during the war, not by trying to find work or to make work for people, but by producing the needs of war. Now, with peace here, there are peace-time needs, and if we put our people to work to satisfy the needs of peace, to provide the things which our people need in their everyday life, not only shall we find work for everyone, but there will be more jobs than workers, as there were during the war.
There are other measures to which I wish to refer, but before I do so I want to say that I believe that labour in Canada deserves the appreciation of the government and of the people for the freedom from industrial strife enjoyed by this country since the end of hostilities. The smoothness with which

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
production and services were carried on at a time when wages were falling and prices rising has been of tremendous advantage to this country. In that respect the situation here has been quite different from what it has been on the other side of the border. But organized labour will demand wage increases, and will demand them because they have become necessary. Now that the war is over and there is more civilian production, labour is entitled to a higher, not a lower, standard of living. High wages are also necessary because high wages will help to prevent another depression. In our capitalist economy depressions always come about when there is an over-supply of goods for which there is a need, but those who have the need have not the price to buy. Therefore, higher wages will help to prevent another depression.
During the war there was a ceiling on wages. I agree that it was necessary to stabilize wages, although I have always maintained in this house and outside that to the extent that a stable price structure was maintained, to that extent the burden was borne by the low-paid wage and salary earner. I suggest that the government should not wait for strikes and disputes before there is an increase in wages. The government should make it quite clear that it is in favour of increases in wages at the present time.
There will also be a demand for shorter hours. The two national labour bodies, the trades and labour congress and the Canadian congress of labour, have gone on record in favour of a forty-hour week without reduction in pay. This will mean, if it does come about, that where there is a forty-four hour week and it is reduced to forty, a ten per cent wage increase will be required, and if it is forty-eight hours reduced to forty, the necessary wage increase will be twenty per cent. There are many industries in Canada in which the work week is much higher than forty-eight hours and even fifty-six hours a week.
While we are discussing shorter hours we should not lose sight of the world's tremendous needs for production. I suggest to the Minister of Labour and the government that they should take into consideration the calling of a conference of representatives of organized labour, organized employers and the government to discuss the best means of attaining full production and full employment. Such conferences have taken place in the United Kingdom, and . I believe they have been productive of much good.
I am suggesting such a conference because I believe that full production at this time is exceedingly important. I notice that the Minister of Labour ip a recent speech at Renfrew said:
We must use the same characteristic good sense which we used when our backs were to the wall, and then the Canadian people will be able to overcome any difficulties which we may face.
I agree with the minister that, united, we can overcome any of our difficulties in Canada, and I suppose almost everyone will agree with him in that. But I should be astonished if the minister finds the same attitude towards that sort of cooperation to-day as he found during the war. Indeed, the whole cry for the removal of controls is to get away from working together and back to the old system of everyone for himself and the dievil take the hindmost.
Mr. MITCHELL:: It has been suggested by the two labour congresses.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Yes. That was the motive behind this demand for the removal of controls, and we still hear it. They want a restoration of freedom. I am wondering what freedom -freedom to do the other fellow before he does you? It is because we have no common objective and because we want to get back to the principles of free enterprise that we are told by these lovers of freedom that we must get rid of the bureaucrats. The people who suggest this are unconscious of the fact that the bureaucrats, if there are any, came into being to protect the community from irresponsible private bureaucrats.


An hon. MEMBER:: Pirates.


Angus MacInnis: "Pirates" is right. The question of the removal of wage control and price control has been receiving considerable attention, particularly the matter of wage control, by organized labour. Personally I cannot at the moment see that any advantage could accrue to labour by the removal of wage control.


Humphrey Mitchell: I agree with my hon. friend.


Angus MacInnis: I am sure the minister does. As regards labour, the supply to-day is greater than the demand, while other commodities are in the opposite position, the demand being greater than the supply. If we removed all the controls, prices would skyrocket and it would be very difficult to get wage increases at all. I do not see, therefore, that there is any hope in that direction. I believe, however, that labour should be allowed to negotiate for fairly substantial increases, not only because of the increased
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis

cost of living but also because of the increased amount of consumers' goods that are coming into the market. For these reasons, the low-paid workers particularly should be allowed to negotiate for substantial increases in wages.
Seyeral hon. members have urged that the income tax exemptions should be raised to $2,000. Of course this matter is not dealt with in the speech from the throne; it falls more naturally under the budget, but it has been mentioned. I am in favour of raising the exemption on the income tax [DOT] to $2,000, but I would much rather see this house take some action to ensure that every family received an income of $2,000. It is not of much use to have the exemption raised on an income one does not receive.
I shall give the house some examples of workers' wages in Canada in 1941 when the wages were frozen. In a sample of incomes gathered by the bureau of statistics from the 1941 census returns, it was found that 83-9 per cent of the wage earners of Canada received an income of less than $1,500. These people are not going to benefit very much from the exemption suggested, particularly on that part of the income which is over $1,500 or even $1,000. They will not benefit from the exemption because they do not receive the income. When you examine the various categories you find that wage earners receiving less than $500 a year numbered 1,028,800, or 35-9 per cent of the total wage earners in the country at that time. If these figures do not convince the members of this house that something should be done and done quickly to increase wages, I do not know what will convince them.
Another report to which hon. members may have seen, the Marsh report of 1941, gives the number of heads of families in certain income brackets.	City workers, heads of
families, earning from $500 to $1,000 a year, numbered 219.000 in 1941. Rural workers, heads of families, earning from $500 to $1,000 numbered 80,000. City workers, heads of families, earning $500 or less numbered 114,900. Rural workers, heads of families, earning $500 or less numbered 103,100. The year 1941 was a prosperous one. It was the year in which wages were frozen or stabilized, and in relation to the cost of living at this time wages are not much better, if any.
The government says that it considers it a fundamental principle to maintain, a high national income. A high national income cannot be maintained unless there is a high individual income* The two must go together.
I wish to make one other observation in connection with this $2,000 exemption from income tax. When the increase in the in-

demnity of hon. members was before us in the previous session I pointed out that as members of parliament we had not done anything to increase the standard of living of the people of this country. I could quote figures -I'have them here-to show that the amount of money being paid in wages has been continually falling since that time. Now that we have increased our own indemnities we are in duty bound n6t only to raise the exemption on income tax up to $2,000, but to see, as far as it lies with us, that every family receive an income of $2,000.
I should like to say a word in connection with a national labour code. The idea is not a new one to the group with which I am associated. We advocated it in our first manifesto in 1933, and we are still satisfied that it is a good thing. It is not only a good thing but an essential in harmonizing and stabilizing labour relations across the country. I am aware of the many difficulties, but I believe that P.C. 1003, faulty as it is, was a step in the right direction, that we should take advantage of its acceptance during war time, and that the government should do everything possible, even to the extent of an amendment of the British North America Act if agreement can be had to that end, to bring about conditions under which a national labour code will be part of the law's of Canada. In my opinion a labour code should set down minimum standards above which the provinces would be free to go, if they wished, but not free to go below.
I listened with much interest to the speech of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) on Monday of this week. It was a long speech, but in my opinion the most striking feature of it was that he spoke on both sides of almost every point he raised. He reminded me of the Roman god Janus who, I believe, was supposed to be the porter of heaven and the guardian deity of the gates. And, because of that, as a gate has two sides, he is usually shown with two heads.
The leader of the opposition referred to the fact-and it is a fact-that the housing situation in Canada is a festering sore on the body politic, and a national emergency. Then he went on to say-
During the war we met the national emergency courageously and forthrightly. Surely we shall not be less resolute in peace.
One or two pages further on in his speech he is reported in this way:
I do not urge the government to engage in rash efforts of decontrol, hut 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 from the effects of those laws against production, which

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
were made necessary in war, but which in time of peace discouraged what is most essential to the production of needed /goods.
Well, I should not be a bit surprised if the government, without being over-rash, did come forward with a planned programme to relax controls, but I am fairly sure they will not have a planned programme for anything else.
The point I wish to make is this, we dealt with the national emergency courageously and forthrightly in war time, not by leaving things to people to do or not to do as they pleased, but by meeting the needs of war with all the power of the Canadian government and resources of the Canadian people. There is no other way in which we can deal with the housing emergency-no other than by meeting it with the whole power and resources of the Canadian people.
Referring to Canada's loan of $1,250 million to Great Britain, the hon. gentleman said, as reported at page 30:
From the point of view of the selfish interests of Canada, the loan is amply justified.
But on page 31 I find this:
But we might as well understand what we are doing . . . What this loan in fact means is that for five years the Canadian taxpayer will pay interest on ft which, even at 2J per cent, will be $30 million a year, and at the same rate on the extension of the 1942 interest-free loan te will pay $14 million.
I submit that if the loan is a good thing, and I agree that it is, it was proper that it should have been made. It is a good thing for Canada economically. I am convinced it it a good thing for the world and for Canada politically, and if we need to bring in humane considerations, I would say it is a good thing from the humane point of view. If we want to get a picture of the difference between what war did to Canada and what if did to Great Britain and Europe, we see it in the fact that this country can now lend $1,250 million to Great Britain, and that Great Britain needs such a loan. Nothing could show more clearly what the British people sacrificed in the war. I am in favour of going as far as possible to carry out our share of the war's costs, and I am convinced that anything we can do to help Britain now is a part of it.
A little further on the leader of the opposition referred to cartels and the control these institutions were gathering to themselves over production and other factors in our economy. I agree that cartels are gaining control of the economy of this country; but I do not agree that the government can eliminate the danger or menace of cartels by completely eliminating controls, and leaving everything to free enterprise. The purpose of every competitive organization, or every organization that is
supposed to be competitive, is to eliminate competition in its own line. I imagine no living organism of any kind likes competition, because competition makes living more difficult.
Let me read from the press release issued at the time the report on cartels was made public. It will give the house an idea of what cartels are doing to our economy and to our freedom; and then let anyone tell me how we are going to overcome this power by lessening the controls we now have over the economy of the country. The press release, under the heading "Economic effects of cartels", states:
The report discloses that in the two decades between world war I and world war II restrictive trade agreements of private interests flourished and spread; and that in so doing they (a) limited production and impeded the most efficient use of world resources; (b) raised or maintained certain consumer prices; (c) restricted the import and export of certain commodities; (d) restricted the use to which certain commodities might he put; (e) nullified external trade policies in certain respects; (f) resisted technological advances in certain fields; (g) created patent pools or monopolies covering wide fields of endeavour; (h) assisted the formation of private industrial empires which tended to supplant governments in the determination of certain national commercial policies.
In view of that statement by this Canadian commission which investigated cartels, how can anyone in this house or anywhere else say that the salvation of the people of Canada lies in giving free enterprise more control and more opportunity to do this sort of thing?
At the beginning of his address the leader of the opposition made this amazing statement.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Lalonde):: The hon. member has exhausted his time.


Angus MacInnis: I have only a little more to say, if the house will permit me.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Maurice Lalonde: With unanimous consent the hon. member may proceed.


Angus MacInnis: He said, as reported on page 27 of Hansard:
In these days it is the duty of the modern 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.
I think we would all agree with that, but again I do not see how the state is going to do that. If the government is to assume the responsibilities suggested by the leader of the opposition, then the government must
The Address-Mr. Fleming

have the necessary power and control over the economy of the country to enable them to do so. I do not think it can carry out its responsibilities if it leaves the control in the hands of others. I suggest it is not fair to assert, on the one hand, that the government is responsible for the economic welfare of the individual, and to urge in the next breath that in connection with the economy of the country the productive forces be handed over to private individuals to operate them for their own profit. That is what my hon. friends to my right are advocating. I do not think even the leader of the opposition can ride two horses going in different directions. ,
The party with which I am associated agrees that the government has a responsibility for the social welfare of the people. At the same time we assert that the government can discharge that responsibility only when the productive forces of the country are used solely for the benefit of the people. This means planning; this means control. But it also means freedom-freedom from fear, freedom from want, and the assurance that the harder we work, the more secure we will be; not, as it is to-day, the realization that the harder we work the sooner we will be looking for another job.
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that during this debate the function of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne has not been sufficiently recognized. That debate can serve a most useful function, a variety of functions, in fact. One good function which it can serve is to enable the house to elicit information from the government with reference to its programme for the session and its plans for administration which too often is not found in the speech from the throne.
In the speech from the throne which was read a week ago there are some very vague and general statements and there is a sad lack of a clearly defined legislative programme for the session. If this debate does serve the purpose of eliciting from the government some real information about the programme that it proposes to submit to parliament it will nave served a very useful function indeed.
In no respect is the need of information greater than with respect to the plans for housing. As a matter of fact, the only information that the public or the members of this house have received with respect to the government's housing plans for some time now has been bits and pieces which from time to time appear in the press. It is true that the speech from the throne does give a paragraph

to housing, but that statement is significantly lacking in information. It is high time that the crumbs of information which have been given to the house and the people were supplemented by some more systematic approach through parliamentary channels.
I think the time has come, in fact it came long ago, when there should be appointed by this house a standing committee or^ social security matters. One of the primary tasks of that committee should be to go into the proposals that have been offered with reference to housing and to obtain the information which is necessary and which the public has not been receiving. That committee should consider in detail the numerous proposals which have been made from time to time. [DOT]
If one is to judge by the remarks of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in following the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken), constructive speeches are not wanted by the government in this debate. I think you will go a long way in searching the records of the debates of this house before you will find on the part of any leader of the opposition a more constructive contribution than that made by my leader. I am bound to say that so far as the Prime Minister's reply was concerned the detailed and constructive observations of the leader of the opposition remain unanswered.
There are five things said in the speech from the throne with reference to housing. The first one is an amazing statement, a monstrous understatement-it is stated that the demand exceeds the supply. A most laconic statement! That is all the government has to say to the people of Canada, many thousands of whom are living to-day under conditions that at any other time would have been considered simply unthinkable. Summing up that situation the government says "Oh, well, the demand exceeds the supply."
Second, we are.told that a large number of houses has been constructed since V-E day, but at this! stage we still have not been told how many houses have been constructed since Y-E day. Apparently the government does not know because it is not a matter of government record. They tell us that, even in the face of the lavish promises that they made to secure election in June last.
Third, we are told that some special efforts are being made to expand the supply of building materials-I shall have something to say about that later.
Fourth, it is said that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been established. That is something that we really did know. I think it should be said .in passing that Mr. Mansur, president of the Central

The Address-Mr. Fleming
Mortgage and Housing Corporation, has this advantage in starting his duties. He can look back on the previous administration of the National Housing Act and be assured that whatever he does his administration cannot be more ineffective than the administration [DOT] of the act before he assumed responsibility.
Then we are told that steps are being taken at once to have some form of coordination in the activities of the government in the field of housing, placing them all under one minister. I had a good deal to say on that subject during the fall session of the house and I do not intend to repeat what I said. Coordination of the efforts of the government is .long overdue. Where else in the world will you find a situation so pressingly urgent as the housing situation in Canada being handled by a government on the basis of dividing the responsibilities and power among three ministers. An anomaly like that could exist nowhere else.
Evidently, if one is to follow the speech from the throne, no legislation in the field of housing is contemplated this year by the government. In any event we have not been told of any as yet.
May I offer to the hon. members who respectively moved and seconded the address my sincere compliments. In the main they confined themselves to the non-controversial features of the speech from the throne. I offer this observation in passing: Neither of them said anything on the subject of housing. It is in no carping sense that I draw attention to that fact because I think there is a reason for it. Perhaps my respected friend, the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Yiau), had in mind the description of housing conditions in his own riding which was contained in a telegram sent to the Prime Minister of Canada on October 24, 1945, by the mayor of St. Boniface. This reads:
Family of five and family of three on the street. Controller here refuses to take1 action to provide necessary accommodation unless city requests buildings to be taken over >at city's expense. City not in financial position to assume responsibility-weather at present severe-snowing. Immediate relief for these families must be found otherwise small children and mothers will have health impaired-general unrest in whole community. Feel unless immediate steps taken by your department to authorize your emergency controller to commandeer building and order alterations to be made to care for these emergency cases tragedy may happen and public get out of control. Returned soldiers and families very hostile regarding 'lack of *accommodation.
George C. MacLean, mayor.
I have referred to the constructive contribution made to this debate by my leader. There are two speeches to which I shall draw the
attention of the house, that of the Prime Minister and that of the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe). My leader referred to housing conditions, and I think his language was very temperate when he referred to those conditions as a disgrace. They are a blot on the escutcheon of the Dominion of Canada.
I suggest with all respect to these two hon. gentlemen that their contributions to the debate on the subject of housing were marked by smugness, complacency, boastfulness ar J an attempt to treat the whole subject in a trivial way. What we did not find in their speeches was realism. There was no courageous facing up to the problem which housing presents in Canada in its full dimensions or any indication that there would be a gearing of a great national effort to meet it. I am sorry that the Minister of Reconstruction is not in the house at the moment. I should like to say, as I have told him personally, and I believe in this I speak for all members, that we are delighted that he has returned from his vacation looking so much improved in health following the long-deferred vacation that he took between sessions, and we all hope that he will enjoy good health from it. At least his vacation has had a tonic effect upon his spirits, for if ever a man was full of optimism it was certainly the Minister of Reconstruction when he spoke in this debate two days .ago. He saw everything through rose-coloured glasses, and in listening to his speech and to that of the Prime Minister two days earlier I began to wonder if I was really living in the same country as they, because the descriptions that they gave of conditions as they seemed to find them were so utterly different from the actual conditions that I have seen that I had to pinch myself to see if I was really sitting here in this month of March in the Dominion of Canada. Their descriptions were of a very different kind of Canada from what I have seen in recent months.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, let us have a frank approach to and a clear appreciation of the immensity of this housing problem, and then let us view it in the light of the government's policy to meet it. The government has not met the housing problem. It has not taken adequate measures to cope with it. I wish that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Reconstruction would come to some of the places I have seen where men and women and their families, many of them veterans who have given long years of service to their country in this war, are living in hovels, garrets or cellar basements-not just one case but in thousands.
How big is this housing problem, Mr. Speaker? It is an immense problem. It has
The Address-Mr. Fleming

reached enormous proportions. Mr. Storms, general manager of Housing Enterprises Limited, said in a published statement on March 14 last that there are 375,000 families in Canada who ase involuntarily doubled up because of the housing shortage. Imagine-
375,000	families! That means almost 2,000,000 people. He went on to say that the situation was daily becoming worse with the arrival of soldiers and their dependents from overseas. It is a problem that mounts with every boatload of soldiers coming back from overseas. In the city of Toronto the authorities, who are doing their best to cope with local conditions, estimate that one-half of the discharged ex-servicemen want housing, and the problem is growing daily. The department of welfare of the city of Toronto keeps a record of the families who apply to them for housing accommodation, and in the last three months the number of unfilled applications on hand has increased by eighteen per cent. It has gone up'every week. The need is constantly growing. The situation is going to continue to grow wrnrse if we can expect nothing more from the government than has been indicated hitherto in this debate. It would be cruel to mislead the people of Canada into thinking that with the kind of programme the government has indicated conditions can improve.
It is a bitterly cruel fact that those who are bearing the brunt of the housing shortage in Canada to-day are our veterans. After long years of separation from their wives and families, tens of thousands of them have come back to find themselves either still separated from their families or having to double up under intolerable conditions. The readjustment period will be difficult enough for many of these men without their having to face all that may be involved in domestic conditions in the present intolerable situation. As Mr. Storms pointed out, the problem is going to become increasingly acute with the arrival from overseas of the soldiers and the dependents of those who have married overseas. The hon. member who seconded the address (Mr. Winters) had this to say as reported at page 19 of Hansard:
We do not overlook the fact that many of our soldiers are bringing war brides and families with them to Canada, and we wish to assure them of a welcome in this country.
But it will be a very sad welcome indeed that many thousands of these wives are going to receive in Canada in having to submit to the doubling up which will be necessary if they are to have a roof over their heads. There will be more of them living in cellars and garrets.

We have had intolerable conditions in other respects as well. I have already referred to the unequal burden borne by the veterans, and I should like to make mention also of the very unequal share of the burden that is being borne by people with families. Unless the government in framing its housing plans for the future takes into account the claims of people with families and puts them first after the claims of the ex-service personnel we are going to leave a crying social need unsolved.
There are other problems, too. I have personal knowledge of two cases in Montreal which were brought to my attention, and which are only typical of many others, showing the methods being practised to evade the rent control regulations. In one case the rent paid was the rent fixed by the rental authority, but the sum of $500 was exacted from the tenant for the purchase of the key. In another case an apartment had been rented furnished, but the prospective tenant was compelled to buy the furniture at an utterly exorbitant price. Astute minds have been directed to devising methods of defeating the rent control regulations.
The effect has been very unhappy indeed on the reestablishment of veterans. One reason why so many of the ex-service men have not yet found employment is that they have been kept so busy trying to find housing accommodation they have not had time or opportunity or perhaps the will to look about for needed employment. That condition is common all over Canada, and particularly in-the large cities. It is retarding recovery on the employment side, the reconversion side. You will find it acute in mining communities and in logging communities. There is a great-need of proper housing accommodation adjacent to the big camps in many great logging areas in this country, not only in the east but in the west, in British Columbia, on Vancouver island and elsewhere.
The suggestion has been made by someone: Oh, let the surplus people in the cities go to the farms. But so long as we have these glowingly optimistic statements from the Minister of Reconstruction about the great opportunities of employment and high wages which will be available in industry you will not find many people going back from the large cities to the rural areas from which many of them came. Conditions are so bad that in some cities there has been interference with the law; but it is a great tribute to the law-abiding character of our people that under conditions of great stress there has been so little lawlessness over present housing condi-

The Address-Mr. Fleming
tions. In some communities, however, there has been interference with sheriffs to prevent evictions of ex-service personnel. The government must take account of this situation.
What have been the activities of the government in this field? Well, we hatl a statement given to the press by the Minister of Reconstruction-hon. members will find it in the *Ottawa Journal of February 11-which is a pretty fair sample of what happens when you get three ministers in the same administration competing for power in connection with housing matters or any others. This was the not unboastful statement which fell from the minister on that occasion; he was speaking about what the government is doing, and he said:
Wartime Housing is the only department of government that is doing anything to get thepe houses built.
The only department! Well, I will accept his confession as applied to the other departments of government.
What is this great record of Wartime Housing Limited of which the Minister of Reconstruction boasts? I will give the house one experience. It is the experience that the city of Toronto had with contracts for 603 houses to be built in adjacent communities. These were to be semi-permanent houses. Unfortunately, Wartime Housing Limited decided that, of the 7,000 houses that it laid down in its 1945 programme, 6,200 were to be built without cellars, and only 800 with cellars. Under these conditions the city of Toronto had to take these houses without [DOT]cellars; and what is the result? The first sod was turned on July 4, 1945, and a very optimistic statement-of course statements which [DOT]come from the government or its minions are always optimistic-came from the representative of Wartime Housing Limited on that occasion. He said that 200 would be ready by the fall and 300 by Christmas. The first house was occupied on December 18, and to-day, ten months after the turning of the first sod, only 183 are completed. A fine record indeed 1 Wartime Housing Limited is still going on, wherever distracted municipalities apply for help, exacting harsh terms. They are still demanding a free gift of the best sites from the municipalities ; they are still demanding subsidies in the form of donations of land and low taxes. In the city of Toronto the taxes they are prepared to pay do not amount to a quarter of what those properties would have to bear if they were owned by private persons. This is the kind of terms which Wartime Housing Limited is exacting.
That is not all. For instance, Toronto has expended already in appropriations, for the
purpose of assisting housing, $2 million. The responsibility in this matter rests on the dominion. But here is a sample where one municipality-and I believe it stands preeminent in respect of the load it has had to carry, a load which the dominion government has left it to carry-has spent over $2 million in meeting not only the demands of Wartime Housing Limited for the provision of services in these 600 houses outside the city, but others as well. Wartime Housing is still going on disturbing the normal channels of distribution by its high-handed requisitioning methods.
What is the situation in respect of building materials? We have a glowing account in the throne speech of what is to be done to provide building materials, and we have this remarkable statement of the Minister of Reconstruction as quoted in the Ottawa Journal of February 11:
We have beaten the shortage of brick, and lumber is now coming on the market in good quantities for houses.
Hon. members will remember, too, that he said in the house on the 20th of this month that perhaps lumber was the least of our problems and that, generally speaking, the situation was well in hand. I do not know what the Minister of Reconstruction means when he says that the problem of brick has been beaten, and that lumber is coming on the market in large quantities. It just does not fit the facts as the supply houses in the country know them. It does not fit the facts as they exist in Toronto and the other big cities of Canada. Talk about beating the situation in brick! One of the building materials which is in most critically short supply is brick; if there is another in the same category it is lumber; and it is not good enough to have these glowingly optimistic statements from the Minister of Reconstruction when they cannot be supported by facts. They just do not fit the facts as we members of the House of Commons know them in our respective constituencies. Not only do these shortages exist in acute form to-day; they will be felt for another two years unless a massive effort is put forth in this field. Yet in October last-I think it was the 25th-a very optimistic statement was made with regard to the production of building materials, on that occasion, by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). There seems to be something contagiously optimistic among members of the government; when they come to this question they are always optimistic, regardless of the facts. I will not take time to review the glowing statement made on that occasion. But the house will recall this, that
The Address-Mr. Fleming

although the Minister of Reconstruction painted such an optimistic and rosy picture to us two days ago, nevertheless it is not six weeks ago that he appointed a fact-finding committee, drawn from the Canadian construction association, to ascertain the underlying causes of the shortage. The fact is that there are shortages and that these shortages will continue unless, as I say, a massive effort is put forward.
When we are approaching this problem let us realize that there must be a tremendous amount of work done to expand the capacity of the building and construction industry in Canada. Mr. H. C. Nicholls, the retiring president of the Canadian construction association, stated on January 14 of this year that the capacity of the building industry of Canada to-day is 30,000 houses per annum.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was 40,000.


Mr. FLEMING:: It was 30,000, according
to the statement of the retiring president of the Canadian construction association; that is, the housebuilding capacity of the building industry. On that occasion representatives of the plumbing supply industry in Canada stated that that was far too optimistic an estimate, that twenty to twenty-five thousand was the maximum that their trade could possibly supply at the present time.


Mr. McILRAITH:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If we are to expect larger figures of construction-


George James McIlraith: Would the hon.
member-


Donald Methuen Fleming: -it can only be on the basis of their building houses without putting plumbing in them.


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. member permit a question- on that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will give the hon
gentleman the same answer that the minister gave in the house two days ago: when a number of members wished to ask him questions he said "No, no, no." I am sony; I should like to answer questions, but I have not the time.


An hon. MEMBER:: Deal with facts.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is what I am doing.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is open to doubt.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Address-Mr. Fleming
a chance on getting undesirable tenants into their houses, and they have not offered to rent accommodation to those who are sorely in need of it.
Let me give opinions on this subject from representatives of veterans' organizations as well as representatives of labour. In the Toronto reconstruction council on January 19 we have statements like this:
Major Edwin Meredith of the Canadian CoTps Association, advanced the suggestion because he said he was seriously alarmed about the housing situation in general and 'the problem of veterans' families in particular.
This has reacted against veterans, and it is for that reason that I make this plea. I quote further:
"There would be many thousands of additional rooms made available if some assurance were given," contended Russel Harvey of the Toronto district labour council. "The greatest fear of home-owners is that they won't be able to get rid of objectionable tenants if they rent rooms that are now vacant."
Mr. Harvey is a prominent labour leader in Toronto, and a member of the Ontario labour relations board.
I do hope the government will give consideration to that suggestion.
The last form of restriction to which I have time to refer is this. At the present time veterans who are home-owners must give three months' notice to their tenants if they want to resume possession of the home they occupied at the date of enlistment. They are not in a position to qualify to give that notice until they are discharged. That ought to be changed. It means that a veteran coming out of uniform has to wait for three months before he can get into the house that he owns. Surely to goodness it should be permitted to veterans to give that notice in advance of discharge. It cannot be that much hardship to the tenant, because the tenant knows that his landlord is a man in the armed forces.
We do not ask the impossible of the government, but we want a frank facing up to this situation. In large measure we lay the responsibility for this problem at the doorstep of the government. We say (1) that the government made reckless promises to win votes, and those promises have not been fulfilled; (2) we accuse them of lack of foresight and preparation. They surely could have seen the situation which was developing. We accuse them (3) of dilly-dallying and wasting valuable time when energy and drive were needed. The start should have been made long ago. We accuse them (4) of lack of frankness with the public, glossing over the serious dimensions of the housing crisis and the utter inadequacy 
of their measures to meet it; (5) lack of a clear-cut policy to meet a clear-cut objective, even to the extent of confusion as between departments of government; (6) discouraging private builders in a variety of ways; (7) highhanded methods of requisitioning building materials whereby a fair distribution thereof has been prevented; (8) a wage policy which has deterred production of building materials and the construction of houses. The low wage ceiling will have to be eased. We accuse them (9) of a taxation policy which has discouraged the worker, the producer, the processor and the builder, and has restricted production; and last but by no means least, (10) a war-time man-power policy which wasted our human resources and our ability to produce.
The responsibility is that of the government. We do not ask sohaething superhuman or impossible of them, but we do say that thej'' have not measured up to their responsibilities. They have fallen far short of them. This is a federal responsibility. The government has taken all the necessary power unto itself. It is the same old story. When it comes to taking credit for something good they are ready to take it, but what about responsibility when things do not look so good? Well, that , is a little different. We have had a fine illustration of that in this debate and in the debates of the fall session in connection with labour conditions. There we had an illustration of the difference between credit and responsibility. When the Ford strike was on we had a labour crisis in this country. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) rose in his place in this house and said that it was a provincial responsibility. But to-day-


Humphrey Mitchell: I never did anything of the kind.


Mr FLEMING:: Weil, it is to be found in Hansard. The Minister of Labour said that it was the responsibility of the government of Ontario. Then a solution was brought about by joint action of the two governments, and to-day the Prime Minister boasts about the condition of labour relations in Canada, but to whom does he give the credit? To the Minister of Labour. Of course, when it comes to credit there is no doubt about the government being right in the field.
The matter of employment has a direct relationship to housing. It was estimated in the Curtis report that the construction of
25,000	houses would provide 150,000 jobs per year. The responsibility of initiating policies.

The Address-Mr. Fleming
to bring about conditions of high employment rests on the dominion; therefore they have a direct responsibility in the matter of housing. In the matter of social security -and this is a problem of social security- the responsibility certainly rests on the dominion to assist.
May I detain the house while I try to sum up what I conceive to be the needs of the situation. In the first place, there must be a frank recognition on the part of the government and of parliament that a national emergency exists. Let there be no playing politics with that. There is a national emergency in the field of housing. My leader and others have pointed that out. The President of the United States has recognized the same thing in his country. Why cannot we- recognize it in ours? I speak now of the government and of parliament. When it comes to the safety of the state being involved there is no hesitation on the part of the government to take measures even to override the rule of law. Why cannot we have strong action by legal means in this field of housing? I have spoken of the need of easing wage ceilings. I have referred to the need of easing the burden of high taxation on wage-earners and the need of easing the burden of taxation on those who are engaged in production. We agree in all1 parts of the house that there must be complete concentration on the building of homes even if other forms of construction have to be sacrificed. In the construction of homes first preference must be given to veterans.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):: Order. The hon. member's time .is now exhausted. Unless he has the consent of the house he cannot continue.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Continue.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thank the house for its great courtesy. I promise hon. members I shall be brief. After the provision for the need of houses second place must be given to the needs of tire construction industry itself, because there will have to be a big expansion of plant engaged in the production of building materials if the colossal need is to be met.
In the next place there must be a big plan. When President Truman gave instructions to Mr. Wilson Wyatt, his housing administrator, now housing expediter, to draft a plan for the United States he gave him only one instruction and it was this, "Make no little plans." That must be our approach in this country. We must go forward with a big plan. Half measures will not do; the problem is too colossal. I have not yet been able to find
the 1946 programme of the government in the field of construction. If it has a 1946 programme or objective it still remains a profound secret so far as this house is concerned. We must have a goal. We shall flounder if we have not a goal. Housing Enterprises Limited has announced that its objective in 1946 is the construction of 6,000 housing units in various Canadian centres. That is rental housing. That is a drop in the bucket. Let us not delude ourselves that this will be low-rent housing. It cannot be. The cost of construction to-day is such that Housing Enterprises Limited cannot build low-rent housing as that term is properly understood. They will probably be medium-rental houses.
Let us have a proper understanding of what is involved, I am not going to go over the promiseS that the government and its supporters made in the last election campaign. The house will remember the promises of the
600.000	to 1,000,000 houses. Let us see the big plan. We have not heard about it in parliament. Let us have the big bold plan they advertised in the campaign. Where is it? We in this house would like to see the government's big bold plan
The Prime Minister did not give the United States very high marks for what they are doing in the field of construction. The United States has set its objective. It was approved by the President. The original objective of
500.000	houses for 1946 has been raised to
1.200.000	houses on which construction is tobe commenced before the end of this year. That will be increased before the end of 1947 to 2,700,000 houses and apartments. There is a real objective. Relatively, our need for housing in this country is greater because our climate is more severe. We must plan on a big scale.	-
In the next place, we must realize that the problem of housing, in certain aspects, will be with us for a long time. Of course all hon. members want to concentrate upon the emergency aspect of the problem because it is of such collosal proportions. But we must keep in mind, too, the long-range problem; and what we do to-day in an effort to cope with the emergency aspects must be related to our long-range objective.
We must not lose sight of the need in the low-rent housing field, a field which is not met by the National Housing Act as it exists today. The great gap in the act is in its lack of provision for those in the lower income brackets.
The Curtis report estimated that there were
300.000	sub-standard dwellings in our cities, towns and rural areas. That was the number
192	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Bertrand (Terrebonne)
estimated two years ago, and it is higher to-day. Because of the doubling-up the number of families living in those dwellings is substantially greater to-day than it was then. We have to tackle that problem, and try to correlate our present plan in meeting the emergency aspects with the long-range approach to a problem which will be with us for some time.
I have been critical of what I have described as smugness and complacency in statements which have fallen from the lips of members of the government during this debate. If their words are a fair indication of their approach to the problem, then this problem will not be met. If the government is simply to be boastful of what it has done; if it is to be smug and complacent in the face of a national crisis, then the problem will not be solved. If there is one thought that transcends all others to-day, it is that government should give leadership, leadership on a wide front. We shall not solve the problem either by denying its existence or belittling it, or by belittling the efforts of those who draw its true proportions to the attention of the house.
The government has not given the leadership to which the people of Canada are entitled. Had it done so, would it have been necessary for the veterans to occupy the Vancouver hotel?


William Henry Golding: The hon. member has exhausted his time.


Mr. LIONEL BERTRAND (Terrebonne) (Translation):: The year 1946 marks a troubled era in the history of the world. The war came to an end last year; still, all nations feel that peace has not yet returned. While the great powers are endeavouring to ensure it through an agreement based upon the respect of treaties and mutual confidence, the nations, great or small, are making a determined effort with a view to reestablishing their upset economy. Each country, in the turmoil of the post-war period, seeks practical solutions, works out the most diversified plans, but faces the future not without some fears that the circumstances justify.
Canada, like the other nations, must now solve internal problems which are both serious and complicated. They crop up so fast and in such numbers that the government, unable to solve them all at once, must perforce concentrate on the most pressing ones.
.1 recognize that such a situation is disquieting to them; besides, it is depressing for the people who, now that war is over, are anxious

to enjoy peace and who, not finding it up to their expectations, voice their resentment in no uncertain terms.
Discontent is rife among the people. It is kindled less by democracy than by its occasional abuse, less by wealth than by its frequent abuse, less by our recognized laws than by their oft-neglected implementation. To our other evils, war has added excessive legislation which the people accepted as a necessary consequence of the armed conflict. To this legislation, hundreds of orders of all sorts were grafted, many of which smacked so obviously of sheer experiment, contrivance and artificiality that on the whole, they could not be favourably accepted. As a result, our democratic system is beginning to feel the repercussions of this discontent. "War is over, say the people. Then, why is such and such a policy still in effect? Why is such another preserved?" Dissatisfaction is intensified by the fact that while hostilities lasted, the praises of peace were sung far and wide and we were promised that the end of the war would bring about universal comfort and happiness. However, reality with its sad disillusions has kindled all over, but especially among the working classes a feeling of discontent which tends to become sharper. The piling up of insignificant causes inevitably brings about tremendous results. Unimportant facts, harmless if isolated, are sooner or later directed to some definite goal. Unconsciously or otherwise, they generate certain trends which, though weak at first gather more and more impetus and finally become overwhelming. Such trends are at present influencing our national life and current events are causing deep concern among the masses who are becoming impatient. Can you blame the people, driven to distraction by excessive legislation and generosity, subjected to all sorts of restrictions and witnessing the extravagant methods of capital, for still believing in happiness, and wishing for comfort, work and a home while at the same time pressing for security?	.
To live an honest and happy life, a minimum of comfort and well-being is needed. If that is lacking, if people are deprived of work, home, food and clothing, the door is wide open to the most dangerous abuses. Whenever a member of the national family, no longer believing in the democratic system, leans towards socialism seeing in this doctrine a remedy to all the evils he suffers at the hands of more fortunate individuals, another cell disintegrates and disappears. Since the end of the war, trends of thought-there is no need to specify-'have taken shape and expanded. Unemployment has given rise to them. If we wish to insure the security of
MARCH 22, 1&46	193
The Address-Mr. Bertrand (Terrebonne)
the State and maintain peace within its borders, we must put an end to the dissatisfaction caused by hardship and insufficiency, and stamp out the evils which afflict society.
Nothing is so distasteful, now that we have emerged from a war in which we have spent billions of dollars, than to see again the loathsome spectre of unemployment standing watch at the windows of thousands of homes, and to notice on the brows of thousands of people the deep lines of a worry caused by their enforced idleness. From week to week, unemployment increases and those who cannot find work comment ominously, in front of the selective service's employment offices, on the fact that "it took a war to give us jobs". The explanation will be given that transition from war to peace cannot normally take place without any impediment; that may be true, but in my opinion the real cause lies in the fact that our war effort has overstepped the limits of common sense and that, during the war, not enough thought has been given to preparations for the period that would follow. The people have been made to pay exceedingly heavy taxes; we have had an income tax applying both to/capital and savings. Those taxes have cut into the capital of the citizens with a fixed income; they have cut into the capital of manufacturers who have to meet obligations incurred before the war; today, unable to obtain raw materials, they no longer have, once their taxes are paid, the funds necessary for the modernization of their plants.
In 1943, I said in the house that our war effort was sometimes almost hysterical. We have granted loans interest free and now, through generosity, we are writing them off. We have given away billions of dollars because, we were told, war required1 it. We have made large contributions of manpower. We have generously drawn from our natural resources. Canada has supplied food and munitions as well as men. Our war effort was bound to give rise to problems and, because we are unable to solve them properly, they are creating serious difficulties to the whole nation. We are now at peace and yet, in the name of peace, we are asking Canada to lend money and contribute to loans which will add, in capital and interest, to the already heavy burden resting on our shoulders.
During the war I objected to such generosity. When the bill covering the $1,250 million comes before the house for approval, I reserve the right to define my attitude in the light of the information given and express my full views on the matter. At this stage of our national life, when our debt has increased from 63260-13
$4 to $16 billion in five years, we should not become overexcited but should tackle the problem of reforming our eoonomy.
Canada should certainly help the devastated countries of Europe, because the great principle of dharity compels us to do so. We should not be mean about it. We have helped them and are still doing so with pride as well as generosity. However, before lending vast sums of money which will carry millions of dollars in interest and will be more advantageous to the borrower than to the lender, before imposing additional obligations on the Canadian taxpayer, should we not first secure employment for our people, grant more facilities for the re-establishment of veterans, reduce the income tax, suppress social evils, provide our citizens with dwellings and take ' measures that will enable us to obtain without difficulty the goods produced in Canada, namely: materials of all kinds, clothing, foodstuffs, butter for instance, w'hich is so important on the worker's table or in his lunch-box?
These are the causes of dissatisfaction among the people. Mingle with them and you will be convinced. Among veterans, there is more grumbling than we think. During the war, they were presented with a rehabilitation plan; this most wonderful, most generous and most perfectly balanced plan was truly a model for other countries to copy. However, its application has become absolutely impossible in many parts of Canada. Why? Because of the incompetence and neglectfulness of district officials and of inadequte advice and direction from selective service offices; because, also, veterans have found it impossible to obtain priorities both from War Assets Corporation and the Prices Board. O-Pip, the official organ of the Canadian Legion in the Province of Quebec notes in its March issue that "reestablishment is a fiasco". And Mr. G. Henri Gonthier, the legion president in that province said recently, during an interview:
We had a terribly hard time trying to convince our veterans not to give vent to their ill-feeling. But we have had enough. We are not asking for charity; we simply want our veterans to receive, through regular and legal channels, the help they so richly deserve.
Other groups of citizens are also dissatisfied and crave a little more justice $nd attention. Failure of the government to forecast, in the speech from the throne, any relief whatever from our present tax set-up has been a source of great disappointment. The people claim they are entitled to such relief, in order to meet new and accrued responsibilities. Wages have been lowered although the cost of living is just as high and has a tendency to rise. Lower taxes would offer relief to industrialists, merchants, civil servants, farmers, heads of

194	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Bertrand (Terrebonne)
families, as well as to our youth, who, under present conditions, cannot save for the years ahead. Let the government abolish those commissions which are now useless; let them return to civil life those hundreds of men in uniforms who have asked for their discharge and are being kept in the army willy-nilly; let all departments put into effect a policy of economy; let there be no costly or useless projects, no undue generosity, but let us rather spend a few hundred millions on public works.
Public works will be needed immediately in those cities where unemployment is more acute, in those centres which have been overpopulated through the presence of war industries. Public works will also be needed in those municipalities which, in their desire to cooperate with the government, have made enormous capital expenditures and are now' financially embarrassed. The people will never understand or accept unemployment, when, during the war terrific sums were spent without haggling.
We shall have to reconvert, sell or turn over to private enterprise war plants-such as the Bouchard plant-which can still be profitably operated as private industries, unless the government be willing to take them over and produce for UNRRA. I shall have suggestions to offer later on.
The Department of National Defence will have to establish,, in every military district, a regional board, to study each case of desertion on its merit and to make sure that the commanding officers of the detention camps are not wielding their powers to render more burdensome the serving of a sentence by those who have accepted it in compliance with the law of the land. On the other hand, I claim that it is unfair to keep in detention or in camps, farm labourers or skilled employees, as, for example, expert buttermakers when the scarcity of butter is so pronounced, or lumbermen, when they are so urgently needed in the bush, or again, electricians and skilled carpenters when the building trade is paralyzed. Personally, I would favour an amnesty, but if, for reason of discipline, it must not be resorted to, let us at least be decent enough to those who report fqr duty to consider their cases in the light of their special circumstances and eliminate those vexations which, in the past, have given rise to so much justified criticism and legitimate complaint.
The speech from the throne forecasts the immediate implementation of measures directed at maintaining employment at a high level and solving the extremely acute housing problem. These are both urgent legislations. I welcome them and so do the Canadian

people who are clamouring for them. I shall support the address, as a token of my appreciation for those two pieces of legislation, but, as I said before, I shall reserve the right to vote according to my views on the bill concerning the billion and a quarter loan on which, no doubt, the right hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) will give us full particulars.
The housing situation is critical. I believe it is in our own interest to see that ou-r markets are supplied with sufficient building materials; then it might be justifiable to ship our surplus overseas. In this field, as in others, there is no reason why foreigners should be supplied before our own people.
Employment is the means of supplying work. A nation cannot be happy when unemployment is prevalent. Prior to 1939, the undertaking of public works was urged; however, under pretense of curtailing expenses, they were denied. Then war was declared and millions .were juggled around. To wage and win the war, billions of dollars were instantly available. Could we now refuse to earmark a few hundred million dollars each year to fight unemployment through the country, applying them to the undertaking of public works that would remain an asset for Canada? To ensure peace, maintain the democratic prestige of our country, prevent our population from subscribing to subversive doctrines, attain true national security, work is the essential factor.
I shall not support the amendment of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken). It evidences a lack of sincerity which is characteristic of the party he directs. I fail to understand that it now stands for economies and reductions in taxes, since, during the war years, government expenditures were never large enough in its opinion. The Conservative party does not enjoy public confidence; even under its new camouflage, it has not been successful in overcoming the sorry reputation it acquired during the first Great War. On this side of the house freedom of speech is a reality; we may frankly utter our thoughts, even if they are at variance with those of our colleagues. This makes for strength in the ranks of the Liberals. Our party is not based on egotism, coercion, blind subservience to an official platform or a "believe or die" policy; it will survive when all others have collapsed, for no other party has recognized to a fuller extent the value of individuality and freedom.
I shall not support the sub-amendment of the C.C.F. party. I rely too much on private enterprise to subscribe to a socialist doctrine *which, although moderate, must still be contrary to the best interests of a country like Canada. The war years, due to the amount of

The Address-Mr. LaCroix
work they have provided, have deprived socialism of its best opportunities. As I said before, so that this theory, with others similar to it, may have no chance of spreading, work is absolutely necessary.
Social security in all fields: food in the larder of every home, ownership of property made easy for all, hardship eliminated, social evils suppressed, maximum encouragement given to agriculture, private enterprise fostered, youth assisted and encouraged, happiness everywhere: that is the part the government should1 play in 1046 and in subsequent years. They have accomplished a tremendous task during the war. Why could they not do as much in peace time? Canada occupies an important place among the nations of the world. However she must continue her activities in the fields of industry, commerce, agriculture, mining, forestry, and in all other national spheres. Her future is in her own hands. The other nations, intent on solving their own problems, will not help her to reestablish herself and, in the field of business, where gratitude is frequently unknown, the nations including Great Britain will never surrender the freedom which they have always held of buying wherever they see fit. Therefore, it is Canada's duty, in the name of the elementary principle of self-preservation, not to exceed the limits of common sense. Will Canada have won the peace if within her own borders there are unemployment, dislocation and discouragement? First and above all, we must prevent the evil of unemployment. In addition, we must lighten the burden borne by the workers and others in the lower salary brackets and develop further throughout the country the program of social security which has been so successfully launched by the present government. We have reached a decisive hour when every Canadian must become a crusader in order to protect and defend the social structure against trouble-makers, against promoters of ideas which are inconsistent with our parliamentary system and our Christian traditions. That which fosters unity within a nation is the joy which everyone feels in belonging to such a nation. Social security and national security are two words which are inseparable and which are guarantees for the future. By keeping them to the fore, by uniting them, by blending them, we shall make Canada a healthy, united and powerful country.
(Text):
Mr. WILFRED LaCROIX (Quebec-Mont-morency): Mr. Speaker, allow me first to compliment the government on the firm stand they have taken with regard to the fantastic espionage network which communistic Russia 63260-13}
was in the act of establishing in this country. Some of our fellow citizens have reached a pass where they consider that their obligation toward communism must have priority over their allegiance to Canada. That is a logical consequence of the communistic propaganda in this country, a propaganda which I denounced when I introduced in this house on May 24, 1940, a bill to amend the criminal code for the purpose of outlawing all propaganda conducted by communists or nazis, who advocate an ideology opposed to our conception of democracy. That bill was rejected, but I must commend the government upon having seen the light and come to realize how justified I was in introducing that bill. Better late than never. I would suggest to the government that they should bring back that bill as soon as possible and outlaw the communist party in Canada. We are in duty bound to take action at once because to any shrewd mind it is obvious that the ambition of the dictatorship now in power at Moscow is to replace our Christian civilization by absolute atheism, and when belief in God is lacking, everything is possible in the field of international relations.
The communist party, which is the only party that exists in Russia, simply wants to spread its sphere of influence over all Europe and use its propaganda for the suppression of the two remaining bulwarks, England and Spain, which will prevent it from carrying out its dechristianization work. To reach that objective, it uses in certain countries people who are nationalist in name only and who arouse local patriotism in order to foment bloody revolutions through which it will benefit. In other countries, it uses a camouflaged communist party, as is the case in Canada. Those nationalists and communists hired by Moscow take pride in saying that they are working out the liquidation of England.
Would America, civilization and even Catholicism, stand to gain anything if the Soviet empire were to replace the British empire as a dominating influence in the old world? Sensible people will be unanimous in answering that question. The influence of the British empire in Europe is very much preferable to that of the Soviet empire, because the former respects the individual much more than does the latter and allows him a freedom which is completely lacking under Moscow rule. It will be a great mistake to hail any lessening of British influence in Europe without thinking of what will follow. What the world needs most at this time is sober thinking and realistic deeds; otherwise, our road will lead to absolute chaos.
The Address-Mr. LaCroix

No one more than I desires the independence of my country, but I wish to attain this object by orderly and legitimate means.
, Patriotism is instilled not by resorting to bloodshed but by winning over the hearts and minds of people. History shows ,that all those who have attained power or achieved their aims [DOT]through violence have been forcibly brought down from the pinnacle on which they had ensconsed themselves.
We can reply to advocates of revolutionary communism and nationalism by striving to improve our social legislation for the benefit of the public, by firmly repressing monopolies and by passing laws which, economically speaking, will allow a better distribution of the national wealth. Now that we have accomplished a tremendous war effort, far beyond our means, sound patriotism must include a generous thought for our own citizens to whom we should grant relief from taxation as rapidly as possible to enable them readily to attain a normal social balance.
Hence I deem it my duty to protest forthwith against those periodical gifts to England, the brunt of which will be borne by the majority of our citizens. I have a great respect for the British commonwealth of nations, but as you know, sir, I have always felt that a Canadian worthy of the name, who has pledged allegiance to his country and must serve its interests first and foremost, should protect the public treasury against those who are prone to make gifts to other nations which, in many instances, are wealthier than we are.
Ireland safeguarded her own interests during the war. No one holds any grudge against her and her prestige has not declined anywhere in the world.
I respect the views of those who differ with me in regard to the meaning of the words "to serve one's country", but I deemed it my duty to vote against participation and against each billion dollar gift which, under one form or another, we have so generously made during the war. I have at the time stated the reasons for my stand and, in my opinion, [DOT]those reasons still hold to-day.
From a strictly Canadian point of view, I believe that this further loan of SI ,250 million, Which will not bear any interest for five years, is not a good business proposition for our country, because this agreement which I have read most carefully, contains no provision compelling England to spend this money in Canada. England, whose memory is short where Canada's efforts on her behalf are concerned, does not, under this agreement, undertake to lift the restrictions she has imposed on Canadian products, not only within her own borders but all over the sterling area. England 
will be able to spend our Canadian dollars anywhere and in any way she sees fit in order to rebuild her pre-war economy. Whenever it suits her purpose, England can even continue do purchase wheat from the Argentine rather than from Canada, or give prefer-ance to Denmark's bacon over our own farm produce, and experience has taught me that the dictates of her interests will be the sole guide in the matter.
In short, Canadians will not only have helped England win the war, but also assist her in her, conquest of world markets. Our dollar will serve as Great Britain's ambassador. Since we export 40 per cent of our production, we shall help to impair our own markets, while ostensibly attempting to maintain England's; for, if she spends our dollars elsewhere, Great Britain will insist that the countries whose goods she purchases reciprocates with certain privileges. These will certainly not be to our advantage, and we shall recover our funds through banking transactions rather than through the sale of our goods.
It may be claimed that at the present time Great Britain has tremendous contracts in Canada and that the loan will help to pay for them. No mention is made of these contracts, however, in the terms of the agreement between Great Britain and Canada, and there is nothing to prevent England from cancelling them if she can do better business elsewhere.
The British are business men. Far from hating them, I admire them, but I sincerely wish we had, as members of the Canadian government, men with as much business sense as they possess.
Australia refused a loan to England and I fail to see why we should be an easier prey than the Australians. I much prefer, in Europe, Great Britain's influence to that of Russia, but I do not think it necessary to drain our coffers to attain that end. The loan and gifts we are making under this agreement are five times greater than the loan to Great Britain contemplated by the United States, in proportion to the respective populations of the two countries. Are we wealthier than the Americans? Are our anticipated revenues superior to those of the United States and England? I do not think so.
I beg to denounce with the greatest energy the condescension and lack of Canadian spirit evidenced by the leader of the Social Credit party, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), who blamed the other nations of the commonwealth for failing to grant loans to England and who stated, as reported in Hansard of March 19, 1946:
I think the loan should have been made to Great Britain interest free.

The Address-Mr. Isnor
This stand on the part of the Social Credit party does not surprise me in the least for, during the war, they have been the most imperialistic group in the House of Commons, and they are generally known as such throughout the province of Quebec. I have as much respect for a sincere partisan of social credit as I have contempt for those who attempt to use that doctrine as a platform to teach a political creed that has nothing in common with the social credit policy expounded in this house by the leader of the party, the hon. member for Peace River.
I also strongly protest against that part of the agreement whereby we make a gift of $425 millions to Britain, and even more I am told, which is supposed to represent the amount owed us by that country for the training of her airmen in Canada.
Why, in the same agreement, do we also cancel all interests on a loan of $700 millions made to Britain in 1942?
Since the greater part of the taxes collected by the government are paid by citizens whose income is below $3,000, the cost of financing that agreement with Great Britain wild be borne by the great majority of our people.
Needless to say, the attitude of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken), who approves this policy but finds our rates of income tax too high, is ridiculous. Therefore the people of Canada who have been unable to borrow money from their own government at two per cent interest in order to build houses or in the way of farm credits or public works to alleviate unemployment will be paying for those gifts to Britain.
Why should we again and always pay for such unsound generosity in the hope of helping a country whose possibilities of reestablishment, with its colonial empire, India for instance, are far greater than our own, without forgetting the high level of our taxes? All the party leaders in the house have approved this transaction as good business for Canada. I take the liberty of telling them that I find this business unsound and that I will vote against the agreement when it is submitted to the house for approval..
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. GORDON B. ISNOR (Halifax): I hope the hon. members who moved and seconded the motion for an address to His Excellency in reply to the speech from the throne in such an excellent manner will pardon me
if I do not make any extended remarks in congratulating them. Perhaps the best compliment which they received was that accorded them in the very careful attention given to the remarks of both the mover, the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Viau) and the seconder, the distinguished-looking hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Winters). I hope the hon. member for St. Boniface will pardon me if I make particular reference to the remarks made by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg. I was particularly interested in his remarks because they brought to the attention of this house and of the country problems affecting the eastern section of the dominion. Like the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, I propose this evening to deal with two matters affecting eastern Canr ada particularly, although they will have a direct bearing on the rest of our nation. I wish to come directly to a portion of the speech which I believe is of the utmost importance to the maritime provinces, namely, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. In doing so I am going to refer at once to paragraphs 6 and 7 of the speech from the throne. Paragraph 6 reads:
The government has steadily (pursued its efforts to restore former markets, to secure new markets and generally to expand _ peace-time exports. In pursuit of this policy, export credits, for which additional provision was made at the last session, have been extended to several of our war-time allies.
Paragraph 7, which is closely connected with the thought expressed in paragraph 6, states:
At this session you will be asked to approve an agreement, recently concluded, for a loan to the United Kingdom which will help maintain the British market for Canadian food products and other exports. The agreement will also contribute to the steady development of trade between the two countries, the removal of trade barriers and the free use of currencies for international trade.
I believe that on these two paragraphs depends the future prosperity of our country. If these thoughts are brought into fulfilment as expressed and all sections of Canada are given an equal opportunity to prosper, I do not believe that we need to worry very much as to the terms of the dominion-provincial agreements of which we have heard so much during the past six months.
It is easy for us sitting here in the city of Ottawa, the capital of the country, to think along industrial lines. In the past six years Ontario, and perhaps Quebec have prospered to a great extent due to the increased purchasing power brought about by the industrial plants which have been established here
The Address-Mr. Isnor

about 1,600 men. They are an extremely fine body of men. During the entire six years of the war not once was there the slightest sign of trouble, of a strike or anything else which would delay the shipment of supplies overseas. I know if the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) were here he would agree with me when I say that a finer body of workmen could not be found throughout the entire dominion. I wish to pay a tribute to those men because of the excellent work they have done during the war period.
In addition to the 1,600 longshoremen, there are about 1,000 freight handlers and additional checkers, coopers and porters, giving a total population of around 4,000 waterfront workers. Practically all those 4,000 men are married with families, so that hon. members can see what it means to a port, particularly to Halifax, to have ships making regular calls. Ships to and from everywhere load and unload at our docks, leaving money to the extent of many millions behind in the way of stevedores' wages alone. These wages total $4,500,000 a year. There are thirty or more firms of chandlers, brokers and line agencies which do the outfitting and clearing of these ships, and this represents another large item in the total of harbour-front business.
There is another factor that enters into this export and import trade, the building and repairing of ships. In one year these activities yielded sometliing like $14,000,000 to our port. We sincerely hope that this work will continue and be a permanent part of our port activities. Twelve transatlantic lines are now operating out of Halifax. These lines are operating freighters and combined freight and passenger ships. These companies are getting their services back to normal, one of the latest being the Swedish-Ameriean-Mexican line whose services were suspended or curtailed during the war. As war losses in shipping are made up and ocean ferrying gets back on schedule there will be 300 sailings a year out of Halifax. Every time a cargo ship of 5,000 tons is loaded and unloaded it means that about $12,500 is paid to the stevedores, checkers, porters and freight handlers.
I would not want hon. members to think I am looking at this matter purely from the point of view of Halifax. What I have said about Halifax applies equally to Saint John, Quebec and Montreal on the Atlantic, and to Vancouver, Victoria and New Westminster on the Pacific. That is why I urge that we ship through Canadian ports.
I suggest to the government that certain measures be adopted, and I direct these suggestions particularly to the Minister of Trade
	,
and Commerce. First,-the British preferential trade agreement should be continued to the utmost extent. Second,-the West India trade agreement should be modified so that it will be possible to make intermediate trade agreements with other countries that can use our natural products and manufactured goods. Third,-all goods entering Canada from foreign countries under full preference or intermediate preference tariffs should be shipped directly from the country of production for discharge at a Canadian ocean or river port in order to enjoy the benefits of such preferential tariffs. Fourth, I almost feel like adding another which would be to the effect that any Canadian goods for export-I was referring to imports before-that enjoy dominion subsidy must be shipped through a Canadian port.
I should like to quote an editorial which appeared recently in the Financial Post reading as follows:
There are few if any countries so largely dependent on a free flow of world goods as Canada^ Our basic industries, agriculture, forestry, mining and fishing, must secure a huge foreign markef for a great deal of their production. Normally we export over half of our wheat and bacon, ninety per cent of our newsprint, over seventy-five per cent of our minerals. On the import side, too, we lean heavily on world trade to make up deficiencies in domestic production.
I close as I began. To me paragraphs 6 and 7 of the speech from the throne are very important to the future prosperity of this our Canada, and I congratulate the government on their realization of this by including them as part of their post-war plans.


Mr. W. R. THATCHER (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne made no reference to several matters which to me appear to be of paramount importance to most Canadians. For instance, the citizens of my province will be particularly disappointed that the speech contains no proposal to commence any major irrigation projects in Saskatchewan during the current year. I raise the matter at this time, because in the constituency of Moose Jaw the shortage of water, which has plagued us for decades, has recently become dangerously acute.
As most hon. members know, the cities of Moose Jaw and Regina are located in the semi-arid section of the prairies. These two centres with a total population of approximately 80,000 people are almost entirely dependent for their water supplies on underground water and wells. For forty years, or ever since Moose Jaw became a city, the authorities have had trouble giving the people a twenty-four hour supply of water the year round. I have seen people in Moose Jaw

The Address-Mr. Thatcher
plant lawns and gardens in the spring, only to see them die later in the year because the city authorities were forced to shut off the water or ration it.
Several years ago the federal government, realizing the gravity of the situation, sought to alleviate it by building a pumping station and reservoir near Riverhurst on the South Saskatchewan river. From there an open ditch about seventy miles long was constructed to a point near Moose Jaw. That open ditch did help the situation somewhat, and we were grateful for it, but on the whole it has proved inadequate.
Since the first of the year the water situation in Moose Jaw has been worse than at any time in the history of the city. The day I left Moose Jaw to come to Ottawa the water-mains were closed for about twelve hours. That situation prevailed during most of February and part of January. I ask hon. members to try to realize what it means to a city of 25,000 to have the water-mains shut off for part of the day. This winter, housewives were forced to fill their bathtubs the night before, if they wanted to have water to cook during the day time. Sanitary facilities could not be used while the water was cut off. Several times when I got up in the morning I could not shave because I had forgotten to put water aside the night before.
During February several of our major industries which use large quantities of water had to close down.for several days at a time, and during that period hundreds of men were unemployed. Moose Jaw is the main divisional point of the Canadian Pacific railway in Saskatchewan. We had the spectacle this winter of the railroad bringing in trainloads of tank cars filled with water to keep their trains running across the prairies. On top of all this the city authorities are worried over the health aspect. When the water-mains have been closed down for ten or twelve hours and the water finally comes, it is a rusty colour and apparently filled with foreign material. I mention these facts simply to give hon. members some idea of the magnitude of the water problem that the city of Moose Jaw is facing to-day.
The city of Regina is in a somewhat similar position. It has been a little more fortunate than Moose Jaw up to the present, but to-day Regina, with its growing population, is also finding that the demand for water is exceeding the supply. An article appeared in the Regina Leader-Post of September 15 last, headed "city near limit of water supply," which reads in part:
"Regina has pretty well reached the limit of her present water supply," J. W. D. Farrel, waterworks superintendent, said Friday.
Deep artesian wells from which the city has been taking its water give between 5,500,000 and 6,000,000 gallons a day on the average. This summer the city could have used 7,000,000 gallons a day, if the quantity had been available.
The city of Weyburn also has experienced grave water shortages over the past few years. In other words, the future growth and industrial development of these three prairie cities is almost completely dependent on their obtaining an adequate water supply. Indeed, if new supplies of water are not obtained they may have great difficulty in maintaining their present population.
The problem of obtaining water for these cities is tied up in an integral way with obtaining a larger amount of water for the farm lands of that part of Saskatchewan. As hon. members know, our farmers in that area have fought drought conditions for many years. On the prairies water is liquid gold. Yet, despite our great need for that liquid gold, we as a people are to-day letting vast quantities pass under our noses without using it in Saskatchewan.
What is the solution? Every Canadian I think knows of the mighty rivers that have their source in the Rocky mountains and flow across the prairies into Hudson bay. But perhaps many do not realize how little we are using these rivers to-day. There is very little navigation, not a great deal of irrigation, and very little hydro-electrical development.
One of these rivers flows about eighty miles northwest of Moose Jaw. When one reads of the immense dams that have been built in so-called backward nations such as India, China, Egypt, Spain, and others, for irrigation purposes, one cannot help wondering why we have for so long neglected to water our burning plains and why our major Saskatchewan cities must be so short of water. For many years the people of Saskatchewan have urged the building of a huge dam northwest of Moose Jaw. This proposed project has been called the South Saskatchewan power and irrigation scheme. It would involve the construction of a daw near Elbow.
The project would have three main purposes: (1) The providing of an abundant supply of water for domestic and industrial use for the two largest cities in the southern part of the province, Regina and Moose Jaw; (2) the development of hydro-electric energy; (3) the irrigation of several hundred thousand acres of land in that area.
Is this scheme feasible? Permit me to quote from an address by Mr. E. L. Gray, of the prairie farm rehabilitation administration, to agricultural representatives from all parts of the province gathered in Regina on February

The Address-Mr. Thatcher

19 of this year. He is reported to have said:
Construction of a dam on the South Saskatchewan river near Elbow as the huh of a great power and irrigation scheme is considered feasible.
Extensive drilling and surveys by the prairie farm rehabilitation administration bad located a site where a giant dam could be built at the upper reaches of the Qu'Appelle and Saskatchewan rivers near Elbow.
Mr. A. W. E. Fawkes, Moose Jaw city engineer, in 1933 recommended the construction of such a dam. In his opinion the construction of a dam about 200 feet high to impound the waters of the South Saskatchewan is quite feasible, and the stored water would be capable of irrigating somewhere in the neighbourhood of 500,000 acres. Other authorities have made similar statements.
In Alberta water resources have been harnessed to the service of the people. Huge areas which were formerly useless because of lack of water, are to-day called the gardens of the west. Certain sections of the United States have been even more successful in irrigating dry lands. There is no reason why what has been done in Alberta and the United States cannot be done in Saskatchewan.
This scheme, if proceeded with, would have seven major advantages not only for the people of Saskatchewan but for the people of Canada as a whole:
1.	It would provide a permanent water supply for Regina, Moose Jaw and many smaller centres, for both domestic and industrial use.
2.	It would make possible a considerable development of hydro electric power.
3.	It would permit the irrigation of several hundred thousand acres of fertile farm land.
4.	Its actual construction at the present time or in thfe near future would provide jobs for many unemployed in that district who are to-day without work.
5.	The project would permit considerable industrial development such as canning factories and sugar beet factories which, in turn, would employ many returned men.
6.	The project would permit the stabilization of agriculture in that area by (a) the control of moisture and (b) allowing a diversification of crops.
7.	Finally, I would suggest that the project would act as an insurance throughout the area against future heavy relief costs such as we had in the depression years.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the government must favour the scheme because during the last federal election, government spokesmen stated definitely that the project would be completed. May I be permitted to quote from an advertisement which appeared in the Moose Jaw Times of Saturday, June 9 last:

The South Saskatchewan Thunder creek irrigation programme alone will undoubtedly contribute much to the prosperity of the city and [DOT] surrounding district. This project will be commenced immediately men and materials are available. ... It has been approved.
Both the men and the materials are, I believe, now available, or, if not, they soon will be available, and we ask that the government proceed in accordance with its promise.
During the past winter months the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) did some very fine work in focussing the attention of easterners on the urgent need for irrigation in western Canada. Every westerner is grateful to him for his efforts. The seriousness of this problem makes it essential that all political parties lend their support to it.
Since coming to Ottawa I have seen parliament lend or give away hundreds of millions of dollars to other nations. Surely we are not asking too much when we ask that the government spend a few million dollars on our own people and in the development of our own country. The South Saskatchewan river project would prove to be one of the finest investments that the government of Canada ever made. It would pay for itself in a relatively short period of time. I respectfully urge the government to include the scheme in this year's estimates and to proceed with its construction without delay.


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: It may interest you, Mr. Speaker, and the house, when I tell you that I am in rather a unique position. If I followed the wish of the electors who sent me here I should spend half my time sitting on the other side of the house and half over here. I was sent here by Liberal and Conservative electors who preferred to elect a representative of one of the old standard parties rather than one of the new sort. One reason why I have not gone over there was that I have not been invited, and the other is that if I ever did go I do not think I would be able to come back here-


Mr. MacKINNON:: You would not want to.


George Black: -so that I think I will stay where I am. In all the years I have been in politics-and I was first elected to this house in 1921, before quite a number of hon. members were born


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. WEIR:: Just the lady member.


George Black: -and in all the parliaments of which I have been a member, I believe I have had a seat on the Speaker's left, except in one parliament, in which I was

The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)
fortunate, or perhaps unfortunate, enough to occupy the position, Mr. Speaker, which you do now. I tried to be neutral. Perhaps I had a more difficult task than your Honour has, for you never had to find your own Prime Minister out of order, which on one occasion I was forced to do; but that only added interest and perhaps difficulty to the position. T will say this as a former Speaker, that the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) treated me when I was Speaker with the utmost courtesy and consideration, as much so as though I had been his own choice for the Speakership.
My policy as a member of parliament has been to support, regardless of party, legislation which I believed was in the best interest of Canada, and that is what I intend to continue to do.
Perhaps this is rather personal, but forty-eight years ago this month I went to Yukon with the great gold rush of that day. I did not intend to live there. Like thousands of other young men, I expected to pick up a fortune in the gold mines in a couple of years and, as they say up there, come "outside" to live. To a Yukoner anywhere but Yukon, whether it be the United States, or Canada, or South America, is "outside." However, I found out that I could get along better by letting miners do my mining than by trying myself to mine, that I was better fitted to my own profession, and I went back to it and stayed with it. In 1896, fifty years ago, Dawson City was born; and I ask hon. members who know anything about mining how many mining camps in the world have lasted over fifty years and are still going strong, which is the case in Yukon. Yukon has produced approximately 1300 million in gold and millions of dollars worth of silver, lead and zinc; and I predict- and I think I know what I am talking about -that fifty years hence we shall still be producing those precious metals in Yukon.
Some people have the idea that Yukon has been just a bill of expense to Canada; but if an account were taken of the royalties paid to the government on gold mined-and mind you, the royalties first charged on gold mined in Yukon were ten per cent of the output, then reduced to 'five per cent, and now 2J per cent, and that runs into money-and when one stops to think that almost everything we use in the way of food, clothing, machinery, tools and equipment; of all kinds is imported, it may be realized what a market it has provided for Canada, and what a large amount of money has been paid on customs duties on imported goods. Yukon does not get much credit for that, because most of the 63260-144
duties are paid at the ports of Vancouver, Edmonton and Victoria, but it is Yukoners who pay the bill.
During the war, mining in Yukon, as in the whole of North America, was practically suspended. Nearly all the young men of war age joined the army, the navy and the air force and went out to do their duty. By international consent the United States army came into northern Canada and in the common cause built war projects. Fortunately the exigencies of war did not require the use in conflict of most of these projects, and they remain to-day assets of Canada. On April 3 next the responsibility of maintaining the Alaska highway will be turned over from the army of the United States to the army of Canada. I hope our government and army will never consider for one moment allowing that road to go back to bush. It is too important a highway. It is not located where the international commission, appointed three years before the war to advise their respective United States and Canadian governments, would have recommended that the road should be built, but it was put through in a rush by the United States army, with our help, and it is a wonderful asset to Canada. Without expense to us it was built with United States money and labour, and already it has made accessible in Yukon and in northern British Columbia parts of the country which formerly were almost inaccessible. Prospectors going in there to look for minerals would take about a year to get in and they would go with pack horses and canoes and pack loads on their own backs. Now they can use the road and in a few days or hours make their camp and prospect in the vicinity. That, if nothing else, is what the road is now being used for.
Among other projects which the United , States undertook and completed in northern Canada through northern British Columbia was a wonderful telephone system from Prince Rupert, on the coast, to all the interior small settlements. I hope that the governments of Canada and of British Columbia will, in their wisdom, maintain those telephone lines, not turn them over to War Assets Corporation, probably to be tossed into the lap of the monopoly known as the British Columbia Telephone Company, which would likely dismantle them and take the material into larger communities and use it there, and deprive the people in the outlying settlements of this means of communication. I hope the governments will maintain these lines and operate them.
Considering the great return which Yukon has given Canada in wealth, including levies
The Address-Mr. Mclvor

of various kinds, I feel justified in pointing out to the house, and in particular to the Ministers of Mines, of Finance, of Reconstruction, and of Public Works that Yukon to-day is suffering from lack of roads. Dawson City, the centre of that immense gold mining area, has no means of communication in winter except by plane; there is not a road into that town. The same thing is true of the centre of the wonderful silver mines, Mayo. In winter time they depend entirely on planes, and as hon. members know, the weather makes planes uncertain. In former times there were roads connecting both Dawson City and that silver camp with the coast, but they have been allowed to fall into disuse. A comparatively small amount of money would put them back into shape to use. For the immediate present I appeal to the Minister of Mines and to the cabinet to be generous even to a small degree and vote an amount of money that will put that road back in shape for trucking, not for joy riding but as a road that will carry trucks containing ore concentrates to the main artery of navigation on the Yukon river. This can be done for not more than $100,000; and what is that in these days when we are talking about and spending billions? Speaking on behalf of Yukon, I hope that we shall receive some consideration at the hands of the government.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort Williarh):: Like the senior hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor), I will not attempt to make a speech; instead I will try to say something. I do not think any man has a right to stand up here unless he has something to say. Some great speeches have been made in this debate on all sides of the house, but I have one criticism to offer. When a man rises in his place and , makes a speech and you do not see him in the house until he comes back to make another speech, then I suggest that he is not making the best contribution to the debates of the house.
Congratulations are in order, but sometimes it happens that honours do not go to the right people, because I am convinced-it is not "I think" but "I know"-that there are men and women who are unknown one hundred miles from their homes and who nevertheless are the greatest heroes and heroines in our country by reason of their public service and of their sacrifices. Let me tell the house about one man. He was a missionary in China and was forced back home because of the war. His name is Duncan McRae. He took a church near Arnprior at White Lake. He is sixty-eight years of age and soon he will be on his way back to China. I say that man is

a hero, and yet he is nothing compared with his wife, who will leave her daughter and son and go back with him to the front line. That is something we are bound to admire. That man was the best athlete in Manitoba; there was no one who could touch him. I have seen him take seven firsts. He took the weights, the hurdles and the jumps. I must admit that I played a trick on him once when he was nearly beaten in the broad jump. He had put his handkerchief in the tracks of the man who preceded him, and when he turned his back I moved the handkerchief up a foot. He came tearing down and cleared the handkerchief. There was laughter and he turned to me and said, "What is the matter, Dan?" I said, "Nothing is the matter, but I should have it up another foot. I moved your handkerchief up another foot." He was an honour student and a great athlete, and yet he could give his life to the greatest calling on earth. He is a real hero.
I congratulate those, whoever they may be, who in handing out honours did not pass up a member of the clergy, when Major Foote, a Presbyterian minister, received the Victoria Cross for his heroism at Dieppe. I do not think there is anyone who has surpassed him in quiet heroism and courage. He had done everything he could and was wondering how soon he would be in kingdom come, but he survived, and as he saw his fellow soldiers being taken off to the prison camp he decided that he simply could not go back to a comfortable bed and home. He therefore joined them and went back to the prison camp with them. He served faithfully, and I congratulate the person responsible for extending to Major Foote the highest possible honour which a man can win on the battlefield.
I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on having the courage to take fifty per cent of the wheat out of the distilleries. I think that took courage, but I do not believe that there is in this house a man or woman, nor do I believe that outside this house there are men and women, who would not deny themselves their nightcap or eye-opener in order to give some hungry kid some shredded wheat and milk or no milk. I commend the Prime Minister, but I suggest that he might have done better. He might have taken it all and put it into food.
The Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) surprises me sometimes-


An hon. MEMBER:: He surprises a lot of people.
Mr. McIVOR; -but he continues to be an optimist. Somebody says that one optimist is worth fifty pessimists, and after what the

The Address-Mr. Mclvor
Minister of Reconstruction has come through during the war years I do not think there is anyone who does not admire him. There is not a man in Canada who has dqne a better job and he has come through these war years an optimist. There was an election thrown into the bargain and there were pessimists who said he would not get elected; but he was as sure of being elected as I was, and perhaps a little more so. He came through that and now he has a right to be an optimist.
Let me give an example of reconversion. Take Canada Car in Fort William. He assisted them in more ways than one. When the strikes came in the United States and there were labour troubles, Canada Car had to shut down. I had an opportunity of visiting the managers and controllers, and I could see those telegrams, one after another, expressing regret that, owing to the strike, material could not be forwarded. I expect to see Canada Car humming before long. I have one criticism. I thought it should have kept going, making buses up to the point where they needed spare parts, but they did mot do so. However, when I saw the plant I was amazed. I was pretty well acquainted with it, and .1 could see those aeroplanes lined up the full length of the plant, each receiving a part and beihg pushed on closer to the point of success. Now there are buses, one after another, a splendid example of reconversion. I repeat, the minister has a right to be optimistic.
I also visited Steep Rock. I do not know much about it, nor does Canada know much about it, but ere long, Canada will know that we have one of the greatest hematite mines in the country, and it will be doing things.
I do not like to say anything about the spy trouble we have had in Canada because I am not a lawyer, nor have I a judicial mind, but I like to help anybody if I can, no matter what mistakes they make. If we do not make those mistakes, dear knows we may make others. If a man says he never made a mistake, then he is just lying like sam hill. I should like to take the verdict of the leader of the opposition in the upper house, a college mate of mine. He has good sound judgment even though he is a Conservative. He commends the government for their stand. He can afford to do so without speaking politically.
I wondered in my own little mind what would have happened if Germany had not attacked Russia. Russia might never have beep in the war, because neither the United States nor Great Britain would have attacked her. What we ought to have to-day is patience and Christian charity, because the Russian backgrqund is altogether different from ours.
I have no patience with any man who breaks his oath or lies in any way. He has no right to do so, but I was proud in this house when the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Rose) took his seat and nobody made any fuss over him, although of course, some of us looked that way. Tolerance is one of the things we need to practise.
We think of peace, but to me peace that leaves out the Peacemaker will never give us a permanent peace.' On the Sabbath day most of the members go to hear the story of the Prince of Peace-if you do not, you ought to-and yet when we come into this house and think of the economic system of our country we forget all about the Prince of Peace, because I am convinced that money and things in Canada and in the United States are in the saddle. It is the dollar yardstick.
I heard a man who came back from the San Francisco conference say that the hope of the united ' nations lay in social security and economics. Hon. members know whether they believe that or not; I do not. I have heard- I am using my own words now-of a premier of a province who said that the hope of the united nations lies in having a common store of supplies; and yet the Great Teacher with thundering emphasis said:
_ Btut seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall ibe added unto you.
That is from Him who knows. A man next to Him in greatness in the New Testament said:
For other foundations can no man lay than that which is laid in Christ Jesus.
Offer social security, economics or dollars and you will go to the bow-wows sooner or later. That is not the finding of to-day; that is the finding of the history of every age since the world began.
I should like to encourage the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) just a little bit by saying that he should make sure that the Sabbath day is kept free from toil for every toiler. There are men in this 'house who remind me of the old commandment, "Remember the i Sabbath day to keep it holy". Then I am reminded of a play I saw which said that if you break the ten commandments the ten commandments will break you. You cannot break the law of God and not suffer from it. I would encourage the Minister of Labour to make sure that, now the war is over, during which time so many inroads were made upon the Sabbath day, corporations will give to men their day of rest whether they use it in one way or another. I could recommend to them how to use it.
*
206	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mclvor	.
The rules of the house will be up for revision shortly. About seven years ago I circulated a petition in this house to have the acoustics improved. Hon. members are not as fortunate as I am. I have a hearing aid and I can hear far better than hon. members believe. I think the time has arrived when it will not be necessary for the Speaker to put his hand to his ear to hear somebody over yonder who has a good voice, and when our reporters can hear in any place in the house without having to move backwards and forwards. I think it is in keeping with the dignity of parliament to hear what is going on in any part of the house.
I congratulate the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) on the new bill. I took a while to read this bill and I have been surprised by it. If hon. members have not read it there is a treat in store for them. The bill has many fine things in it. An hon. member whg spoke here last night said that we have no Canadian songs. I do not agree with him, but some of the Canadian songs do not altogether suit me because I was not bom in Canada, but I have chosen to live here. One of our great Canadians songs starts off in this way: "0 Canada, our home and native land." I looked around the other day to see if the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) was singing that and he was singing lustily. How was it his native land? Of course, there was an Irishman who said that patriotism to an Irishman is that "he is loyal to his native land whether he was bom there or not." Therefore I can sing, "O Canada, our home and native land." When our national anthem is chosen or revised they should put in a better word than "native", because it shuts out pretty nearly fifty per cent of the Canadians; but this bill is going to clear up a lot of the difficulties that exist at this time.
I have been a little anxious for some time. Sometime ago I sat on the committee of health insurance. That committee, which sat for two years, heard specialists from all over the world, from New Zealand, England, and the United States, and experts from all over Canada. I am sure the Minister of Veterans Affairs will agree with me when I say that it is the best act to be found any place, but we have not it in practice. I hope that the dominion-provincial conference will make it possible for that act to come into existence.
I now come to my own pet subject, namely, labour. Some hon. members may think it is not my pet subject, but I shall never forget when I learned to dig on the farm and when I earned my way through old Manitoba college. I started out that year wheeling brick at

fifteen cents an hour. I know what a man has to do who toils. I know the value of the money that he earns. It is not the amount of money that he earns but the use to which he puts it that counts. I should like to congratulate labour on the way they conducted themselves during the war and since V-E day. They have a right to be considered. I know we have had trouble at Windsor, but they tell me that it was not very serious trouble as compared with some of the troubles that have taken place in other places. To me there seems to be a cloud now appearing in the sky of labour. Great lakes seamen are looking for better working conditions. They may be looking for a raise in pay, but that is not their chief trouble. I would advise that ship owners and workers' representatives get together, thresh out their differences and avoid a strike.
There is one thing I do not like-and of course that does not make any difference-I do not like to see a corporation represented by a lawyer, when the future of toilers is at stake. I think it could be far better represented by a good minister, priest, clergyman or bishop who would understand the problems of the working man. I believe if that were done they would have their troubles straightened out more quickly. It would be better to have the heads of a corporation sit in on a meeting of that kind. I am convinced that if our present Minister of Labour, these corporation lawyers and the union leaders on the great lakes got together the trouble could be cleared away. This is just another case where I would hope that things could be settled before coming to a head.
I am not going to talk about labour without offering a plan, When you and I are at home we think things out. I had a group of men meet with me to formulate a plan and, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall give it to you now. This is a plan or policy for sharing the excess profits of industry and commerce with capital, labour and management. It states:
Whereas at 'this time there is grave unrest in our social structure, we are of the opinion that this matter should be studied and active steps taken to further this idea and project. We suggest that there be established by law for each industry >el>
minimum wage for labour, a. minimum salary for management and a minimum return for capital invested, and that after paying the incidental expenses of running a business or industry, and subject always to special modifications in any particular industry, the excess profits of that industry should be divided equitably among capital, labour and management in the same proportion as the minimum already specified for each of these various f actors in production.

The Address-Mr. Lalonde
We feel 'that government oversight should he exercised in each instance to make sure of the equitable character of that distribution.
We believe that more and more must the working man be taken into partnership in the industry and commerce of this country in order to secure a just return for additional effort and to give that independence of outlook which a living wage gives to every conscientious worker, -to fulfil that pledge of our war-time efforts, that the country be made a land fit for heroes to live an.
It is further stated that competition should only be allowed after capital has secured a proper return, management a proper salary, and labour ia living wage, and that all these be taken together with a fair price for goods and services as charged to the public. _ We recommend that social engineers be appointed by law to study these matters and give effect to these provisions.
I was proud to hear the Minister of Labour say on one oecasioh last year, when a strike was being discussed, that it is necessary for capital and labour to walk the same road together. That was fine. But when the three young Hebrews were cast into the fiery furnace it was found, when someone looked in, that there were four of them there-not three. One was like unto the Son of Man.
If capital and labour take the same road together they must make sure that the spirit of the Master Workman is controlling each of them, or they will not get very far. They will have a fight before they come to the end of the road.
As I said, things are in the saddle. We are living in a civilization that glorifies prosperity. Apparently we are on the threshold of the age of the bank book, when property rights, profit making, good business and prosperity are insisting that they have the right of way, leaving the traveller like the man in the parable who fell by the wayside, beaten by robbers, stripped, wounded and half dead.
I was reading a story about a great American who gave away much of his money for a special project. He said that every dollar has three kicks in it. The first kick is when you make it. As he said, "We are Yankees, and we like to make a dollar." Then he said, "The second kick is when we are sure we have it, because we have a lust for saving. The third kick is when we give it away to help somebody in need-because my mother was Irish."
So long as we allow our young men to grow with the assumption that it is with the consent of parliament, churches and municipalities that they should have power, that they should keep it who can, and that the straight road to happiness is by way of getting all the money one can, just so long jvill church and state perpetuate a policy which is sinful, unsound and superficial.
If I dared address clerics outside the house I would say to them, sweat up to your jobs; practise what you preach; live out your policy, and do not try to do it alone. Then you will be able to lead Canada into a greater life and a larger liberty.
I know what the programme is. I have great pleasure sometimes-and dear knows I make many mistakes. But I was one who, -without having to say anything about it, received extra pay at Christmas. I had a lot of fun in the Christmas season. I had more money to spend, and I spent it in a way I do not regret. I did not have any headache after and I do not expect to get the money back.
But the programme you and I must live, whether we are in this house or out of it, is: Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick, go to those in gaol; put God first, and others next. If we are not prepared to do that, then let us not listen to the prayer by Mr. Speaker.


Maurice Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended taking part in this debate. However, after hearing my colleague who has just taken his seat, after hearing his words which were full of inspira-i 'in 1 felt it my duty to speak briefly in this debate. I shall confine my remarks to those of a general character, and take pleasure at the outset to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address upon their magnificent speeches.
(Translation):
I shall not needlessly take up the time of the house but I believe that I should make a few remarks in order to discuss the merits of certain proposals contained in the speech from. the throne and to offer a few suggestions to the members of the government. Therefore, my remarks will come under two separate headings. At the outset I shall say a few words on international politics and I will conclude with a few remarks of local importance.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that as the result of the last conflict, Canada has won a well-deserved place, a foremost place in the world, despite the theories of isolationists, despite the furious outcries loosed by certain nationalists of my province who were determined, at any price, to bring the ideals of my race down to the level of local and political interests. We all agree that Canada has emerged from the conflict badly shaken financially and physically. A tremendous task lies ahead; like the governments of the other countries that have suffered and that have given of
The Address-Mr. Lalonde

their best for victory, we are faced with the task of physical, spiritual and moral reconstruction.
For some years, thanks to the far-sightedness of our leader, the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), we have been sending ambassadors to different countries, thus placing our country on a level with the most important nations in the world. Mr. Speaker, if the head of our government wishes to pursue this upward course towards total independence, why should we hot, as a Christian and democratic people, be represented in Rome, at the Vatican, by an official ambassador?
The speech from the throne also sets forth a policy which aims at Canada's complete freedom in the concert of nations, and the honourable the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) is sponsoring a bill by which every citizen of our country may proudly, even gloriously, claim the legitimate title of Canadian citizen. I congratulate the government on this occasion; this new gesture is but one of the numerous steps taken by the Liberal party during the past few years towards Canada's emancipation in the international sphere. Like every right-minded Canadian, I shall support this bill. It is high time that we should claim that title and that right at peace conferences and other official gatherings at which other countries are represented by envoys, delegates or ambassadors, so that our own representatives may, like those who were delegated recently, be vested with all the authority and prestige granted to the full citizens of a free state. That bill reflects credit on the government. Besides, it is consonant with the liberal tradition, and our honourable friends across the floor will have, this time at least, to be as liberal as we are.
Mr. Speaker, another matter has lately roused public opinion in my province. Some papers have expressed opinions which I re-pect; other citizens, taking advantage of their political prestige, have begun a series of meetings for the discussion of the proposed loan by our country of $1,250,000,000 to Great Britain. In my constituency, as elsewhere, as soon as that decision had been broadcast, the nationalist gang swung into action. Protests have come from the same* political ghettos where lie in hiding those who have not yet learned, after nine years of war, that the thought, in Ottawa, could not be directed along provincial channels. Some municipal council members have at once sent me resolutions protesting against that loan- of $1,250,000,000 to Great Britain, without knowing the first thing about it, without having any know-

ledge of the details or of the machinery involved. They would want me to commit myself to the point of stating, from my place in this house, that I oppose that loan. I shall do nothing of the kind, Mr. Speaker.
I shall value this legislation according to its merit in as much as it serves the interests of Canada and in the measure in which I sincerely believe that this loan is advantageous to my fellow-citizens and to the Canadian economy in general and that it may result in stabilizing the value -of the pound sterling and restoring to world economics the equilibrium which has been jeopardized by the anomalous transactions of the war.
If I am convinced that this loan may result in giving work, in my constituency, to my farmers, to my lumbermen, to all who labour for a few dollars a day; if, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that this loan has been inspired by a true Canadian spirit as has been the case with the whole government policy in the last ten years, I will not hesitate to give it my earnest support.
This afternoon, I heard my colleague from Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) state that he would vote against this loan. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is taking a hasty decision. The bill has not yet been tabled; the authorized people are not yet in a position to supply all the details concerning it because the American congress is engaged in a debate on a similar matter; and we, as representatives of the Canadian people, must not ' commit ourselves officially, one way or the other. To my mind, this would prejudice our opinions before the debate in this house has been initiated.
Mr. Speaker, the economic chaos which followed the first Great War from 1929 on, was, for the most part, if we are to believe the experts of that time, attributable to the fluctuations in the value of money which resulted in an almost complete stagnation of international trade. The same economic phenomena is threatening to-day, because the English pound has fallen to the lowest level ever, because England's gold reserves have been wiped out, because Britain has been forced to recall its Canadian securities; because now, the English people, in spite of what certain nationalist groups in my province may believe, are not as wealthy as they were at the outset of the war and that Canada, due to the international stature it has grown into during the conflict, has become an indispensable cog in the proper functioning of universal economy. In a way, we have become the transmission gear of an automobile which, if it fails, causes the vehicle to stop.

The Address-Mr. Lalonde
In certain quarters, we are accused of trying to keep up with the Joneses, of tagging along with foreign powers in this world upheaval, and we see our Quebec nationalists, led by the Bloc Populaire-whose members are unfortunately not in the house to-night- claim that they advocate the true doctrine of nationalist charity conceived by Mr. Henri Bourassa.


Mr. POULIOT:: Whom you defeated!


Maurice Lalonde: Whom we defeated. But, Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Populaire is a disgrace to real nationalist doctrine. I have no brief to defend Mr. Bourassa, but in his book entitled What Do We Owe England?, he states very plainly, on page 253 if memory serves me right, that Canada should participate in all foreign wars involving the interests of France and England, on condition that such participation be not the logical outcome of colonial bonds.
That is the nationalist doctrine advocated by our leader and by our party as well.
If we refer to the debates of 1939, we will see that we, the members of parliament of the time, declared war voluntarily without securing anyone's authorization and without being compelled to do so by colonial dependency.
What is being said in my province? People animated by unjustified1 anti-British feelings are saying exactly the opposite. One must not be afraid to say so, Mr. Speaker, although it may be against his political interests.
I mention that fact because the same propaganda is being disseminated in my province, inspired by false patriotic ideals, and through the influence of newspapers and meetings which have already been started some people want to go back to the former days of total colonialism.
I refuse to agree with them, Mr. Speaker, and will do so as long as I sit in this house. I have learned in the eleven years I have been in the Canadian House of Commons that we must examine the laws which are submitted for our approval from a federal and not a provincial point of view.
I reserve my decision in connection with that loan. After having earnestly studied the matter, I shall approve it if I find it acceptable; otherwise I shall reject it. To my mind, anyone who acts in good faith cannot commit himself in advance, on such an, important matter without going into it as fully as possible.
(Text):	4
I have something to say to the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low), if he will
permit me, through the Chair. As reported in Hansard of March 19, page 64, he said, in the course of a very interesting speech:
Hds Excellency's speech mentioned the recently concluded agreement for a loan to Great Britain of $1,250 million. I personally was glad to see that this credit had been made available to Great Britain. As a matter of fact a similar credit should have been arranged for Great Britain last fall. I am satisfied that if the various parts of the commonwealth had risen to. the occasion last autumn, they collectively could have prevented the United States from bludgeoning Great Britain into submission .to the nefarious Bretton Woods agreement.


Mr. LOW:: Hear, hear.


Maurice Lalonde: Do not say "hear, hear" too soon. I have something for you.
But while I iam pleased to see a huge new credit -advanced, which will I feel stimulate trade between our two countries and materially con-tribute to employment in- Canada, yet I think the loan should have been made to Great Britain interest free.
I respect his intentions and opinions, but I would suggest to him, Mr. Speaker, through the channel of the Chair, that he should go into my province and have personal contact with the leaders of his party who have been distributing, during maybe the past month, a certain newspaper which is waging a stiff fight against the loan. Do I understand that we have two Social Credit parties in this country? Unity is one of the conditions of the survival of a political movement.


Solon Earl Low: Autonomy is another.
Mr. LaLONDE : Not when autonomy is in flagrant contradiction of unity. You will not be there after the next election. .


Solon Earl Low: Perhaps.


Maurice Lalonde: I say this, in a spirit of goodwill to my hon. friend, that his group in my province is trying to be more nationalist. than the Bloc Populaire. More than that, it is robing itself in a religious propaganda, is distributing pictures of the Virgin, and I think it went so far as to make propaganda with a prayer of the Social Credjt party. It would be a good thing if my hon. friend the ' leader of the party would say something to Mr. Even, the leader of the party in Quebec, so that the whole party might be united in its doctrines throughout Canada. Otherwise we shall not know what to believe-somebody is telling us lies-for the Social Credit party in this chamber has one theory about making a loan to Great Britain and their friends outside wage a campaign against it.


Solon Earl Low: I said personally.
The Address-Mr. Lalonde


Maurice Lalonde: But I am speaking to my hon. friend as the leader of a so-called party, not personally, and as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I am fed up with seeing so many political parties divided up into as many parcels as there are provinces in the dominion. But on our side we are all united and the Liberal party .was the only national party that went into the last election. I say this in all good friendship to my hon. friend.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, that loan to England has a meaning which will have to be carefully pondered. We shall have to make sure, when examining the proposal in the light of the documents that will be communicated to us, that it is a premium against unemployment and that, if we do not make funds available to those who wish to purchase the goods that will be produced in Canada, our people will before long suffer from unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, I shall use the last few minutes at my disposal to discuss the matter of espionage which, in my province, has given rise to much criticism in some quarters. I have heard my good friend the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) and the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) wax eloquent on the subject of the magna charts. I aip respectful of traditions but there is no man-made constitution in this world which does not grow obsolete with the years. At times, it has to be transformed, to be adapted to the needs of the day. I realize that the magna charta is an expression of principles, but the manner in which those principles should be applied is quite another matter.
Who are those that disregard the magna charta? It is the British themselves who have refused to release Doctor May on bail. Why hide behind the screen of legal technicalities in order to arrest those who have betrayed their country? We must bear in mind that treason is the vilest form of crime. Suppose that some of our own citizens were caught spying in Russia; do you think that they would have a chance of escaping by being allowed their freedom on bail? No, gentlemen, they would face the firing squad within 24 hours.
I commend the government for its action, and I hope that if the accused are found guilty, the punishment will fit the crime.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding I wish to offer a few suggestions to my honourable friend, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier). I know that he is cool-headed and that he will not get over-excited.

I live in a district which depends on three main industries for its livelihood: tourists, farming and forestry. Mr. Speaker, you have probably visited the northern hills and admired the majesty of the Laurentian scenery. By Laurentian scenery, I mean our mountains and our lakes. I am sure anyone who has been there looks upon our part of the country as a tourists' paradise.
Other federal and provincial governments have encouraged the tourist industry; that is why I urgently beg the federal government to vote large sums of money in order to encourage travel in the northern part of the province of Quebec, and in the parts of our country where such an asset may be developed. In my district, the population relies to a great extent on the tourist trade and you have no idea how prosperous it could be if the federal government would only grant certain sums of money for the construction of roads to the best fishing spots in the whole world.
The government could stimulate the tourist trade by establishing a sort of travel bureau to make more widely know the beauties of our region. As a help to tourists, maybe the government could also, at the next dominion-provincial conference, establish in Quebec some of those schools for tourists' guides, as may be found elsewhere. There is a great need for them in our province. Outsiders who visit us should be taken in hand by people able to oook fish, build a hut, handle a canoe, shoot rapids, and in short ensure to the tourists all the excitement, the thrills of that great sport.
There is another programme that could be carried out by the dominion government if unemployment were to recur. Let us not forget Mr. Speaker, that our forest industry in the province of Quebec will, within twenty-five years, be in a precarious situation, if we do not plant at once thousands of trees to replace those which have been felled by lumber companies.
I am informed that the companies are willing to co-operate closely with the government in the planting of millions of trees, so that, in some twenty-five years, a new crop may keep the lumbermen busy.
Further remarks would be warranted. However, I notice that my time is nearly up. I have drawn, those matters to the attention of the house and the government in the hope that they may be of some use.
I am offering those suggestions in good faith, convinced that I have done my duty. I know that the government of our country is desirous

Grain
of preventing an economic disaster such as that which followed the first great war, and that under the wise leadership of the hon. ministers of the present cabinet, I am sure that our people, despite the unavoidable dislocation of the post-war period, will soon find their normal balance and enter upon the road to progress.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 9.50 p.m.
Monday March 25, 1946.