1947-02-03

REPORT ON INSTALLATION OF MICROPHONES AND AMPLIFIERS

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to lay on the table of the house a report respecting the installation of microphones and amplifiers in the House of Commons.



WILD LIFE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, respecting the Jack Miner national wild life week.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the. house I should like the title as it appears on the order paper changed by changing the word "day" to the word "week"; so that it will read: "An Act respecting the Jack Miner national wild life week."
Since the bill carries a full explanation I will not take up the time of the house to deal with it at the moment.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 3, to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1938.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to direct a
question to the Minister of Public Works. Is the minister in a position to make a statement concerning increases in wages, holidays with pay, and sick leave for women cleaners in public buildings? Will these increases apply to women so employed in federal public buildings in all parts of Canada?


Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: I wish to thank the hon.
member for sending me notice of the question before the opening of the house today. I believe I shall be in a position in the near future to make a statement concerning sick

Inquiries of the Ministry
leave, special leave and probably holidays with pay for the char women in the federal service. The statement will take in women working not only in Ottawa but also all over the country.



FEED GRAIN

[Stage Direction]
CAR LOADINGS FOR MARITIME PROVINCES On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, based on a telegram from the secretary of the maritime federation of agriculture in which he states that feed grain shortage in the maritimes is approaching or in a critical stage and that quick corrective action is urgently needed. What arrangements is the government making to provide more car loadings of feed grain for the maritime provinces, and if arrangements are being made will they be put into effect at once?


Hon. LIONEL CHEYRIER (Minister of Transport):: The question' which my hon. friend asks is one which forms part of a much larger question. The situation with reference to empty box cars in Canada is at the moment very acute, and the transport controller, in conjunction with the railways of Canada, is meeting it from day to day. My hon. friend makes particular reference to the feed grain loadings for the maritimes, and I would say this to him. On Friday of last week the transport controller met with other bodies who are extremely interested in the subject and arrived at a conclusion whereby some 112 cars daily can be provided for feed at the lake head and at the bay ports. It is thought that if that provision of empty box cars can be made, the situation will be well in hand. I assure my hon. friend, however, that both the railways and the transport controller are giving this question their keen attention.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Are any of these 112 cars assigned to take feed grain to the maritimes?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. The maritimes have a specific proportion. From information I have received from the national harbours board, the position in the maritime provinces at the moment in connection with loadings is fairly good.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES

[Stage Direction]
AIRCRAFT CARRIERS On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo) :: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Will he say if and when Canada will 83166-3i
be ready to take over the second aircraft carrier which according to press reports is now available?


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: The hon. gentleman was good enough to give me notice of the question. His question no doubt refers to the aircraft carrier in course of construction which has been known by the name of Magnificent. It will not be ready for a good many months. Arrangements were made during the war by which two light fleet carriers would be made available to Canada, and the Warrior is now in commission, the Magnificent being the other. I should add that the composition and employment of the naval and armed forces of Canada are under continuous consideration but it has never been and is not the intention of the government that two carriers should be kept continuously in operation.


Mr. F. E. LENNARD (Wentworth):: May I ask the minister a further question? Is the aircraft carrier H.M.C.S. Warrior on loan, or has it been bought outright from the British government?


Brooke Claxton: It is on loan.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

[Stage Direction]
CAR FERRY "abEGWEIT"-PROGRESS OF CONSTRUCTION
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): I desire to direct an important annual question to the Minister of Transport. How is construction work on S.S. Abegweit progressing, and when will she be on the Borden-Tormen-tine ferry service?
Lionel Chevrier: I may tell the hon. gentleman that construction of the Abegweit is progressing very satisfactorily, and from reports which I have I am hopeful that she will be put into operation not long after navigation opens.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to direct a question either to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Labour. Have any steps been taken to implement the Johnstone report of December 7, 1945, on the C.P.R. 1919 pension dispute? I refer in particular to Mr. Johnstone's definite recommendation to the government that a royal commission be established in connection with this matter.
Canadian Pacific Railway

Hon, HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour): The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of the question this morning. I would remind him that on August 30, 1946, as reported1 at page 5743 of Hansard, I stated:
The matter is being given consideration by the law officers of the crown and the decision has been reached that the appointment of a royal commission would serve no useful purpose.
At the time I made this statement the hon. member reiterated his belief that the appointment of a royal commission would be beneficial and desirable. Since the discussion in the House of Commons on August 30, 1946, I have conferred with officials of the department and my colleagues, and the opinion is held by all that no settlement could be reached by the appointment of a royal commission, nor would a commission be able to bring out any more facts than those which are already known.


Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):: May I ask the Minister of Labour a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre? Has the minister no suggestion about finding some sort of justice for those people who were over forty years of age when the Winnipeg strike ended and were denied pensions for that reason? I think the hon. member has that in mind. To say that a royal commission will not be appointed does not help us very much. Has he no suggestion to offer as to getting justice for these people?


Mr. MITCHELL:: The answer is simple. The money does not belong to the government to begin with. As both my hon. friend and the member for Winnipeg North Centre know, this money is the property of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We don't agree.


Humphrey Mitchell: You don't agree with anything.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is easy to see you agree with the C.P.R.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is the property of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and at the time no contribution, I understand, was made by the employees to the insurance fund. Let me say-


Arthur Leroy Smith: You are wrong about that.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let me say to my hon. friend-


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is always wrong.
Mr. Mitchell: Just wait a minute.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have been waiting twenty-eight years.


Humphrey Mitchell: You weren't in Canada twenty-eight years ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Wrong again.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let me say to my hon. friend the member for Calgary West and also to the member for Winnipeg North Centre that other than themselves no one is more anxious than I am to see justice done in this regard, but I have never been in the position of spending the other fellow's money. I like to spend my own. I think it is a question which should be discussed between the labour organizations themselves and the railway concerned. I think that is sound and sensible, and to try to make a political question out of it does not render any service-


Arthur Leroy Smith: Don't say that.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let me finish.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Perhaps you had better.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not accusing either of my hon. friends of so doing, but I think that is the proper procedure to adopt.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the minister read the Johnstone report on the very points he has discussed? Mr. Johnstone takes the very opposite view.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, January 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. W. MacNaught for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in resuming this debate I want my first wrord to be one of welcome to the new members. I hope they will find, as I have found, that their association with the members of the House of Commons will be pleasant, profitable and useful. I have always found that this is a splendid group with which to be associated. I might say to the new members that they will find some peculiar political philosophies in some sections of the house, particularly to the right of the Speaker; but otherwise they will find all these men splendid gentlemen.
My second word must be one of welcome to the old members. I want to thank each one of the them in all parties for the pleasant

The Address-Mr. Bracken
way in which the leader of the opposition has been received in this house during the past two sessions. I am glad to know that we as a fraternity can meet here and differ on the public issues of the day but can go outside and respect each other regardless of party, feeling that each is trying to do his duty here even though his point of view may be different from our own.
In what I shall have to say to-day I shall in some matters commend the government: as to some other matters perhaps the commendation will not be quite so apparent. However, I can promise you this: I will not say anything worse of those who sit on the other side than has already been said about them by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power).
My third word I wish to be one of commendation to the hon. gentleman who presides over this house for the impartial manner in which he has carried out his duties during the past year or two. My best hope is that as time goes on we shall have no occasion to lessen the high regard we have for him both as a man and as a Speaker.
Since we last met here, sir, three by-elections have taken place in which the government candidates were all defeated. In the meantime there were vacancies created by the regrettable death of one of the members for the dual constituency of Halifax and of the member for Richelieu-Vercheres. It was expected that the Halifax election would follow in due course like the others, but the sitting member for Halifax is reported to have explained to the press that the government had decided to defer the election because "winter conditions in Nova Scotia were not conducive to the satisfactory conduct of an election."


Mr. ISNOR:: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. the leader of the opposition would not wish to quote incorrectly. No such statement was made in regard to the government's stand. Any statement that was made by the present sitting member for Halifax was with regard- to weather conditions.


Mr. ROWE:: That is what the leader of the opposition said. [DOT]


John Bracken: I am glad to know that all the blame attaches to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor).


William Earl Rowe: Even the weather.


John Bracken: About the same time the Halifax Herald carried in its columns an interesting news item which said that the
city firemen were called out to extinguish grass fires in the city of Halifax on December IS.


William Earl Rowe: What a fire!


John Bracken: I am sure the citizens of Halifax and of Nova Scotia will put a high value on the wide publicity their local member has given to their so-called unfavourable climate. I am sure from now on when winter comes we shall all make our way to the much warmer climate of Richelieu-Vercheres, now that we know that Halifax and Nova Scotia is a very cold place in which to live.
When the sitting member for Halifax referred to weather, I have no doubt he had in mind the political weather. It has even been suggested that the government was suffering not so much from cold weather as from cold feet. In any event Halifax is unrepresented to-day, and for that the blame rests wholly upon hon. gentlemen who sit opposite. There was the same reason for calling an election promptly in Halifax as there was for calling an election with reasonable promptness in Pontiac, Portage la Prairie, Parkdale and Richelieu-Vercheres.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), commenting on these events, made two observations, one of which was that there were too many parties in this country. What he was going to do about it he did not say. Merely talking about a thing of that kind does not get us very far. There is always a reason for the development of parties, and when we let sore spots develop in this country and allow them to fester, -new parties are tempted to arise. If we have more than two parties in this country, we have ourselves to blame; difficulties arose and were not corrected, and this gave rise to the development of the protest parties.
The Prime Minister also made another very interesting comment, to the effect that certain of these, members who were elected were returned by a minority vote. That is always true in a country with more than two parties, and it is true today. I do not know what advantage there is in mentioning these things. I imagine that nearly half the members of the cabinet were elected by minority votes. I have not figured it out, but I presume that a very large proportion of the members of this house were elected by minority votes. There is a way of getting over that, if the government wishes to do so, and that is by bringing in a different type of election, such as that which has been followed in certain provinces for some time past. I am not necessarily recommending that: I am only pointing out
The Address-Mr. Bracken

that if it is desired that the difficulty of minority members be overcome, there is a way to overcome it.
The speech from the throne in its entirety is a preparation of the government. His Excellency in delivering it is expressing the government's policy and programme. Members of the house have become accustomed to the discursive style of these speeches; and when I talk about this speech from the throne, a good deal of what I say can be said about many speeches from the throne in different houses in this and other lands. This one is no exception to the rule. In that respect we are not surprised. From the beginning it is padded with verbiage to give it the appearance of substance. As a matter of fact it is barren of hope or promise for the Canadian people. Let us take a look at it. [DOT]
It is full of generalizations, perhaps more so than any I have heard, but empty of information or promise of direct or practical action on domestic problems. On external matters, it is a little clearer, a little more informative, although on certain of them very little light is given us as to any positive active policies. The speech is full of vapour-ings, designed to cover up the decline of liberalism. The party which once found itself in the valley of humiliation now finds itself bogged down ever more deeply in the valley of indecision and inertia. The captain of the ship is about to depart; his orders are drowned in the confusion of the crew; the mates are scrambling for cover; even the famous chart has become outdated and the famous compass is rusted from lack of use. The Prime Minister, always long on psychology, continues his essay writing, at which he is very good. In this address he has given the people of Canada chiefly straws with which to make bricks. After a quarter cen-;ury in the promised land liberalism has lost its bearings and sees itself headed for a long period of wanderings in the wilderness.
The third and fourth paragraphs of the speech from the throne touch upon an international matter, the question of peace. One point in connection with that problem impressed me very greatly as I sat with members of the government and the leader of the C.C.F. party for six or eight weeks last fall at the united nations general assembly in New York. I want to take two or three minutes to refer tc it here.
At the moment one can see no early threat of a major war. As to the more distant future, one cannot speak with the same assurance. The danger at the moment does not tie in the warlike propensities of any nation.

Germany has been destroyed and cannot rise again in our time. The danger now lies not in the desire for war on the part of any countiy but in the consequences of the clash of two opposing ideologies in the world, communism and democracy. As I see it, the greatest threat to the peace of the world in our time is communist intolerance. The majority of communists hold the view that there is not room in the world for these two ideologies, that one or other must go and that the one to disappear must be democracy. By such an intolerant philosophy, combined with the militant propagation of its views, communism carries with it the potential seeds of a major war.
Our answer to that threat must be twofold. We must prevent the expansion of communism by the superiority of our own economy. The democracies of the world can serve their peoples more effectively than communism serves the Soviet Union, and we must demonstrate that fact to every nation. That is the chief problem facing the democracies today. We are challenged by another philosophy. I believe we can meet that challenge. We must see that we do so.
I said I believed democracy could serve our society better than communism can serve Soviet Russia. Let me give an example. At that assembly in New York last fall, where delegates from fifty-one different nations sat down together, there came a time when the cost of carrying on these international organizations had to be figured out and assessed against the different nations taking part. The best accounting experts of those nations were called together to figure out how to arrive at what each nation should pay in carrying on the united nations general assembly and other organizations of the kind. They arrived at the conclusion that the nations should pay on the basis of capacity to pay. No one had any better plan. There were fifty-one nations, all of equal sovereignty, each with five delegates, some representing only one hundred thousand people and others representing four hundred million people. What did this report show? It showed that one nation of the fifty-one should pay not one fifty-first of the cost but 48'89 per cent of the total cost of the whole organization. What nation was that? It was our sister nation across the forty-ninth parallel, which was to pay 48-89 per cent, on the basis of capacity to pay, of the cost of an organization comprising all the nations of the world, with the exception of some that were our enemies in the last war, and a few others. The United Kingdom was expected to pay 10-5 per cent, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 6 per cent and Canada, with one

The Address-Mr. Bracken
two-hundredths of the population of the world, was expected to pay one-thirtieth of the cost, or 3i per cent. If one wanted a demonstration of the relative ability of one type of economy to serve society, I do not know what better illustration could be found.
Other illustrations could be given also; this one I shall have to take from memory. When the war was over and the rehabilitation of Europe had to be undertaken, the displaced and hungry people had to be fed and broken down economies had to be restored, UNRRA, the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation administration was organized. Thousands of millions of dollars were spent, taken from some countries and spent in others. How were those costs shared? The United States paid 72 per cent of the total cost; the United Kingdom, broken as she is, 18 per cent and Canada, small as she is, 5 per cent. So we had 95 per cent of the cost coming from these three countries and 5 per cent from all the rest. Surely these figures teach us a lesson, and when our type of economy is being challenged they ought to give us some encouragement.
The democracies of the world can serve their respective peoples more effectively than communism serves the Soviet Union, and we must demonstrate that fact to the other nations. The best way to do that is to correct the abuses that give excuse for communism's growth; and when I say that I am talking to our own people. The prevention of war in our lifetime can be achieved if we demonstrate to ourselves and to other nations, if not to Russia, that democracies can serve society better than communism. If we fail to do that, communism will grow and the danger of war increase.
That is the first step toward the prevention of war. But there must be a second defence against war. There must be maintained, preferably by the united nations but if not them by the democracies, adequate means for preventing aggression by any nation, however great. Fortunately plans have been laid in the security council to do that. But unfortunately the security council has not done a very good job so far. In simple language the democracies, by close collaboration with each other, must see to it that their combined strength is such as will deter any aggressor, communist or otherwise, or any combination of communist aggressors, from furthering their ideology by means of war.
The issue is clear as I see it. Non-communist states must serve their people better than communism serves theirs in order to prevent
the expansion of communism-not by calling them names, not by any of the common criticisms which get us nowhere, but by demonstrating to our own society that our type of economy is better.
Non-communist states must keep themselves strong enough to prevent aggression until such time as communist intolerance gives way to tolerance. Let us keep strong in the meantime, hoping that intolerance will give way to tolerance, that there will be room in the world if some countries want communism, to have it, and that there will be room outside where communism need not enter and need not disturb the type of economy which may be desired. In other words we must keep strong enough to prevent aggression until communism, if it continues to exist in Russia, recognizes the right of people of other nations without interference to determine their own type of government and economy.
In the democracies we must win the peace. Neither victory nor peace will come by wishful thinking. They will come only if we pay whatever price it demands. We can win only by making our system fully effective. Effective administration, with the state as the servant, not the master, is the best answer to communism, and therefore the best assurance of peace.
Another paragraph in the address refers to the treaty of peace with Italy, Finland, Roumania. Hungary and Bulgaria. In this connection I do not think the government has tabled the terms of that settlement. If I am correct in that, perhaps the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs will see that it is done.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The treaties
have not been signed yet.


John Bracken: But they have been
agreed to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is not customary to put treaties before the house until after they have been signed. I think my hon. friend will agree to that.


John Bracken: I gather from the Prime Minister's answer that he would prefer not to let us see the terms of the treaty until it is signed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, not at all. My hon. friend has had the same opportunity I have had to see the terms of the treaty. But the practice is not to table peace treaties until they have been signed; that is the practice in every parliament.


Mr. GRAYDON:: It is in the speech from the throne.
The Address-Mr. Bracken


John Bracken: 

The Address-Mr. Bracken
loan at the rate of $50 million per month or $600 million per year. If those figures are correct we are lending to Britain $25 million a year in excess of the value of what she is taking from us. In addition to that, the loan which the government made to France is reported as being near exhaustion.
I suggest, with respect, to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that instead of talking so loudly about the value of our external trade-I do not blame him, because it is the particular business of his department to expand trade-our government should be thinking seriously about what our trade policy is going to be when the honeymoon of lending is over. I am sure we are all thinking of that, and I am particularly sure that he is. That is my question. We have to consider that and we have to find an answer.
Let me go on. In the year 1946 we imported $1,900 million worth of goods. Only 9 per cent of those imports came from Britain. Prior to the war twice that figure, or 18 per cent of our imports, came from Britain. Then we have the statement of Great Britain that she must raise her exports to at least 175 per cent of their pre-war level.
In addition to that it has been announced the government has decided that our duties against British goods which were suspended or greatly reduced during the war are to be restored to their pre-war level next July. Mv question is, what is to be the government's policy with respect to international trade in the face of this situation? Are we to continue the policy of having these exports paid for out of taxation of our own people, or are we to accept imports in payment for them? I do not raise this question in a controversial way. It is a problem we all have to face, and it falls particularly on the government's doorstep. It is a serious problem. Is the government going to allow British imports into this country, or are the taxpayers of Canada to continue to pay for our exports to other lands?
I have only to add that I have seen no evidence that the government has a policy to meet this situation. It may be too much to expect that at this time they could see that far ahead. In any event we must first appreciate the problem, then we must be ready to meet it or to face the consequences of a failure to meet it.
In connection with trade, I should like to ask the government on a suitable occasion to make clear its position on matters closely related to this major question. What is its policy with respect to the British preference? What is its policy with respect to tariff revision? What is its policy with respect to the
[Mr. Bracken. 1
removal of order in council and1 administrative tariff making, by which more power is now exercised than is exercised by this parliament? I would ask that we be told what instructions were given to our representatives who sat in at the London trade meeting last autumn. A report of the proceedings of this meeting has been given to the press, but the report has not been tabled in parliament. I would ask that the government take parliament more into its confidence on such important matters. We are all concerned. Personally I hope they will find their way through it. Because of the position in which I find myself I have no choice but to point out these difficulties ahead. There is a common impression in respect of these particular matters that the government prefers to by-pass parliament in its trade negotiations. What are the government's instructions to our delegates who will attend the trade meeting in Geneva next summer? It may well be that they have not given them up to this time. Parliament ought to know what instructions the government gives to its representatives to any international organization which is to consider how world trade can be expanded.
The government's trade policy is something like its housing policy; it is always ready to begin. We are now buying on a cash basis and selling on a credit basis, and our exports are high. Headlines appear in the paper and we think that everything is lovely. Mr. Speaker, our condition today with respect to export trade is an artificial one. I am sure that the government recognizes that. We are lending several importing countries the money to buy our goods. Naturally in the circumstances our volume of trade is high, but it is an entirely artificial condition of trade. We must not allow ourselves to be fooled by its surface indications. The fact is we are not yet out of the woods in reestablishing our export market. The government distributes all kinds of general propaganda about trade, social security and so on as a great lever in bringing about full employment in the future; but in all these the government does not seem to be able to get itself out of the realm of the abstract; it does not seem to be able to keep its feet on some understandable ground of action and achievement'.
In the address further reference is made to the question of defence. We cannot form a reasonable judgment on the adequacy of our defence forces until we know more about the government's foreign policy. I suppose the government itself is a little hesitant today to make plans for the immediate years ahead until it knows what the security council is going to do with respect to an international

The Address-Mr. Bracken
organization to prevent aggression. To that extent we can excuse the government for not having a long term policy. But, Mr. Speaker, we were given a polics' a year ago. Judging from what has appeared in the press it has been altered in the meantime. I am sure we shall look forward with interest to the explanation of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) for that change.
We have been placed in a ludicrous position. From the point of view of effectiveness we were the fourth striking power in the war, and we were in it from the time it began. We were welcomed on the battlefields, but we are excluded from the peace talks. Our soldiers were asked to fight, occupy ^ place in decisive battles and help to win wars. When it comes to peace making we are gracefully accorded only the privilege of submitting our views. Either we are a part of this world organization or we are not, and until all the mysticism is cleared away about what we are-a little, middle or great power, a power on our own, a power working, in cooperation with other British countries, a North American power in association with the United States- until our government makes up its mind on some such questions as these, who can say whether our defence money is wasted or not?
As was to be expected, the government referred in the speech fiom the throne to the question of employment. In this paragraph the government speaks of our present high rate of employment. It says it is over 30 per cent higher than it was in 1939. That sounds quite high until we realize that in 1939 it was not very high. What we want to know, and what I hope the government will be able to tell us, is what is the government's policy with respect to labour-industrial relations and to employment after the present high demand is over. That is a problem which is raising questions of fear in the minds not only of workers but also of employers, and I am sure of the government as well. Its own machinery has to a considerable degree failed to meet the needs. Whenever we pick up a newspaper we find that the skj' is darkened in some part of the country by an industrial dispute.
What I said with respect to trade applies in this instance. Instead of boasting about trade and employment figures, arising from entirely artificial conditions, where we tax ourselves to get money to lend to somebody else to buy our exports, and thereby boasting about our trade and employment figures, the government should have an employment policy for tomorrow and later on as well as for today. I am not aware of any such plans. The government says that it has a plan to try 83166-4J
to meet that situation, but in the m-eantime those plans have broken down. If it has a policy it is keeping it to itself as a dark secret. What is to be done about employment in the future after the immediate and urgent necessities of reconstruction are met? We are simply told that if and when all the provinces have accepted the government's financial terms it will meet the provinces with a programme of public investment and social security. But in the meantime that proposal is not moving forward. The government has no policy now except a policy of drift a policy of wait and see and hope that something will come out of that situation.
In one paragraph the government deals with the situation with respect to our primary products of the farm, the fisheries, the mines and the forests. I wish for a minute to touch on the question of agriculture, the situation facing the agricultural industry of the country. For years the government, through its numerous boards, has had complete control over prices for farm products and the cost of things the farmers buy. It has regulated and controlled the slaughtering of live stock. It has regulated and controlled the import and export of seeds, feeds and fertilizers. It has controlled the marketing of grains, it has controlled and regulated the export of live stock and live stock products. It has rationed important foodstuffs. It has entered into longterm export food agreements at guaranteed prices and paid direct and indirect subsidies to farmers. Yet the over-all net farming income of Canada has been declining since 1944, in spite of the highest domestic and foreign demand for farm products in our history. The government has been guilty of misleading the British government with overoptimistic statements of what we can produce and supply. The government has entered into long-term food export agreements with Britain which it is impossible to fulfil without prohibiting exports to the United States, maintaining strict rationing in Canada, permanently controlling if not completely prohibiting farm exports, discouraging any increase in the acreage of wheat, and subsidizing our food exports, because the prices to Britain on some of them are below the cost of production.
In 1940 Canada exported 345,000,000 pounds of bacon to Britain and in 1946 entered into a contract for 450,000,000 pounds, later reduced to 350,000,000. We failed to meet the reduced contract, I am informed, by over 100,000,000 pounds.
The production of eggs declined last year, having fallen to 23.000,000 dozen short of the export agreement with Britain.
The Address-Mr. Bracken

The biggest blunder of all is the way in which the government has treated the dairy industry. Speaking a year ago in the debate on the speech from the throne I said among other things that the dairy farmers would have to have higher prices or there would be a decline in milk production.
Under conditions such as we have to-day, Mr. Speaker, men are leaving the difficult and laborious tasks of farm and mine and forest for something else where wages are higher, and insufficient men are going back to those jobs to get us the production we need. Farmers are unable to get the men or to pay the wages necessary to compete with city wages.
At that time also I pointed out that dairy and hog production would decline to lower levels in 1946. I said that the government was asking for four per cent more hogs but would get twenty per cent less. I said that the government was asking for five per cent more butter and would get five per cent less. It now turns out that my pessimistic forecast was not pessimistic enough, for hog slaughterings declined twenty-five per cent and butter production seven per cent. Butter production has been falling for three years. This past year the decline was the greatest in any year for the past twenty years. Production in 1946 was down to the level of thirteen years ago.
The government, by its unwise policies-let us admit there are difficulties-over the last few years, is forced to import some twelve million pounds of New Zealand butter in order to maintain our low level of consumption. In 1947 Canada, by pre-war standards, is likely to be short no less than 60,000,000 pounds of butter for normal consumption.
Production of cheese has fallen drastically, no less than 25 per cent in the last year. This is the greatest decline in a single year for more than twenty-five years. We lost in one year what it took us five years to build up. The state of the dairy and hog industrj' is proof of the failure of the government to foresee the effects of its price policies on agricultural production.
The speech also deals with a question we have heard a great deal about in the last few years, namely, the question of controls- a word which covers a vast variety of government activities some of which are temporary, some of which have been dispensed with, and some of which may be more or less permanent. But paragraph 14 tells us little or nothing. What we do know is that the government is getting itself into increasing difficulties with the so-called decontrol policy. The public is treated to increasing and unnecessary irritations.

What is the public to think when the chairman of the wartime prices and trade board and three or four cabinet ministers say in July that a twelve-cent increase in wages in the>
steel industry would wreck the control policy altogether-


Mr. ABBOTT:: We never stated that.


John Bracken: -and then the Prime Minister came back in November and said we were to have a price ceiling but no wage control at all. It is this day-to-day policy of political expediency that has made it so difficult for the great majority of loyal Canadians to cooperate with government policy, when the government itself changes its announced policy from week to week.
With the removal of salary and wage controls, the difficulty of maintaining price controls rapidly increases. The government, when it established controls in 1941, took the position with considerable justification that to do a job with controls, they had to be substantially all-inclusive, and that was generally accepted, just as it was at the time of the strike dispute last spring. But now the shoe is on the other foot. When some controls are removed and others left, the worse the situation becomes with respect to those commodities where controLs are still maintained. The reason is simple. Producers try as far as possible to confine themselves to those commodities which are not controlled.
It is true the wartime prices and trade board tries to alleviate what would be an intolerable situation for producers whose costs have gone up above selling price by showing a readiness to give favourable consideration to requests for higher prices. But this policy frequently fails for two reasons, first because it is not possible for government administrative machinery to keep up with the rapidly changing developments in the business world, and second because business men detest submitting themselves to the details, red tape and inquisitorial methods which are inescapable in the procedure of the board. Besides, the tempo of business is too fast and the turnover too rapid to wait for the cumbersome machinery of departmental measures to function.
The result of all this is that while the government says it has been practising orderly decontrol, the retreat from control becomes inevitably more and more disorderly. As time goes on, stocks of some goods become scarce while inventories of others are unduly large. We still have some scarcity in many essential articles of merchandise, and at the same time the threat of price collapse in others. No one can call this orderly decontrol.

The Address-Mr. Bracken
I known orderly decontrol is the intention of the government or the intention of the board, but it is so difficult to work out that it becomes not orderly but disorderly.
The situation is of course further complicated by decontrol in the United States. The lifting of controls there has further complicated the problem of the business community here in various ways and contributed to the situation whereby we have the anomaly of high employment and scarcity of many necessities. All the indications are that delay from now on in removing controls will cause constantly increasing difficulties. The moral of this is that Ihe sooner these hindrances to production can be removed, the sooner we will get the advantage of free and full production. Until then we shall have the constant irritation of a series of price rises. We should now be at or near the place where we can deal courageously with the remaining domestic controls. Export controls, rents and things of that kind may be quite different matters. The retention of such controls as these in modified form can be justified.
I come now to a matter about which the government has heard a good deal during the last two or three years, one which I am sure has been one of very great concern to them; I refer to the question of housing. Housing has become a drab and dreary tale of promises, plans and programmes; there has been everything but a policy which produces houses. In a country equipped with the best materials in the world and trained for generations in the construction industry, the government's housing record is a disgrace.
The speech from the throne says:
Despite all obstacles, the number of housing units completed in 1946 approximated the objective set by the government.
What objective is the government talking about? Is it the political objective set in the summer of 1945, and, if not, which one of the statements made by different ministers of the crown represents what the objective of the government was or is? To say that you have reached some named objective does not satisfy anyone. So long as you have families living in garages and returned soldiers seeking emergency shelters, your housing problem remains as it was, a flop.
An advertisement authorized by the federal Liberal campaign committee for Ontario, June 7, 1945, said this:
We are planning for at least 600,000 new housing units and perhaps 1,000,000. No matter where you live, you will be able to reside in a comfortable home of which you can be proud.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) said at Brandon, on January 24, 1946:
We can truthfully say that in this country at least the worst is past.
Then six months later, on July 22, 1946, we find the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) saying in the House of Commons:
We can anticipate by spring, 1947, an immediate housing deficit of some 180,000 units or a worsening of the situation by some twenty per cent.
And what do we find just two and a half
months ago? On November 12, 1946, the war veterans met the Prime Minister, and perhaps other members of the government, and what did they say? I will just mention one or two things. They said:
Housing is a major problem in Canada to-day, and likely to become worse before becoming better.
It went on:
Results will inevitably be disastrous unless drastic steps are soon taken, first, to increase the production of building materials and supplies in certain critical lines; second, to increase building trades apprenticeship training as the means of increasing the supply of skilled labour and third, temporarily to ban non-essential building in favour of essential building as the only practical means of ensuring a balanced programme of operation for the construction industry as a whole.
Now we have the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) getting into it and bringing the government's promises up to date. He carries us to 1951 when he says all will be well. Here is what he says, as reported in the Ottawa Journal of January 16, 1947:
There seems to be every reason to believe that 400,000 to 500,000 units of housing can be absorbed readily in the five years ending 1951 ... It seems to me that, in a long term view, we should make every effort to establish as a permanent feature of our economy a high annual production of residential construction.
We agree with the Minister of Labour as to the need. We want the houses, but 1951 is a long time away.
I come to another matter which has been a subject of discussion in the press and elsewhere in considerable detail for a couple of years, and in less detail for ten years, and which is one of the major domestic problems of this country. I have reference to the question of dominion-provincial fiscal relations. That question cannot be dealt with briefly. I do not want to deal with it exhaustively to-day, but it is so important that no leader of the opposition should finish his speech without some considerable reference to it.
It is almost ten years since this government made its first move in this matter. There were other minor moves before, but that was
The Address-Mr. Bracken

the first major move. During the period since the whole world has undergone considerable change and, as far as settlement of this problem is concerned, it is still on the doorstep of the government. It is still unfinished business. The government is in precisely the same position as it was before it began, save for some minor improvements in the situation which I shalL mention.
When the provinces made their submissions to the dominion in 1937 and 1938, and later on the floor of this house in 1941, they, like the dominion, were actuated by what they believed represented the real spirit of confederation. I do not think I shall ever forget the time, almost exactly six years ago, when I sat in this chamber, not in this seat but just over there, the Prime Minister at the end of the table and the representatives of the provinces around it trying to get some action on the report of a commission appointed by this government. It was a strong commission, which made an outstanding report on a vital matter. I need not go into the reasons for the failure of the conference. Perhaps they are fresh in the memory of many. But an equally disastrous failure was witnessed in recent months. Read the letters of Mr, Macdonald of Nova Scotia, Mr. Manning of Alberta, and the others. Important as money considerations are to these provinces, it is the spirit of the fathers of confederation that moved these men to make the protest and the settlement that they have been urging upon the government. It, is true the government has made some settlements subject to ratification by parliament and the provincial legislatures. Some provinces have accepted their proposals. Why should they not? Under the wartime tax agreements the provinces of Canada, because they gave up the right to their income and corporation taxes, and because they made other agreements with respect to succession duties, received from this government $126,000,000 per year. Now they are being offered as a rental for the same tax fields practically $100,000,000 more, or $227,000,000. I cannot imagine any province suffering from serious fiscal difficulties not accepting two dollars where they got only one before; and that is substantially what it means. On a straight purchase and barter basis the government is doing a good job, but there are those who think that in doing so it is undermining confederation. There is no use in the government talking to this parliament about its achievements in this field until it has completed the job; and its course of action over the past eighteen months has made completion of the job more difficult.

There are, however, some encouraging features even today. I am not discouraged on the whole over the situation. All the provinces are in, agreement in principle on two or three different things. First, they are agreeable to rent their income and corporation taxes to the dominion for a period of five years on terms to be agreed upon. They are agreed that this is a desirable thing to try to do. Second, they are agreed on the principle of fiscal need, which was the main financial principle underlying the Sirois report. I think it is safe to say that there is general agreement on these things. I do not know of any responsible public man who does not accept them in principle; I have not met any such. Third, they are in agreement that there should be a joint dominion-provincial plan- I do not say they have formally agreed, but it was the sense of the meetings that there should be a joint plan-of public investment and social security, a plan wiucn the government has dropped for the time being because it failed to get unanimous approval of its proposals.
It was not on any principle that the conference failed to agree last summer. It adjourned in a bad temper; and here I am not charging anybody with more guilt than anybody else. Bad temper was shown in discussing financial details, amusement taxes, gasoline taxes and electricity taxes. The conference adjourned in a bad temper because the government said in substance, or so it was interpreted, "Take this or leave it". There is criticism of the government for taking that stand as there is criticism of others because they did not accept the modified plans of the government. What have we now? These proposals no doubt were worked out by the government with the advice of the best brains it is possible to obtain in Canada, and I have no doubt the features now abandoned were worked out in cooperation with the best brains in other lands. Proposals of this type designed to maintain high national income and full employment are characteristic of the plans of nearlj' all the modern democratic states, including the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia and the Scandinavian countries; and the language is very much the same. They were the wisest plans they could work out, and they covered three points: the fiscal relationship of the provinces and the dominion; a security programme including old age pensions, health and other things; and a public investment programme designed to be a help in avoiding or lessening the effects of depression.
Those were the three aspects. When the government failed to get unanimous approval

The Address-Mr. Bracken
of its plans, the then minister of finance, acting for the government, brought in a proposal which dealt with only one of these three matters, the fiscal relationship of the dominion and the provinces. It omitted the security proposals and it omitted the public investment proposals. What have we now? The public investment and social security programmes are still in the clouds, and we are left only with the matter of fiscal relationship.
In that connection the government has departed from principle in arriving at what the payments to the provinces should be, and it has resorted to expediency. The proposals now before the provinces of Canada are not based either on the principle of fiscal need or on the basis of equal per capita grants. Some other mixed-up formula, concocted in an attempt to bring about something like equality, is now before the provinces. It is supposed to give equally, but it does not give equality. In a few moments I will show that the province of Quebec is not getting as much per capita out of this thing as any of the other provinces of Canada. When the government departs from the principle of fiscal need, why not keep to some other principle such as per capita equality?
As I pass along, let me say that the proposals before the provinces at the time parliament prorogued provided that the dominion would collect about $200,000,000 from the people of Canada and pay it out to the provinces on a certain basis. That plan was altered; it was altered at first because they could not get the province of British Columbia -into the agreement on the basis proposed-. I notice, Mr. Speaker, that in the documents which were tabled the other day with respect to all these negotiations with the provinces there is only one letter on file concerning the province of British Columbia, and it consists of only five lines. I cannot place my hand upon it at the moment, but it acknowledges receipt, from the then minister of finance some time last summer, of his budget proposals. It contains five lines. That is all we have among those documents to show what has taken place between this government and the government of British Columbia, with which a new agreement has been made, differing from the budget proposals of the Minister of Finance. That is all we have. Perhaps it is all the government has, but that is not what we have been told.
In the matter of this agreement itself what I w'ant, and I am sure all the members of th* house want, is to see the matter completed. We want to see the government make another earnest effort to reach agreement with the
provinces. If the government perseveres to the end in the policy it has followed in the past, that is, to proceed province by province, it will make unanimous agreement more difficult.
I am now handed this copy of the letter, the only one I find on a file which is supposed to comprise all the documents-at least all the correspondence which took place between this government and British Columbia. This letter is dated July 10, and states:
Dear Mr. Ilsley:
I have for acknowledgement your letter of June 27 together with a copy of your budget address enclosed therewith.
Please be -advised that our officials are now making an exhaustive study of your proposals so that I may be prepared at a later date to discuss same with you.
Yours faithfully,
John Hart.
As I was saying, in this matter the government has abandoned the policy of fiscal need or per capita equality and has proceeded to make deals with the provinces in the best way it could, one by one.
I want to be as brief as I can in this matter, and I wish so far as possible to be helpful to hon. members both on this side and on the opposite side of the house. In this I shall not go back beyond last year, 1946.
As I said, in 1946 the government changed the policy which was set out in the budget brought down by the then minister of finance. That was a policy which said something like this:	The provinces may have two choices,
one of $15 a head, and some amplification of it, or 150 per cent of the wartime suspension agreement. If a province takes S15 a head this may be increased as the population grows and national production increases. If it takes 150 per cent of the war-time payment it cannot be increased.
Under those proposals three provinces agreed-Manitoba, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick. No others did accept. Prince Edward Island came in because there had been a special proposal for it that it would get not less than $2,000,000, which was two and a half times, or thereabouts, what it had got before. When the government came to discuss the matter with British Columbia, British Columbia said in effect, You are not giving us as much as we got before. We will not take it.
The budget plan was then altered by the government. The government said to British Columbia: You can have the 150 per cent plan, and also the increase arising from increases in population and gross national
The Address-Mr. Bracken

production. What was the result? The result was that British Columbia- was getting a plan which amounts to about $21 a head and other provinces were getting less.
At present I am not criticizing that decision; I am just pointing it out. What happened to the three provinces which had already signed? Naturally those provinces felt themselves double-crossed. This is what is pointed out by a prominent newspaper, the Winnipeg Free Press, and pointed out even more clearly by one of the premiers who had signed the agreement. I shall refer to both those statements.
I quote first from the Winnipeg Free Press of December 23, 1946, which in my view sets out the picture clearly:
The importance of the British Columbia agreement as explained by Premier Hart last Monday is .that it breaks new ground, goes beyond the terms of the budget . . . What this means is best illustrated by practical application. Suppose the national income rises by 10 per cent. Under the budget offer, British Columbia's subsidy being 150 per cent of past payments, would remain fixed at $18-1 millions, or $20 per capita. But the other provinces which accepted the $15 per capita proposal would receive an additional . tenth or $1.50 per capita. In .that case they would be paid $16.50 per capita and the spread between British Columbia and themselves would be narrowed from $5 to $3.50.
But under Mr. Hart's agreement, the precise opposite will result. The provinces receiving the $15 per capita would still be paid $16.50. British Columbia's $20, however, instead of being fixed as under the budget proposal, would rise also. One-tenth of $20 is $2. The spread, therefore, would be -wider-$16.50 to $22.
That is a spread of $5.50 between the payments this government makes to British Columbia and those it makes to other governments in Canada. The editorial goes on to say:
An arrangement on these terms is clearly unjust to the other provinces which entered into provisional agreements. The balance between the alternatives offered in the budget has been destroyed. The dominion can no longer argue that identical terms are available which each is free to accept or reject at pleasure. It is difficult to see how this decision, since At changes the basis of the negotiations, can fail to strengthen those provinces like Nova Scotia, that are asking for -another conference. By the same token, it would appear that unless some method can be devised whereby the clearly unfair provisions of the British Columbia agreement can be offset, the position of Ottawa has been weakened. The three provinces which dealt with the dominion in good faith on the terms laid down _ in the budget have been placed by Ottawa in an unenviable position.
Three provinces had signed on the basis of the budget plan. Another province already getting very favourable treatment has its agreements made still more favourable. Is 
it any wonder the three other provinces objected? Is it any wonder the Premier of New Brunswick made the sort of protest he did make? To save time I shall quote only part of the telegram he sent the Prime Minister on December 17 last year. This was not brought to the attention of the public until about the end of the first week of January, at a time when the Premier of New Brunswick himself made a statement in connection therewith. Part of the telegram of December 17 sent by the premier of that province to the Prime Minister is as follows:
We are now' compelled to reconsider our position in the light of the dominion's new offer to British Columbia the substance of which was disclosed .to me by Mr. Abbott 5'our present Minister of Finance in Ottawa on Thursday last and details of which appear in today's newspapers.
The Minister of Finance could disclose the details of it to Premier McNair last December. But in this return tabled we get only five lines which tell what John Hart, the premier of British Columbia, knew about it. It continues :
Apart from the special inducements held out to that province including assistance in the reduction of her public debt involving the cancellation by the .dominion of substantial sums owed her on advances made for direct relief and the refunding on a long .term basis of other substantial sums similarly owed with complete cancellation of interest charges thereon the new terms offered British Columbia constitute a radical departure from all former proposals and contemplate still more preferential treatment for that province. They involve a per capita allowance in her ease approximating twenty one dollars against an allowance to New Brunswick of fifteen dollars both subject to be increased alike in accordance with increases in gross national production. This is an entirely different proposition from that enunciated by yourself at the conference and repeated by Mr. Ilsley in his budget speech. Throughout our negotiations it was clearly understood that no such changes would be made with comparable adjustments for other provisions. We have no issue with British Columbia who is entitled to seek the best terms obtainable. We find it impossible however to understand the action of the dominion government in negotiating a deal entirely outside the ambit of the budget proposals without counterbalancing adjustments for other provinces. The present situation is entirely unacceptable to this government. We will therefore treat our negotiations as suspended. When the dominion government sees fit to redefine and publicly restate to the provinces its financial proposals, with assurances to safeguard them against such variable and discriminatory results, we shall consider reopening discussions.
So discussions were reopened. The three provinces came in again. Manitoba, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick expressed approval of the new -proposals. Why would they not? They were sharing in $27 million extra which

The Address-Mr. Bracken
was being collected by the dominion government from the taxpayers of Canada and offered to the nine different provinces. Apparently the situation is this. Three provinces have approved this fiscal arrangement and no doubt Prince Edward Island and British Columbia are agreeable to accepting it. Alberta and Nova Scotia, having been offered approximately twice as much as they got under the wartime suspension agreements, no doubt will accept, with protests about certain things which I intend to refer to a little later but which perhaps I should mention now.
They are not satisfied with respect to the character of this temporary arrangement. They regard it as being very temporary; no doubt the government will say it is temporary, though it is meant to become permanent. They are not satisfied at no further conferences being held. They are not satisfied because there is no provision for continuing these conferences. While it is a five-year agreement they are looking to the time to come when the dominion and provinces can have a relationship that will make a sound foundation for this nation. They do not feel that in its detail this agreement offers that. They feel that the minor taxes should be left to the provinces alone in order to avoid double taxation. The major taxes, such as income tax, corporation tax and succession duties, the dominion desires, but some of the provinces seek to avoid double taxation in the minor taxes and they ask that the provinces have these to themselves.
As far as Ontario and Quebec are concerned I have not seen any report that they have accepted. Somebody said there was some reference in the paper this morning, but I have not seen it. Apparently they want a conference and they too want continuing discussions to try to get this to be a more perfect instrument of constitutional and fiscal reform. They too want these minor taxes left to the provinces. They say to the dominion, "If you take a tax in which we share, a tax which has given as much as SI ,500 million a year, surely you can let the provinces have the minor taxes which give perhaps one-thirtieth of that amount."
As far as I can gather what the provinces are concerned chiefly about is the fact that there will be no fiscal stability later on. I have not heard anyone in any of the provinces express opposition to the amount the provinces were getting in money, but they do fear that this thing is tending in the direction of too great centralization and a too great loss of provincial autonomy.
As I said, there appears to be an agreement in three directions. There is agreement on the
principle of fiscal need. That is a considerable gain from six years ago when I stood here and pleaded for it in another conference being held in this chamber.
Second, there is I think agreement on the so-called renting of personal income and corporation income taxes.
Under our constitution the dominion can go into the direct taxation field, and so can the provinces. The dominion wanted the provinces to stay out of some and they said, "If you stay out we will pay you a rent for staying out." The government called it "rental." Let us not be misled by the term "rent". What it is is just a taxation measure by which the dominion is going to tax the Canadian people and pay the provinces $227 million for the sole right to these taxes. That is what it is.
I say that in order to help make the position clear.
Third, there is agreement on the necessity for a social security and public investment programme. I do not say that every province has agreed to every detail of that, on the extent of it, on the timing of it, but as to the desirability of some programme such as that I have not heard any disagreement.
What do some of the provinces which have not signed want? Some of them want another conference called. Some of them want continuing conferences to try to improve the plan for the time when it will come to an end. Some of them want the dominion to get out of the minor tax fields and they want them to stay out. I think all of them want to feel that they will have fiscal stability when they are through with it. They are afraid, if they are tied to definite amounts, that their obligations later on cannot be met by them. They recall that when confederation was formed the provinces got eighty cents a head for giving up their rights to indirect taxes. That amounted to about $1 million a year, and somebody then said that that was such a huge sum that they could not conceive of the provinces ever needing any more. Now the provinces are spending four hundred times that amount, and some of the provinces feel that a fixed amount will tie them and limit them and cramp them, not today or tomorrow but some time in the future.
Is there any merit in this request for another-conference? I will not use my own argument. I am sure that everyone in this house would like to see unanimity. Certainly I should like to see another attempt made to reach it. I will quote others with respect to the desirability of a further conference and some of these quotations will be from men in whom I am sure hon. gentlemen opposite have every
The Address-Mr. Bracken

confidence. This letter is dated October 16, 1946 and is from Mr. Angus Macdonald, Premier of Nova Scotia. It is addressed to the Prime Minister and reads as follows:
I, therefore, ask that the conference be reconvened and I should like to hope that you and your attending colleagues might find it possible to arrange for ia meeting in, say, a month's time.
He then goes on to say:
Give to the provinces the assurance that it, the dominion government, is agreeable to the holding of a conference of representatives of the dominion and of the provinces at a fixed date every year for the discussion of dominion-provincial relations and problems. Such an arrangement was suggested by this province to the Rowell-Sirois commission in 1938, and was approved and recommended by that commission. The idea was then advanced by us at the dominion-provincial conference which assembled in January of this year. These views correspond with what you, yourself, said in opening a dominion-provincial conference in December, 1935.
Here is what Premier Manning of Alberta had to say with respect to the desirability of a further conference; the letter is dated October 8, 1946 and is addressed to the Prime Minister:
In the light of these circumstances and because of the paramount importance of working out new agreements generally satisfactory to all governments, I am making this personal appeal to you, as head of the government of Canada, -to reconsider the present procedure and to make one more effort to arrive at a mutually acceptable arrangement by a further round table conference of your government and all the provinces.
I will not quote other requests because I do not want to take up the time of the house to refer to them.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Which ones?


John Bracken: I can quote them all if the minister wishes me to.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was wondering who the others were.


William Earl Rowe: You should know.


John Bracken: With respect to the request of the provinces for the dominion to vacate these minor tax fields, I will not state my own views just now. I will call on some of the provincial premiers. I am not suggesting that they all agreed to it. Here is what Premier Manning had to say in a letter to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), dated January 13, 1947.
We do feel, however, that a similar undertaking should be given with respect to those other minor fields of taxation which come in this same category and which, while not of great import to the dominion from a revenue 
standpoint, are of considerable importance to the provinces. Furthermore, by vacating these other minor tax fields the dominion would be taking a proper and practical step in keeping with its own announced desire to eliminate dual taxation.
Premier Macdonald of Nova Scotia has made a similar request and he has persisted in it from the beginning.
What have been the errors of the government in dealing with this matter? Without going into it exhaustively let me mention three or four: first, the rigidity of the government last spring during the April-May conference when they said that the offer of $200 million was as far as they could go. The conference broke up and nothing more was done. I am of the view that if they had done some of the things they have done later the conference might have been saved. They did make more generous offers later on, to one province at a time. I will read one reference in connection with that, namely, what the Premier of Alberta had to say in the closing days of that conference:
Mr. Prime Minister and gentlemen, this is an occasion which obviously calls for plain speaking and a frank expression of our reaction to the address delivered -this morning by the Minister of Finance, Mr. Ilsley's comprehensive address might have well been reduced to one simple word of two letters; no! For that reason his statement conveyed much more than just an unsatisfactory negative answer to the considered opinions expressed around this conference table by the provincial premiers. It conveyed an -attitude of uncompromising rigidity on the part of -the dominion government that -is indefensible -in the light of the circumstances as they are.
So far as the position of -the government of Alberta is concerned, I think I stated om attitude quite clearly yesterday afternoon and I -need -not repeat it -to-day. What I said yesterday afternoon and I need not repeat it to-day. What I said yesterday afternoon holds good to-day. In my opening remarks yesterday afternoon, I made this observation: "The success of this conference and of all that hinges thereon is hanging precariously in tile balance." I need hardly say that that fact is even more obvious to-day and I am forced -to say this after listening .to the reply of -the Minister of Finance to the submissions of the provincial premiers that, -if this conference fails, and I sincerely hope -that even yet it will not Fail- but if this conference fails, -the responsibility for its failure will -rest squarely on -the doorstep of the dominion government and will be due to the -attitude of uncompromising rigidity expressed on behalf of the government by the Minister of Finance this morning.
That is what one of these provinces thought at that time. Apparently he was correct because since then the government has changed its position and made an offer which it now says is to cost it $227 million. The former one would have cost it $200 million.

The Address-Mr. Bracken
As I said, I regard some of the major weaknesses of the government to lie in its rigidity; its unwillingness to get out of the minor tax fields; its one by one dealings with the provinces when propositions are made and fixed by one province which the others did not know about at the time and which we do not yet know about; its disinclination to call another conference and the abandonment of the principle of fiscal need and of equal grants in favour of one of expediency.
What I said in speaking on this matter on the budget speech last year was summed up in four suggestions to the government. I suggested to the government that they repeal the gasoline tax of three cents a gallon. That was not done until they came to deal with the government of Nova Scotia at a time when the political weather was cold in Halifax. Then they suddenly announced that the gasoline tax would be repealed. I advocated also that the electricity tax of eight per cent on consumers' bills be repealed. We have provinces in Canada taxing themselves to pay bonuses to get hydro extended to the rural sections of Ontario and Manitoba, and perhaps other provinces; and this government comes along and puts a tax of eight per cent on the consumers' bills. I said that the dominion should undertake to stay out of these minor fields and let the provinces have them. I suggested that the government should reassemble the conference and try to reach unanimity. That is a request I will urge today in spite of the fact that I know the Prime Minister has taken a position which he may feel he has to maintain.
My next suggestion was that a central dominion-provincial committee or board should be appointed to continue these studies, because I am sure that nobody in the government, certainly nobody outside, thinks that what we are getting today under the present arrangement will be satisfactory for any length of time.
I have said, let the provinces have the minor taxes. The question of succession duties thus arises. I understand that at least one of the provinces does not want to give them up. I make no direct suggestion to the government with respect to this matter except that it give consideration to the request. I understand it is the view of Quebec that the province ought to retain that tax. Most of the smaller provinces are willing to give it up. Because of their different culture, different tradition and their appreciation of property rights and their interests in the way properties are handed down from father to son. Quebec feels that it is important to keep that tax. The 'tax does not bring a large return to Canada; it is a tax which will probably get smaller with the development of social security measures and high taxes. I suggest that the government give consideration to that, together with getting out of the other minor tax fields, and I hope that these things will help to secure unanimity in the matter.
It is sometimes said to those of us who sit in opposition: What would you do? It is not the responsibility of the opposition to tell the government what it should do. But with regard to this question, because it is so important, I do not mind making some suggestions. I suggest, with all respect, that the government reconsider its position and even yet gel all these provinces together, and lay all the details on the table. Tell the provinces that you will not expect them to take any less than they have been offered. See if you cannot offer them the minor fields of taxation. Give consideration to this one particular field of succession duties. Call a conference. Reexamine this succession duty matter again, because if you try to force a decision like that in places where it is not wanted, you may sometimes do more harm than good. Plan to sit down with the provinces and build something better than we now have, for the foundation of this country in the future. In four or five years this arrangement will come to an end and you will want to build something better if something better can be built. Determine to solve this problem on the basis of right and equity. Mr. Speaker, I may say to the government that they will have the help of every man in this party in trying to do that, and I think they will have the help of nearly everybody in Canada. Try to see that every province has fiscal stability, not only now but in the future. Not only that, but let us get agreement so that you can get ahead with the plans with which you want to get ahead. You brought them forward as great plans. You said, "For the fiscal need we will give the provinces S200,000,000 a year." Yrou said, "We have a number of social security plans and public investment plans, and altogether they will cost this dominion 8600,000,000 and will cost the provinces 8200,000,000." It was said these plans would help us to meet a possible depression, and that is one of the major problems facing us today. So let us determine to solve this problem. Let us settle the fiscal question on a basis of equity, a basis of fairness, and let us try to get ahead with these other social security and public investment plans.
The Address-Mr. Bracken

I have just one other point that I wish to make in connection with this matter. What is the situation today? Letters have gone out to the provinces saying the government will use $27,000,000 more and spread it around among the provinces, on a certain basis, making $227,000,000 in all, if they will all get out of three tax fields. If they will not all get out of those fields, the government says it cannot go ahead on these other social security and investment plans. Suppose you do not get unanimous agreement, what then? Are you going to forget about these social security and public investment plans, facing the kind of future we may face in the next two, three, four or five years? This government does not want to face a condition like that, unprepared. That is why, with all respect, I urge on the government the necessity of reconsidering its views. Try to get unanimity now. The thing you have now offered is not equitable. The present Minister of Finance, after he made this deal with British Columbia on a more generous basis than with any other province, and after the protest of the Premier of New Brunswick, came along and said, "We are going to try to get something that will give greater equity or a greater measure of equity," or words to that effect. There is one way in which he could have done that and that is by saying, "We will give as much per capita to each province in Canada as we give to British Columbia". That would have been equity. But that would have cost this country in taxes $270,000,000 or thereabouts. So his men hunted around and tried to arrive at a formula; they called it a formula. They concocted an arrangement of a per capita grant, plus a part of the statutory subsidies.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The whole of the statutory subsidies.


John Bracken: I stand corrected. The whole of the statutory subsidies.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Fifty per cent of the personal and corporation taxes collected in 1940.


John Bracken: Yes. A combination of those three. But when you put those things together, they do not give us equity, and that is the point I wish to refer to now. I have had prepared a statement of what this new policy, if it came into effect with all the provinces, would give the provinces per capita this year. In getting at these figures, I asked, as a matter of information, what the per capita payment by the dominion was under the wartime tax suspension agreements. Those agreements were made one by one early in 
the war on the basis of substantially what the provinces were getting from those taxes, but they worked out unfairly. One province, Nova Scotia, got less than $5 a head. Another province, British Columbia, got $13.85 a head. Why? Because the taxes that were taken over had not been raising more than was given. I am only pointing out that it was not equitable in war time, and that is borne out by the government's present plans to try to get- something more nearly equitable.
How do these present plans work out? For 1947, worked out on the basis of these new proposals, the total amounts divided by the population, what does the statement show? It shows an average per capita grant of S18.46 for all Canada. What does it show as to each province? The province getting the least is Quebec, which gets $17.29 a head, S4 a head less than British Columbia. I should like to ask the Prime Minister and the government if they want to take the position that each man in Quebec is worth $4 a head less than one in British Columbia or more than a dollar a head less than the average other Canadian.
What are the figures? Here they are, if anybody wants to take them down. Prince Edward Island gets the most, $24.31. Nobody criticizes that very much because it is a small province. Nova Scotia gets $19.20; New Brunswick $19.69; Quebec, $17.29; Ontario, $18.04, giving Ontario more per capita than Quebec; Manitoba, $19.77, $2.50 a head more than the province of Quebec. Note the inequities under this plan that is supposed to give us equity; Saskatchewan, $19.03; Alberta, $18.64, and British Columbia, $21.19. With these figures facing us, showing that even this plan does not work out equitably, and with the fact staring us in the face that if we do not get unanimity, the government itself has said that it cannot go ahead with its social security and public investment policies, are we not then stymied?
What is the consequence? Either we are stymied, do nothing, and run the risk of not being able to meet a possible depression, or are we to have an election? I hope the Prime Minister will not make that an issue in an election. This is a matter we should be able to settle around the council table. This government is sending delegations to eight or ten or a dozen international organizations trying to settle international disputes, yet it is denying the provinces the right to come here and sit in on a question like this. Recently the government made representations to the Big Four that we should have an opportunity to

The Address-Mr. Bracken
sit in with them in drawing up the peace terms in connection with Germany. If we expect the Big Four to let us sit in with them in international matters, why should we not sit in again with the provinces to settle a domestic matter?
I saidi I hoped the Prime Minister would not make this an election issue. Personally I would not mind if he did; but in all courtesy I want	to	say	to him	that	he	will	not findhimself	on	the	side of	this	proposal	and theothers against it. For ten years I have lived with this thing. Ten years ago I set out to try to get	a	square deal	for	the	provinces inconfederation. Five or six years ago I formed a coalition government in the province of Manitoba, and one of the four main issues upon which we were all united was that we would	try	to	get a	square	deal	for the
provinces. When I accepted the leadership of this party that was one of the few things I required of it-that we undertake to try to get a square deal for the smaller provinces in confederation.
My attitude in this matter will not be unacceptable to the so-called "have-not" provinces of Canada. I do not believe it would be unacceptable to the province of Ontario. I rather gather that it is quite as acceptable as far as the province of Quebec is concerned as the government's policy, if not more so. What is it? Let us determine to solve this problem. Let us give the provinces the minor fields of taxation; let us not ask them to take any less than they have been offered. Let us reexamine the position with respect to succession duties. Let us set out to solve this problem by maintaining the maximum degree of provincial autonomy with the minimum of centralization in Canada. Here you come to a question of principle between fiscal need and centralization. These provinces can only be helped by the dominion taking increased taxes and giving more money to the provinces. To a degree that is centralization, but let us do that to the least extent necessary. Beyond that let us try to see that the provinces are kept strong in confederation, because that will give us the strongest Canada.
In the speech from the throne the government refers to the question of social security. An analysis of the various speeches from the throne during recent years-and I have gone back only four years-demonstrates that they are high in literary content but low in actual performance. In the speech from the throne this year, for example, we find this paragraph:
Once suitable financial relationships have been arrived at with the provinces-
That is what we have been talking about, and that has been interpreted1 to mean that all the provinces must be in agreement.
-my ministers have undertaken to seek, in a general conference or otherwise, to work out satisfactory arrangements with the provinces in regard to public investment and social security measures.
"My ministers have undertaken to seek". What consolation that will bring to those who are pensioners and those now in need of social assistance 1 After almost twenty years of power the Liberal ministers have graciously "undertaken to seek". Is this "the beacon light shining on the hills" for which the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) pleads? Or is the Prime Minister obeying the scriptural injunction to "seek and ye shall find"? Perhaps the Prime Minister hopes to rediscover the famous chart and compass so long buried under the shifting sands of expediency. Back in the days of that famous chart and compass the Prime Minister did not "undertake to seek." He was then determined to press on. Here is what he had to say in the speech from the throne delivered on January 28, 1943. I have only gone back four years, but I suppose it would be the same if I had gone back further:
My ministers believe that a comprehensive national scheme of social insurance should be worked out at once which will constitute a charter of social security for the whole of Canada.
Note that this was to be worked out at once. Four years and two days later all the Prime Minister promises is to undertake to seek. The right hon. gentleman returned to the subject in the speech from the throne on January 27, 1944, where I find this:
In the opinion of my ministers plans for the establishment of a national minimum of social security and human welfare should be advanced as rapidly as possible.
The Prime Minister weakened in his determination between 1943 and 1944. In 1943 it was to be worked out at once; in 1944 it was to be worked out as rapidly as possible. Then in the speech from the throne on September 6, 1945, this statement was made:
Plans for the establishment of a national minimum of social security and human welfare are being advanced as rapidly as possible.
Now, in this year of grace, 1947, the government has got around to the position where it undertakes to seek. It is evident that this government has no faith in any plan to advance social security and human welfare in the near future, but on the contrary is shifting from one expedient to another, hoping
The Address-Mr. Bracken

at least to continue to bamboozle the public until something happens; until we get unanimity. In the meantime nothing is done to reach unanimity.
Now I come to the question of redistribution. As anticipated, the speech from the throne forecasts the introduction of a measure to provide for the readjustment of representation in the House of Commons. It does not indicate, however, what method will be adopted to effect this redistribution, and I should like the Prime Minister to give this information to the house when he speaks. Hon. members may or may not remember that the redistribution effected in-many will not remember these early years-1903, 1914, 1924 and 1933 was the result of the work of special committees of this house. The Prime Minister will recall that in the debate on redistribution in 1933 he strongly advocated that the task should be taken out of the hands of the House of Commons. As reported at page 5425 of Hansard for that year he said:
My own view ... is that redistribution should be taken out of the hands of the House of Commons, where the parties a-re immediately interested, and should be put into the hands of a commission of judges. I would have that commission composed of judges selected in equal numbers by both sides of the house.
I imagine the fact that the present Prime Minister, and not another party, now commands a majority in this house, has led him to change his mind. There are only two comments I wish to make. I hope the bill will be presented and the committee established, if such is to be the technique followed, with the least possible delay. Hon. members will not wish to have this measure rushed through by the government majority in the dying days of the session. In the next place, the opposition believes that the guiding principle must be the assurance of just and equitable representation, not partisan advantage. We sincerely hope there may be general agreement on the boundaries of all constituencies. I serve notice now that we will fight to the limit any attempted manipulation of seats designed to give an advantage to the party in power. The people of Canada will not take kindly to any gerrymandering which would deny them the effective voice in government to which they are entitled.
The Minister of Finance has promised us a pleasant surprise. I am sure it will be a surprise if there is much in the way of reduced taxation. Something has been said as to the advisability of postponing tax reductions. I believe it would be a good thing to introduce in this country the practice followed in the United States, under which the President

tables the budget when congress meets. I have no expectation that this will be done, but the government should know now what it proposes to spend and how it is to raise the revenue. It is my considered view that at least we should have the budget when the estimates are tabled, and before they are passed upon. We have gotten into the habit of bringing into the house estimates prepared by the various departments and passed upon by the ministers, and asking hon. members to vote upon how much they want to spend before they have any idea of how it is proposed to raise the money or how the revenues are coming in. This is not good business procedure; it is one of the things we ought to try to remedy. Once having voted for these expenditures-and it is easy to agree with them when we do not see the taxes which must be levied to raise the moneys for them-then the government has the responsibility of proceeding with measures to raise the taxes. Those who are asking for expenditures must, in fairness, support the proposals. We should have these two factors together-proposed expenditures and proposed taxes.
A twenty per cent cut in taxes is prophesied in the United States. Presumably for some months we shall not know what the tax cut will be in this country. The difference in income tax rates between the United States and Canada must be a matter of constant concern. Many of our young men are leaving Canada for the United States, and this is one of the causes. Our taxes in this country on those in the middle income brackets are higher than they are in the United States despite the fact that wages in that country are higher than in Canada. That is one of the inequalities arising from, the way we in this parliament have managed our business and taxed1 our people.
There is a great middle class of white-collar workers who are pretty well tied to their relatively low middle-class salaries. They have not had much in the way of increases during the war and yet they have had piled upon them increased taxes and increases in costs of what they have had to buy. Now when some of them find an opportunity of getting away the result is that many of our best young men are going to the United States. We are losing many of our best young people, and we are continuing to lose them. Our immigration in the past has been balanced by our emigration.
The key to sound fiscal policy is the elimination of extravagance, and the undertaking only of necessary and useful projects, such as are proposed in the public investment policy.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
We must, of course, have vision and courage to develop our resources. For many years one hon. member on this side of the house, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Mac-Nicol), has been preaching that, and I am sure all must agree with him. Again, we must have vision and courage to improve our transcontinental railways and to develop our canals, harbours and ports. My attitude with respect to spending is dictated largely by one consideration. I believe in wise spending on useful projects when that is advisable and in cutting out all unnecessary extravagance and waste.
The public accounts committee should be set up at once. It has not been doing its duty in recent years, and just criticism is made against hon. members that they have not had it meet. The disposal of war assets should be further investigated, as well as surplus war materials which have not yet been turned over to War Assets Corporation.
We must not deceive ourselves by our present inflated income. Our foreign trade which, the minister says, is at an all-time high, is wholly artificial, partly because we are selling largely on credit while we are buying for cash.
I have tried te reveal something of the record of the government since parliament last met, as I have seen that record from the outside. It is a record of expediency triumphing over principle, of disorder and mismanagement substituted for progress, of political manoeuvring replacing true statescraft. In three by-elections the government experienced the wrath of the electorate. The strictures of the press and public against the government mount in volume daily. The government has forfeited the confidence of the people of Canada, as expressed at the polls.
Taxation remains at almost war-time peaks. Waste, extravagance and inefficiency abound. Disorder is the order of the day. Decontrol is being clumsily handled. A partial system of controls is still limiting production and increasing the hardships experienced by our people. Agriculture has been badgered to the point of desperation. Labour has lost confidence in the government's integrity of purpose. The old principle of the Prime Minister-"Divide and conquer"-has been exploited to the limit in dominion-provincial relations.
In these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon):
That the following be added to the motion: "We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that Your Excellency's present advisers do not possess the confidence of the country."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, it is now 5.45 p.m., but I believe it is the desire of the house that the debate should proceed as rapidly as possible, and for that reason I shall continue to speak until six o'clock, though I should have preferred to have the opportunity of addressing my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) earlier in the afternoon. I do not forget that the hon. gentleman began his speech on Friday last, and that what we have had this afternoon has been a continuation of w'hat we heard at that time.
At the conclusion of his speech today my hon. friend moved an amendment, which I shall repeat to the house-
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that Your Excellency's present advisers do not possess the confidence of the country.
May I thank my hon. friend for that amendment. If that is the feeling of the house, then it cannot be made known too quickly. And I say to the house that, at the present time, there is nothing I desire more than that, at the earliest possible moment this house should express its feeling of confidence or nonconfidence in the government. If there is any doubt on that point let it be removed at once. Either the government will carry on with the confidence of the house, which I believe it has, or, if it has not the confidence of the house, then the country should have an opportunity to say who is to govern the country for the next few years.
This afternoon my hon. friend seemed to have on his mind questions of elections and leadership. He made some reference to the possibility of the present leader of the government dropping out. I say to him that, during the time I have sat in the house as leader of the Liberal party, I have been faced by no less than ten leaders of the party opposite. And may I say further that, after the speech to which we have listened this afternoon, I should not be surprised if it were not long before another leader takes his place. I have heard nothing to cause me to believe that my hon. friend is any too secure in the seat he holds at the present time, far from it.
If my hon. friend had been sitting where I sat this afternoon, and had been able to gaze at the faces of his followers, and to note the expressions on those faces as they were trying to make out what he was saying, where he was going, or what he was driving at, perhaps he would share some of the feeling I have heard rumoured from time to time respecting uncertainty in the leadership of the party opposite.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Earl Rowe: Evidently it had some effect, anyway.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but it was a very poor effect; and no one felt that more keenly than the hon. member who has just interrupted.
May I now come to something which may be more pleasing to the leader of the opposition, and join with him in the wishes he has extended to the new members who have entered the house. May I join cordially in extending a welcome to them. I wish that all had come to this side of the house, but that is part of the uncertainty of politics.
In that connection my hon. friend has referred to some of the by-elections held recently. I do not see how he can derive much comfort from the support given his party. I hold in my hand figures with respect to the by-elections which have been held since we last met here. The first of these was in Pontiac. In that by-election the candidate for the Liberal party received 10,379 votes, while the candidate of my hon. friend and his party received only 7,487. That does not give my hon. friend much to crow about.


John Bracken: Who lost the seat?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: You did not get it.


William Earl Rowe: Who lost it? You lost it.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Give the figures for
1945.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then I come to the next one. We have heard a good deal about Portage la Prairie. It is true that the candidate for the Liberal party received only 4,137 votes, while the candidate of the Progressive Conservative party received 4,805. That was not a very great difference in a constituency which, in the last parliament and in this one was represented by a gentleman who, to a great extent, was independent in his attitude, and who had succeeded the former leader of the Conservative party who had held the seat for something like thirteen years.
Hon. members opposite have been speaking about Portage la Prairie as a Liberal seat. That is giving little credit to their leader of some years ago who held it for the time I have mentioned.


John Bracken: You called him a Liberal candidate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the Parkdale by-election it is true the Liberals received 7,659 and the Progressive Conservative 8,212, but the Parkdale seat has been Conservative for as long as I can remember. Comparing what happened at this last by-election with

what happened in previous elections it becomes quite clear that in Toronto and its environs my hon. friend and his friends are losing their former support while the Liberal party is coming up and up.
Let us come to the next seat, Richelieu-Vercheres. There the Liberal party candidate polled 11,984 votes. What did my hon. friend and his friends receive? The Progressive Conservative candidate polled 1,875 votes. That shows where the province of Quebec is getting to under the leadership of my hon. friend. There is quite a difference there between 11,984 and 1,875.
Let us take the totals for the four byelections which should be the test as to whether hon. gentlemen opposite are gaining fresh strength and whether the Liberal party is losing any of its strength. The totals show that in those four by-elections the Liberals received 34,159 votes while the Progressive Conservatives received 22,379. If my hon. friend gets much comfort out of that, I am sure he is welcome to it.
_ Take it in percentages. The percentages indicate that the Liberals received 39-27 per cent or nearly 40 per cent of the votes cast in those four by-elections, whereas my Conservative friends opposite received 25-73 per cent. In other words, the Liberals received 34,159 out of the total vote of 86,982-1 am taking in the votes polled for all parties- which is a little over 39 per cent of the total vote cast. When you compare that with the Liberal standing in the general election I think it will be seen that the Liberals have held their own in public confidence notwithstanding the misfortune that two seats have gone to the other side which I wish and which I think should have come to this side of the house.
Here I wish to say a word to my friends on this side and I want them to take it to heart. I want them to take a leaf out of the books of hon. gentlemen of different parties opposite and consider their own organization.
If we had had the organization we should have had in those constituencies I venture to say that all four members would have come in on the Liberal side. I do not think I am far wrong in that.
While I am dealing in pleasantries, may I say a word of thanks to all the leaders opposite for having joined with me the other day in seeking to work out a procedure whereby the business of the house might be expedited. I have referred already to that, and I wish to repeat that, so far as this session is concerned, every effort will be made by the administration to cooperate with hon. gentlemen opposite. We hope that their

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
leaders will cooperate with us and that their followers will cooperate with their leaders. I am told that it is difficult to make arrangements because the leaders cannot speak for those who sit behind them. We have of course to leave all hon. members due freedom.
I hope, however, that hon. members will find it possible among themselves to determine who are to take part in the discussions so that we may get on as rapidly as possible.
Speaking on the pleasant side still, I wish to express a word of congratulation to the hon. members on both sides of the house who have represented Canada at the different conferences that have been held during the last half year, or in fact throughout the past year. I refer now particularly to the delegation to the United Nations Assembly, both in London and in New York. As hon. members well know, the delegations were selected from members of the government and the opposition, as well as from members from both houses. It was an experiment. It was something being tried in Canada I think almost for the first time, with the exception of the delegation to the United Nations Organization meeting at San Francisco. But it is an experiment that so far has been with credit to all of those who participated in the delegations.
It is only right I should say at once that so far as Canada is concerned, I am sure that this country has appreciated the manner in which the several representatives worked together and in one voice expressed Canada's foreign policy at those conferences.
I should like to say a further word before six o'clock in regard to the one voice which it seems desirable our country should aim at in all that relates to its external affairs. I have not had a chance until today to express appreciation of the statement presented by my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) with respect to Canada's participation in the settlement of peace with Germany. I want to say at once that it was heartening indeed to see the leaders of the different political parties rise in turn and to hear them express with unanimity their agreement with the principles underlying and features of that particular statement.
What has been equally satisfactory or possibly even more satisfactory is that throughout Canada frpm one end of this country to the other the statement has been endorsed by men and women of all political parties. I believe it expresses the unanimous feelings of the people of Canada with respect to what
are the rights of our country to be represented in an effective way in all matters that relate to the settlement of peace with Germany.
In the last war our country made an all-out war effort. It was not a conditional effort; it was not a part effort; it was an all-out effort in every direction. In what was contributed by Canada's armed forces, by the army, navy and air force; in what was contributed in the way of munitions; in what was contributed in the way of food; in what was contributed in the way of money; in what has been given in mutual aid; in what has since been advanced in the way of credits, and in contributions of food, clothing and shelter for destitute people; in every direction the people of Canada have put forth an utmost effort to make the largest, possible contribution that our country could make to help to further the freedom of the world.
That effort was what it was for two reasons. First, we were anxious to bring the war to a conclusion as speedily as possible. We felt that the greater our effort was, the more rapidly would the war come to an end, and that the number of lives lost would be diminished accordingly. The other reason was, and here I can speak with very full authority, that we might have an effective voice in the making of the peace.
I'say that I can speak with authority. As hon. members well know, during the period of the war one question that was continually arising in cabinet and which had to be settled was: How far are we going to go in this direction, or how far are we going in that direction? I say today that, I think, on every occasion the cabinet went as far as they believed it was possible for Canada to go and sustain the efforts which she was undertaking.
That was the contribution that Canada made toward defeating the enemy which was seeking to dominate the world. We were fighting to prevent two countries from dominating the world, and we do not now wish to see any one, two, three or four countries dominate the peace. We know that some countries have larger problems to face than others. We know that the Big Four have interests to consider beyond any of those which other countries have to consider. We know also that the countries immediately surrounding Germany have problems which to them are of very special concern. But we know also that the whole purpose of the peace settlement is to help make peace permanent in the world. And we know that Canada, in what she has done in international negotiations up to the present, is in position

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
to render great service to all the nations in working out a solution that is going to be for the good of mankind.
Let it be remembered that we are not seeking anything that is going to cost anybody anything except ourselves. All that we are seeking is to afford what help we can. We want nothing out of any peace settlement. We are not going into any peace settlement to see what we can get out of it for Canada. We are going into it to see what we can get out of it for the world by way of maintaining peace for generations to come.
So let me say that I hope that any powers that have to consider to what extent other countries that were in the war are going to have an effective voice in the making of the peace will, to begin with, consider very carefully the justice of the situation and further what possible consequences there will be in the future if all that has been contributed by other nations is not recognized as fully as it should be. I fear greatly the drying up of the springs of chivalry and of generosity in many nations if the great powers in the world today are not prepared to recognize what has been done from these sources by the other nations of the world in helping to save the freedom of the world. I believe they will, because I believe that the statement that has gone out from this country expressive of Canadian opinion has already made an impression upon the nations of the world. It has brought out the truth that cannot be emphasized too strongly, that peace is one and indivisible and that no nation liveth unto itself alone, no people unto themselves alone, and that all of us must work together if we are to be able to effect that unity among nations which is the one great aim of all peace settlements. What must be aimed at in the peace settlement with Germany is not merely a settlement of the situation so far as Germany itself is concerned, but the future cooperation of the nations of the world for the well-being of mankind.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I should like this evening first of all to congratulate, and to do so very warmly, the mover and the seconder of the address to His Excellency in reply to the speech from the throne. If there is one thing above another

which has given heart to a good many of us who have been in this house for a number of years, it is to see the calibre of the younger men who are coming in to assume the duties of those who in the course of time will be passing off the political stage. I believe that, after the last general election, the composition of the house was greatly enriched by the quality of the younger members who came in, and if an example were desired of what the house has gained as a result of recent additions to its membership, I do not believe that we could have a better example than was afforded by the speeches of the mover and the seconder of the address on Friday last.
It was a particular pleasure to me to see the address moved by one who represents a constituency which I had the honour of representing twenty-eight years ago. I do not know how pleasant the reflection is that the years are passing so rapidly by, but I should like my hon. friend the member for Prince (Mr. MacNaught) to say to his constituents when he returns that I have never forgotten that it was by the door of Prince constituency that I was permitted to reenter this House of Commons after becoming leader of the Liberal party; nor have I forgotten that that courtesy was extended by the members of all political parties in the constituency at that time; there were only two political parties in those days. There happened to be a vacancy in Prince constituency at the time that I was chosen leader of the Liberal party and after the convention the premier of the day, Mr. Bell, suggested to me that it might be well not to accept an invitation from any constituency until he had an opportunity to return to the Island. He did return to the Island, and I had the pleasure of being returned to parliament shortly after.
May I say to my hon. friend the member for Prince that he brings to this house not only exceptional gifts in the way of parliamentary eloquence, but a great deal in the way of knowledge of and experience in parliamentary practice. It may not be known to all hon. members, but the fact is that the hon. member for Prince was for a number of years law clerk in the legislative assembly and also for some years clerk of the legislative assembly of Prince Edward Island. An experience of that kind, extending over ten years, in addition to the fine legal training which the hon. member has had does mean a very distinct acquisition of the kind of qualities that are most useful to one who fills the position of a member of this house. I congratulate him most warmly upon his address and wish him ever increasing success as he sits on the benches of this House of Commons.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
May I say to my young friend the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cournoyer) that he. has had the privilege of listening to members on all sides of the house expressing in unrestrained terms their admiration for the qualities of the distinguished member of parliament who had held the seat which he now occupies, and held it for something over thirty-five years. I regard it unquestionably as a great compliment to the hon. gentleman himself that the constituents of Richelieu-Vercheres should have selected him as their candidate to succeed the late Hon. Arthur Cardin, and I think it is an exceptional compliment to him that when he presented himself for election he was returned by the magnificent majority which he gained in the by-election.
It really was not a surprise to some of us that, the hon. member acquitted himself in the admirable manner in which he did, because we had heard before of the success which he had achieved in oratorical contests, not only in different parts of our country but in the United States as well, and we were prepared for someone who would do full justice to the occasion. All present, I believe, will admit that my hon. friend acquitted himself with great credit to himself and to the constituency he now represents. To him also I extend my warmest and best wishes for his future in this house, which I predict will be a remarkably successful one.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) began the serious portion of his remarks by taking rather strong exception to the speech from the throne itself. I do not know what my hon. friend expects in a speech from the throne. I certainly did not expect any compliments from him in reference to it, but I do think he mistakes altogether the purport of the speech from the throne if, as he indicated the other day, he feels that the speech ought to contain not only an enumeration of the measures that are to be brought before parliament, but details as well.
That is not the purpose of a speech from the throne. The speech from the throne is a formal means of beginning the proceedings of parliament in both houses, and it purports to set forth in general terms the nature of the business that parliament will be expected to carry out, and also to give to members generally some appreciation of the magnitude of the task which lies before them for the session. Where measures are of exceptional importance one expects them to be mentioned, but not more than mentioned, and no speech from the throne in Canada that I have ever heard of- I should say, except one which told the house
that there would be an immediate dissolution -ever purported to set forth the whole programme in precise terms.
May I say a word about the present speech from the throne so that hon. members may, for themselves, decide whether it measures up to what should be anticipated by this House of Commons in placing before its members the nature and extent of the business of the session. After His Excellency makes personal reference to his own pleasure at meeting the members, the speech. begins by referring to world conditions and international affairs. Here I wish to call the attention of the house to something that may not have occurred to hon. members. In speeches from the throne that I have listened to in this house in years gone by, and until, in fact, the last eight or nine years, any reference at all to international affairs was the last thing instead of the first mentioned in the speech from the throne. It came in as a sort of incidental reminder that the country was beginning to have some touch with outside affairs, and a single reference to an imperial conference or some meeting in another country was about all that was set forth touching upon international affaire. I contend that this speech is a reminder, and a very strong reminder, to hon. members of this house that times have changed and that the great problems which our parliaments are called upon to consider today are not so much mere domestic day to day affairs as they are these great international questions which have a bearing upon the future peace and prosperity of the world.
As I said this afternoon, a new principle is beginning to make itself felt in the minds of men in all countries. It is that peace and prosperity are indivisible and that no nation can enjoy peace if other nations are at war, nor can any nation be prosperous for long if others are not. I submit, therefore, that the problems which this House of Commons will have to consider at this session to a greater extent than ever before, will be those problems which relate to international affairs. Bringing that fact significantly before the House of Commons at the opening of the session is, I think, one deserving of special mention in any reference to the speech from the throne.
The next main division is one which has to do, specifically, with the important work being carried on by the United Nations and its several organizations. Here again is a new feature. Until the charter of the United Nations was approved, we had had prior to the war very little reference to international affairs beyond something related to treaties and the occasional reference to some meeting of

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
the league of nations. But the league of nations was a remote institution compared to the United Nations organization as it is today; I mean remote from Canada in the location of its headquarters, and remote in the magnitude of the questions that were to be considered by that organization. What I think this house needs to observe at once, because it has its bearing on the time we may be able to give to the different questions that come up, is the importance and the number of the questions that relate to the work of the United Nations.
I asked the other day if I could have a statement of the number of international conferences at which Canada was represented in 1939, and I was told by the Department of External Affairs that there were seventeen in all to which this country in 1939 sent its representatives in the persons of ministers of the crown, members of parliament or leading officials. Then I asked how many there were last year, and I found out that there were no less than ninety-eight conferences and at a very large percentage of those there were representatives of the ministry', representatives from both sides of the house and a large number of officials. As an example in particular, I believe that no less than one hundred and twenty-eight officials from the Department of External Affairs alone were engaged in attending international gatherings of one kind or another during some part of the year 1946. This is a new situation altogether that this house is being called upon to consider and to which it will have to give a great deal of its time and attention. I believe here again is a point deserving of mention namely that the speech from the throne should have made that new development apparent to hon. members at the beginning of a session likely to occupy the time this session may occupy.
Just in passing, speaking of these international organizations and their work, I feel that I should like to join with some hon. gentlemen opposite who have been kind enough to refer to the leadership given Canada's delegation to the United Nations Assembly by my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent). All of us have reason to be proud indeed that my right hon. friend led the delegation, and that both through his own wholly apparent exceptional abilities, and as the representative of Canada, which holds the place in the world which our country does today, he was able to exert at that conference, along with those who were associated with him, an influence
rMr. Mackenzie Kins'. 1
which I believe was proportionately as great as that exercised by any country that was represented at the United Nations.
there are two other of my colleagues of whom I should like to speak as well, just in a word. One is the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). After I left Paris, he took on the leadership of the delegation which attended the Paris peace conference. I think hon. members who had the opportunity of conferring with delegates from other countries would say that the Canadian delegation at Paris under the leadership of my hon. friend contributed as much in the way of helpful suggestion and counsel as any delegation which was present, outside of the representatives of the Big Four themselves.
I should like to say a word of appreciation of the contribution made by the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) at the economic and social council. He, too, has shown that Canada has a real contribution to make to these organizations which are seeking to serve the well-being of mankind.
I shall not now, Mr. Speaker, take up more time in referring to that phase of the speech, but shall go on to the next which relates to conditions in our own country and which significantly draws attention to the period of transition through which we are passing at the present time and also to the present situation in Canada.
May I say that I have alwas's felt about a speech from the throne that it should have a certain historic significance and setting; and in so far as it has been my privilege to advise various governors general with respect to the wording of the speech from the throne or what it should contain, I have sought to have it give a picture which would be a true reflection of the main conditions with which the country was faced at the time parliament was meeting. Some source must be looked to in years to come in tracing the progress of parliament and the class of questions which it had had to consider. I think it will be found to be a real advantage in future years that speeches from the throne in Canada, for example, do indicate the situation as it was prior to the war, the problems that were to the fore during the period of the war, what there was that was of great concern in the period of transition, as well as set forth those questions which are of more exclusive domestic interest and concern. Those aspects have not been lost sight of in the present speech.
Glancing at the subjects mentioned in the speech I come next to the question of controls and the manner in which this parliament will

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
be expected to examine such powers as have been given to the government for meeting emergent needs. I shall have a word to say on that a little later on.
Another feature of the speech to which considerable attention is given is that which relates to the tax agreements with the provinces. There again is a large subject which has attracted much attention during the last few years and which at the present time is more pressing for immediate solution than ever. It is well, I think, that the House of Commons should have its attention directed at the earliest moment to what the position is in regard to these questions which affect so intimately the relations of the provinces and the dominion and be prepared to discuss them, as I anticipate we shall, at considerable length during the session.
There is mention of redistribution, of the Dominion Elections Act and of old age pensions. These are important measures which the house will wish to know' of at once, and they are therefore given specific reference in the speech from the throne. There is reference in an earlier paragraph to the other classes of legislation which the house is being asked to consider. But w'hat I wish to say is this, that v'hen my hon. friend refers to the speech as so much in the way of vaporizings, so much in the way of verbiage and the like, he does credit neither to himself nor to the institution of parliament and its proceedings in using that kind of language. Were I to characterize the earl.y part of my hon. friend's speech in words that I felt would be fitting, I would say that to me he resembled nothing quite so much as a political pedlar with a pack into which he had scraped together with a fine tooth comb all the petty criticisms and smallnesses that the Tory literature of the past few years has been able to put out. That was a strange performance from the leader of a once great political party, who takes upon himself to move that the government of the day does not enjoy the confidence of parliament, and thereby represents that he himself is the one who should succeed to the leadership of the government of the country. My hon. friend has a good deal still to learn before he can expect any change of government that will place him in a higher seat than he enjoys today.
Now may I come to some of the questions that have been referred to more especially by my hon. friend. I do not know that I can do better than follow the sequence of these matters as they are set out in the speech. First of all I shall take up the question of controls. I confess that I was rather surprised at one quite striking omission-it was not the only one; I am going to refer to another one or two in a moment-from my hon. friend's deliverance this afternoon. He said very little about controls, about the desirability of having all controls removed, and very little about the supremacy of parliament in the matter of controls. I wonder w'hy. I suppose my hon. friend felt that he was getting a little too near home; that parliament was here at the present time, and that from now on everything to be done in the way of controls will be done by this parliament, because the speech from the throne makes it very clear that such controls as the government continues to exercise will expire on March 31. After that date the government will possess no special emergency powers except those given by this House of Commons and agreed to by the Senate and His Excellency the Governor General. We have heard enough about the government usurping the powers of parliament. After all, the power to exercise such controls as the government has exercised from the beginning has been given to it by this parliament. There have been large numbers of orders in council passed in order to carry on great purposes such as were essential during a time of war and to meet conditions as they arose out of the war, but those orders in council were authorized by legislation approved by this parliament. It was under the authority of parliament that the government enacted these orders in council. Yet when hon. gentlemen are abroad in different parts of the land where their audiences are not quite as familiar with the facts as members of parliament are, especially when assembled together, they talk about the supremacy of parliament being destroyed; about the country being governed by orders in council; about getting rid of all controls, as if they were some kind of a curse. Well, may I say, and I think the speech from the throne is very clear on the point, that the only purpose this government has in asking this House of Commons for any authority to control commodities, prices or the like is that we may escape evils of a kind which are still fresh in the minds of people such as occurred after the last war. and also that we should be in a position to see that a more even distribution of commodities and services takes place in our own country, to serve the needs of the people in every part of the country.
My hon. friends say-they have not said it here as yet, but they are saying it in the country-that we should get rid of all controls as fast as we can. I will not take up

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
the time of the house tonight, but some time later on I may give a list showing the rapidity with which controls have been taken off, and which ones have been taken off, in a sensible and wise way, one at a time, each related to the other, so that in this country we have escaped what has been the bane of people, particularly poor people, in other countries where that method has not been followed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the price of jnilk?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will get all the milk he can drink before the session is over. I think all hon. members, and certainly the people of the country, remember what inflation meant after the last war. They remember what they could buy at that time with their dollar, their half dollar or quarter, compared with what they had been accustomed to receive theretofore. If there has been one thing above another that the people of this country have implored this government to watch, it has been to see that prices did not go skyrocketing after this war as they did after the last war. And may I say there is nothing for which the people of Canada are more grateful to this administration than the fact that we have taken great care and great caution in order to prevent rapid and excessive fluctuations in prices and the cost of services, to the detriment of the great body of the people.
As I say, my hon. friend said very little about controls. In order that the matter may be answered once and for all, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the government intends to bring in next week, if the resolution I mentioned last week is carried as I believe it will be, a bill to continue in force the orders in council which we feel there are strong reasons for having continued for a limited period of time. All those orders will be subject to discussion in this house. Then, where there are orders which during the war were enacted under the war emergency powers which it is considered desirable to continue for a longer period of time, bills will be introduced in this house so that statutory provisions may take the place of powers previously exercised under order in council. So this House of Commons will have the reviewing of all questions of control and emergency powers, and the government will have only what is given to it by this parliament.
May I point out one other thing in regard to the existing emergency powers. What action have my hon, friends opposite taken to challenge any of these orders in council? If I am not mistaken, at the first sessionr\Tr. Mackenzie King.]


Mr. COCKERAM:: We could never find out what they were.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend cannot have average intelligence then, or he would know better. He must not expect too much of himself. I was going on to say the opposition have never challenged these emergency orders in council. My hon. friend, as a member of the opposition, says he was not able to see enough of them to challenge anything. Well, no matter how good their eyesight may have been, hon. gentlemen opposite never challenged a single order in council under which the government was carrying on any of the controls. That opportunity was given them in the fullest measure by the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, which provided that a resolution of this house, accompanied by a resolution of the Senate was sufficient to repeal any one of the orders without the approval of His Excellency. It was not necessary for anyone to introduce a private bill, but a resolution of each house would be sufficient to wipe out the control. My hon. friend, the then Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) undertook, on behalf of the government, to see that opportunity was given to debate such resolutions. Yet not a single resolution was moved from the other side of the house. I think these things are worth remembering when we listen to the sort of statements that have been made over and over again, about this government carrying on by order in council.
The next subject mentioned in the speech from the throne is housing. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition took some exception to the fact that the speech from the throne mentioned that a certain objective which had been given to parliament, and which at the time seemed a pretty high objective, had been achieved. He wanted to know what objective it was, whether it was a political objective or something else. Let me say to him that, as leader of the opposition, he ought to have taken it for granted, if he did not know, that a reference of the kind would be a reference to something said by a responsible minister of the crown, not by some Tom, Dick or Harry on the hustings, and that because it was made in that way, reference was made to it in the speech from the throne. And what was the statement? It was by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe)-and this is the only housing programme which was announced by the government. The minister,
I think, stated the year before last that 50,000 housing units would be built in the first year after the war ended, that 60,000 would be built in the next year, 80,000 in the following year

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
and 100,000 a year thereafter. What are the facts? The facts are that we completed 50,000 housing units in 1945 and 60,000 in 1946, and we plan for 80,000 in 1947. We believe that we can reach that objective.
I ask hon. members: where will you find, in any other country, a record that will compare with that? I happened, to notice, as other hon. members probably did, that recently the mayor of this city of Ottawa attended a meeting of mayors of municipalities in the United States. Among the matters discussed there was the all-important item of housing.
The mayor returned to this city and gave an interview to the press, which is reported in the Evening Journal of January 27. This is what the Journal records:
Housing in United States cities was the number one headache on the agenda of the American Federation of Mayors, according to Mayor Lewis who has returned from a week's visit to Washington where the body met.
Mayor O'Dwyer of New York told the federation that his city alone needed 750,000 new apartments. No solution of the housing problem in the United States seemed in sight.
That is the statement given by the mayor of this capital city, given after attending a conference at which municipalities throughout the United States were represented.
Hon. members know that the same is true in the United Kingdom and in other countries. There is an appalling shortage of houses everywhere. They also know that many of the materials required for the building of houses, so as to make them habitable, cannot be produced at will or found in a short time.
Certainly there is a housing problem in Canada. But I venture to say that problem in this country is cared for better than it has been in any other country. I could give other citations to indicate how the situation has progressed. I have quoted from the Journal and, so as to be quite impartial, I shall quote from the Ottawa Citizen the following statement in regard to the records broken by 1946 building. These records are from the bureau of statistics, and as such I believe they can be taken as authentic. The Citizen states:
Canada's building industry moved ahead in 1946 at the greatest rate in history, breaking previous records by more than $100,000,000.
The bureau of statistics reported Monday preliminary returns from 204 municipalities showed ari aggregate value for the year of $382,028,707 in building permits. This compared with $197,187,160 in 1945, $60,272,379 in 1939 and $234,944,549 in the previous record year of 1929.
The municipalities issued permits for the construction of 43,628 new dwelling units during the year compared with 28,569 in 1945. The 1946 permits included 39,999 for new buildings and 3,629 for conversions.
I say to my hon. friends opposite that they would be fairer-I will not say to the government, but certainly to the country-if they were to give the country the benefit of these facts which indicate just how far this country is in the lead of other countries in meeting this, perhaps the most difficult, of all situations of immediate interest.


Alan Cockeram: Are those buildings or permits?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member will have to read what I have said.


James Horace King: Order. An hon. member who has the floor ought not to be interrupted without obtaining his permission.


Alan Cockeram: I should like to know whether it is buildings or permits.


James Horace King: The hon. member should ask permission if he wishes to interrupt.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like now to come to the question of dominion-provincial fiscal arrangements, the tax agreements. In doing so I shall not attempt to answer all particulars. I may say to my hon. friend, if he will permit me to say so, that I think it is well for a leader to leave some things to his followers, and not to try to take up everything himself.
I know of course that that has been a failing of hon. leaders of the official opposition, because I have sat here a long time and have seen leader after leader opposite attempt to monopolize all points in debate. I hope I have given hon. leaders opposite an example by allowing my colleagues to have their say in debate and in discussing the different questions which may arise. In respect of taxation, and like matters, there are hon. gentlemen on either side of me who are entitled to be heard, and who will be able to answer my hon. friend most effectively.
But on this question of the tax agreements-


John Bracken: The right hon. gentleman has spoken for more than four hours in this house, and I have not yet come up to that record.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And I say to my hon. friend that it all depends upon what one says in that time. I say to him further that if he were to speak for four weeks like he did this afternoon confusion at the last would be even more confounded than it was at the first.
My hon. friend this afternoon drew attention to the length of time that this parliament and the provinces have been discussing

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
dominion-provincial relations. I say to him that if he thinks it has been a long time it is going to be a much longer time still before the dominion and provincial governments will cease to discuss with each other the respective powers which they have, and what they would like to have done, because that is one question which is likely to continue so long as there are provinces and a dominion to consider them.
However there have been in the recent past two important conferences. The first- and I am speaking only of those which related primarily to tax agreements-took place in 1941. At that time the provincial premiers, provincial treasurers, officials and others, assembled in this chamber to meet with the representatives of the government of Canada to discuss questions relative to a tax agreement. We met then in a time of war, and we were dealing with an extremely difficult situation, namely that of financing the war. One would have felt that if there were ever circumstances which would have combined to unite all in common agreement, they would be those present in the situation of the country at that time. _
What happened? I shall not discuss the details, but, as hon. members recall very well, that conference was not a success. The government could get nowhere by means of general discussion with the provinces collectively. What were we to do? Were we to abandon all effort to meet the financial situation, or were we to try the only method which offered a possible alternative? We decided the latter. Having failed to reach an agreement by collective conference, we sought to reach the desired objective by meeting the provinces individually. What was the result? The result was that individual agreements were reached with every one of the nine provinces. And it was on the basis of those agreements that the then Minister of Finance carried through the financing during the period of the war.
Those agreements had almost expired-in pome cases they have now expired-and it became necessary to have another conference with the provinces either collectively or individually to see what could be done to meet conditions in this transitional period, and to arrange methods which would be to the advantage of both the provinces and the dominion over the next few years. Some of the provincial governments having changed, in the interval, we thought we would adopt the method of holding another general conference and we had another genera! conference. We lost no time in calling it after this 
parliament had been returned. As I recall it, we met in August, 1945; we met again in November; again in January, 1946, and, finally, a little later last year. We had our material most carefully prepared and everything was discussed fully, but what was the result?	; j|


An hon. MEMBER:: You would not bend.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You can make your speech later.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The result was that that conference, too, broke up without having succeeded in coming to an agreement. What was the government expected to do then? Was it expected to abandon all effort or to try the other method, the method of conferences with provinces individually?
The then Minister of Finance was faced with having to bring a budget into this house. It was his duty to inform parliament what he would need in the way of revenues and how he proposed to raise them by taxation. This house would not have forgiven the then Minister of Finance if he had said, "I cannot bring in a budget because I cannot get any agreement with the provinces in a general conference?" He had to face the situation as it was, and he brought into the house a budget in which, while realizing that there were great difficulties, he put forth a proposal as a basis on which to arrange individual agreements with any provinces that would like to negotiate with the dominion.
If there were provinces that did not wish to negotiate an agreement they were free to take whatever course they themselves wished. That was the position taken by the then Minister of Finance in his budget speech. Yet what have we heard ever since? We have heard that, in some way, this government is trying to control the provinces.
Let us look at the situation as it is at this moment. There is no agreement at the present time finally concluded with any of the provinces though several have signified their intention to sign agreements already negotiated. Are they precluded from doing what they wish in their own jurisdiction because of that? Every one of them is free to go ahead and attend to its own affairs in any way the constitution permits. If it can find something better through making an individual tax agreement with the dominion government it is free to do so. What is the sense, therefore, of talking about the dominion government trying to take away the rights of the provinces, trying in some way to control the provinces?
I noticed this afternoon that the leader of the opposition kept saying that the dominion is

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
trying to centralize, that the dominion is trying to take away the autonomy of the provinces. I wish he or anyone else opposite would tell me where in one particular we have taken away any autonomy of any province, or where we intend to take away the autonomy of any province. It is easy enough to talk in general language, and say that the dominion is trying to take away the autonomy of the provinces, but I would like someone, here and now, to stand up in this House of Commons and state, as a fact, where that is being done. I have not heard it yet.
Then there is the matter of centralization. Where is the centralization? No province is obliged to alter its plans. What we have tried to do is to work out some plan that will help to minimize the cost of collecting taxes either by the provinces or by the dominion, help to prevent the duplication of taxes and, above all, help to work out some scheme which, instead of taking away the autonomy of the provinces, will make the provinces wholly autonomous in the sense that they will be provided with enough revenue to discharge the functions which they are expected to discharge under the constitution. That is what we are seeking to do. We are not seeking to take away from the provinces. We simply realize that, with the situation as it is today, some of the provinces, if there is no agreement, will not be able to carry out and discharge those duties which the constitution of this country imposes upon them.
Conditions have been changing over the years. Conditions changed considerably during the period of the war. There is a need of assistance to some of the provinces, in others a need to prevent duplication of taxation. We have been facing these realities. We have been trying to find out how best they can be met, met in a way that will be of service to both the dominion and the provinces. That is the purpose of the present agreements.
As I said, we failed in general conference. When I say "we failed" I mean the conference failed because all the provinces and the dominion were not able to come to agreement together. It was not the dominion's failure, it was not the failure of some of the provinces; it was the failure of the general conference to arrive at a conclusion.
How has the other method worked out? I am happy to be able to tell this House of Commons tonight that, at the present time, six out of the nine provinces in Canada have expressed their willingness to enter into agreements with the dominion. If I am not mistaken, it will not be long before there are 83166-5
seven. I shall not be surprised if there are not eight before very long, and I shall be equally surprised if before the period of these agreements runs out all nine of the provinces have not made agreements.
That will be a pretty good showing. I do not see how we could do much better. I do say that to have been able to make agreements that are satisfactory to six provinces out of the nine and to have presented to the other three terms that are equally fair, is as much as could be expected of any administration.
My hon. friend has given us a lecture on how these things should be done, what our duty is, and so forth. I want to quote to him some of his own words with regard to other conferences. Before I do that, however, I should like to draw the attention of the house to this fact: Where you are in conference with others, whether there is a conference between two persons or between two dozen persons, there should be, I submit, at least some measure of confidence, some measure of regard, some measure of readiness to believe that the persons with whom you are conferring are equally anxious to do what is right and equally desirous of serving the public.
I am one who believes that attitude is a very important thing in life. I think most of the trouble today is caused by people having got into a nasty way of talking, a nasty way of acting, a nasty way of behaving, a habit of thinking they are doing something smart by making trouble in national or international gatherings. This is not confined to municipalities or to small towns, this kind of thing has got abroad in the world today. I think it is natural, in some respects, because men and nations have been fighting each other for the last six or eight years. Men have been taught to put their reliance on force. They have been taught to hate. They have been taught to believe that the other man is bad, that they must destroy him. You cannot breed thoughts along that line for a number of years and then suddenly expect to see them all change. I am afraid that a lot of that sort of thing is going to continue for some time to come. It is an extremely nasty spirit. No progress will be made except by those men and women of good will who are strong enough to be able to overcome that kind of thing on the part of others.
Let me come now to the present position. We are attacked first of all for not having another conference, after having given all the opportunity we could to the different provinces and their premiers to speak out and say what

66	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
they wanted. We are supposed to take any kind of thing they may wish to say; to meet their wishes with a smile regardless of what their attitude may be.
I should like to quote from a Canadian Press dispatch from Toronto which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of December 8. It reads:
Drew won't be ruled by Ottawa
Toronto, Dec. 17,- (CP)-
Premier Drew of Ontario said to-day there is not the slightest chance that _ the Ontario government would sign a dominion-provincial agreement which would "centralize power in the hands of an incompetent government in Ottawa".
Who would ask Mr. Drew to sign any agreement that would centralize power? Nobody expects it.


Alan Cockeram: Not a five-cent piece.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would have to come down to something much smaller than that to put a due measure on the worth of the bon. member who persists in interrupting.
The point I wish to make is this: I ask hon. gentlemen opposite if they were sitting on this side of the house and my hon. friend were the leader of the government and there were a Liberal government in power in Ontario that said it would have nothing to do with an incompetent government at Ottawa, would he rush up with his arms open and ask that government to come into conference to try to settle anything? Human nature is human nature. I wish to say to Mr. Drew that as long as he thinks this government is incompetent he is free to do so, but he must not expect us to further his will and his wish as he may express them from time to time.
We have another province which is also talking about centralization and limitation of autonomy of which, mark you, not an hon. member of this house has been able to give a single instance. I now quote from the Ottawa Citizen of December 18:
Quebec, Dec. 18.
The government at Ottawa is trying to put the provinces under an oxygen tent, charged Hon. Maurice Duplessis, Premier of Quebec.
Listen to this from a gentleman who is asking us to meet in a general conference:
He charged that the Mackenzie King forces were adopting the totalitarianism of Hitler and Mussolini, also Stalin. He said that Mr. Ilsley had treated agreements with the provinces like the Kaiser did his commitments-just scraps of paper.
The article goes on:
Then he charged public officials in Ottawa with making statements "more in the nature

of political propaganda than in citing the facts." Some representations made were even found to be inaccurate.
This is the language Mr. Duplessis uses in suggesting that we should invite him to come to Ottawa to enter into a general conference.
I tell you, Ottawa has broken one agreement after another. I have no confidence in Ottawa.
What confidence can we have in Mr. Duplessis? I say confidence is something that is begotten of mutual respect and regard. When the premier of one province tells you that you are incompetent, and the premier of another province tells you that he has not any confidence in you, that is not a good basis on which to begin a general conference. I say we have succeeded-


Alan Cockeram: What about Angus L.?


James Horace King: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall have something to say to the hon. gentleman that he may not altogether like if he keeps on interrupting.
May I now come to what the leader of the opposition himself had to say in regard to general conferences and what should be done where they don't succeed. This afternoon my hon. friend pointed in a dramatic way to where he was sitting at the table in a conference in this very chamber in 1941. He was here in 1941 pleading the cause of his province, and urging what was the right course of procedure. He left the impression in the minds of some, at that time, that he had taken the position that was right and one which ought to be followed. What did he say about that conference? I shall quote from the report that appears in the Winnipeg Tribune of January 28, 1941, and which has the full text of what is referred to as the Bracken address on the Sirois report. That is the way it is headed in the paper. I take the Winnipeg Tribune so that I shall not be assumed to be taking a paper which would be apt to misquote my hon. friend. He refers to the different advantages that might have come from that conference had it succeeded. What then did he say about it? He said:
These advantages might all have been had for Manitoba but for three provincial premiers and their governments.
It would all have happened successfully if three other provincial premiers had agreed. We would have got all the advantages enumerated, he says, but for three. A singular parallel in some respects to the subsequent conference. But we have six at the present time, and if we get the other three we shall have the nine.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
My hon. friend then said:
Never before in the history of confederation have so many eminent men travelled such great distances and at such great public expense, simply to say to the other delegates that they would not sit in with them in the consideration of a report.
Was not that what happened at the last conference?


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: An hon. member says "no". He has forgotten what took place. There was a demonstration arranged in Quebec for the reception of the premier of that province two days in advance. As the time drew nigh, with the demonstration planned and the conference still sitting, he would have missed the demonstration unless he had walked out. He walked out; he left. When the conference ceased to have representation from all the provinces naturally there was a movement to adjourn the conference sine die. How could you continue a conference and hope to come to a general agreement when one of the important provinces had ceased to be at the conference table?
My hon. friend goes a little further. He says:
... if the dominion fails to implement the Sirois report or to provide an alternative,-
At that time we were considering similar matters. The quotation continues:
-those of us who are responsible for Manitoba's policies cannot sit idly by and leave Manitoba citizens in a position of inferiority thus artificially imposed upon them by what we shall be forced to regard as an intolerant majority. Having the immediate responsibility of serving our own people, we shall in such circumstances have to take such action within our constitutional powers, as may be deemed wise and necessary in the interests of our own people.
Is that not exactly what the premiers of at least six of the provinces who were present at the recent conference have since said? They do not propose to come and sit at Ottawa and be controlled by one or two provinces or three. They would have to look after their own affairs and deal with them accordingly.
Then my hon. friend said:
Is the dominion to be excused from the discharge of that responsibility by the fact that the premiers of three provinces walk out of a conference ?
We are accepting him at his word. The same is true of one walking out as of three. We still have our responsibilities, and we have assumed them. The then Minister of Finance made his offer in his budget speech, and we have since gone on and negotiated individual agreements.
83166-5J
My hon. friend continues:
The answer to this question is simple and clear. If, in consequence of the dominion government's failure to implement the report, we are to be left in time of war with what Mr. Ilsley has called an "inequitable, cumbersome and wasteful tax system"; if many of the provinces are to be left in a position of critical financial difficulty; if we are not to have, to use Mr. Ilsley's own words, minimum standards of decency and justice in all parts of Canada (something which, as a part of democracy, one would have thought we were fighting for in this war); if we have to face the post-war period with a governmental system which has proven itself incapable of dealing with the far smaller problems of the depression years, the dominion government and not certain provinces must bear the responsibility.
It cannot excuse itself because three premiers would not discuss matters with which the dominion had the full power to deal even without any discussion.
That is the exact position we are in to-day. My hon. friend says that because three premiers are not prepared to settle things with the dominion, the dominion cannot be excused from the responsibility which is ours to make the best settlement it possibly can, and we agree with him in that. But that was John Bracken, the leader of the government in Manitoba speaking, not John Bracken the leader of the Tory opposition in the House of Commons.
In conclusion, may I quote one other observation from what my hon. friend said at that time:
And if several provinces are forced into default in the refunding of their bond issues, what becomes of the dominion's credit? And if the dominion credit is thus weakened, what will be the additional cost of the interest on its United States borrowings?
The other references are not as important as the ones I have given. What I have sought to point out to my hon. friend is that today we are in the same position as the government found itself in when the conference which he attended as the premier of Manitoba broke up in 1941. The recent conference broke up. We have decided that if we can avoid another catastrophe like that of the 1930's we are going to avoid it. We are going to continue to seek to make agreements that will help the situation in the provinces as well as in Ottawa.
I believe I have covered all that I think it desirable to say at present, beyond giving my hon. friend an assurance that the redistribution measure will be brought in at an early date in this session. I still hold the view which I expressed before. I personally would prefer a commission of judges to make

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
the redistribution of seats in this house, but I do not believe that the majority of hon. members take that view, and in that particular I am prepared to accept the will of the majority. I hope, however, the day will come when the House of Commons of Canada will see the wisdom of allowing its redistribution to be made by some impartial tribunal and not by the members of the house themselves dealing with the matter in committee as in former years it has been dealt with.
I need not assure my hon. friend that the government has every desire to see only a just and fair redistribution, and that no effort will be made by the administration to have other than the fairest redistribution that it is possible for this house to make.
The speech indicates that certain amendments to the Dominion Elections Act will be submitted for approval. There will also be amendments to the old age pensions legislation introduced at the present session. As regards the questions of immigration, trade, defence, employment and the like, I shall leave these to my colleagues to deal with later on. I could take up the time of the house in discussing them, but I know so far as the leaders of the different parties are concerned we are all anxious to have the debate concluded tonight.
May I close where I began, by a reference to the amendment which my hon. friend has proposed. Before I do so, however, there is one further part of the speech from the throne to which I should like to refer. I stated that in referring to the contents of the speech my hon friend had made one or two significant omissions. There is one omission he made which is very significant. I refer to the part of the speech which relates to Canada itself and to conditions in this country as they are and as they have been brought about under the measures which this government has provided to meet the post-war situation. I read these words, w'hich are significant ones in the speech from the throne:
In our own country, the change-over from wartime conditions has proceeded rapidly. The repatriation and demobilization of the armed forces have been practically completed. Almost all dependents of veterans have now arrived in Canada. The three armed services have been brought under the jurisdiction of one minister of the crown. The navy, army and air force are being reorganized on a postwar basis.
Industry has been converted almost entirely from war-time purposes to peace-time production. Over a million persons have been transferred from the armed forces and war industry to regular civilian occupations. Employment is higher than it has ever been. It is over thirty per cent higher than it was in 1939.

During 1946 Canada's external commerce reached heights unprecedented in peace time. The national income is at its highest [DOT] peacetime level. The outlook for trade and employment for 1947 is most favourable.
Despite the high volume of output in all the primary industries, the demand for the natural products of the farms, the fisheries, the mines and the forests continues to exceed production.
I ask hon. members of this house, when you . have a record such as that, a record of the country's progress that has been unsurpassed in the matter of production, in the matter of employment, in the matter of trade and the like, what more can you ask of the government? A government exists for the sake of promoting the prosperity of the country and the happiness of the people. When an administration is able to point, as this speech from the throne does in truthful language, to a record such as has not been equalled before in the history of Canada, I say that the government is entitled to commendation instead of condemnation, such as my hon. friend sought to give it this afternoon.
I come now again to the amendment which my hon. friend has moved:
We respectfully submit to your Excellency that your Excellency's present advisers do not possess the confidence of the country.
I have not had time to look up the authorities, and while I am not taking exception to my hon. friend's moving the amendment, I am not at all sure that it is the correct thing for him to have done, for this reason. The speech itself provides the opposition with a means of declaring want of confidence in the government. If the speech from the throne is not carried, that is a vote of want of confidence in the administration. This amendment is unnecessary if that is its only purpose. The speech is there; it is the first opportunity which the house gets as soon as the session opens, of expressing confidence or non-confidence, and I would feel that my hon. friend, as leader of a party, might well have thought of that aspect of it.


John Bracken: I may say that I have very good precedent for that amendment because it is exactly the wording of one which my hon. friend himself moved a few years ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon. friend whether that was on the speech from the throne?


An hon. MEMBER:: It was in 1934.


James Arthur Ross: Exactly word for word.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I said, I have not had an opportunity to consider all the authorities and it may be that some precedent may be found for it, but what I do say, and

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
what I think perhaps my hon. friends who are leading other parties may be interested in observing is this: How far will it leave them room for their particular amendments when their time comes?
That, however, is not the point I wish to make. What I desire to direct the attention of the house to is this. When the leader of a political party drafts a motion and presents it to the house, to the effect that the government of the day no longer enjoj-s its confidence, he is supposed to be in a position to form an alternative government.


An hon. MEMBER:: You weren't.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Wasn't I, by Jove! I can tell my hon. friend that the best proof of being prepared is that in the time I have been leading the government we have had seven general elections in Canada of which the Liberal party has carried six. I do not think there has ever been a time when the Liberal party has not been prepared to form an alternative government in the event of the party opposite being defeated.
Much has been said about my criticism of there being too many parties, and here is one of the reasons for what I have said. We have opposite us tonight three or four different parties not agreeing among themselves, totally opposed in some particulars. There is not one that is in a position to form an administration and carry on. If this amendment of the leader of the opposition were to carry tomorrow, whom would I	advise His
Excellency to call upon to form a government? I would not want to ask His Excellency to call upon the leader of the Conservative party because that hon. gentleman could not command a majority in the house. I would not think my hon. friend the leader of the C.C.F. would rush to attempt it because he could not command a majority. I would not think of suggesting that my hon. friend the leader of the Social Credit party should attempt anything of the kind; he knows he could not undertake to form a government if he wished to. It is perfectly true that we have a small majority and it is unfortunate for the country that that majority is not larger than it is. But small as it is, we are the only party in Canada at this time, as represented in this house, that is capable of carrying on the government- of the country. You have a much divided opposition on the other side-three or more distinct parties. And let me remind this house and the country that we are still passing through a very critical time in the history of the world. The condition today throughout the world is in
some respects only less grave than the condition that existed in the time of war. None of us knows what in the course of time may burst or break in international affairs. Why should an opposition, simply to make political capital, and to make government itself increasingly difficult, seek to create uneasiness in this country by bringing forward a motion by means of which they hope to be able to unite different parties not from any sense of responsibility in the obligations of government, but solely with a view of seeking to put the existing administration out of office? I say these are considerations that mightily affect the well-being of the people; and though we may have a small majority in the House of Commons, let me tell hon. gentlemen opposite that we still have the confidence of the great majority of the people of Canada,


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be of congratulation to the mover and the seconder of the address; and I want to say that they are spoken on behalf of all those associated with me. I am not able tonight to proceed in the very leisurely fashion adopted by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) this evening; my time is limited and even though I may move an amendment, I shall try to live within my forty minutes.
I am not going to discuss international affairs. The opportunity will come when we may do that. However, I should like to say that I felt it a great privilege to be associated with the delegation which went to the united nations assembly. I want to add that we were happy in the chairman who led our delegation (Mr. St. Laurent).
The Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition have both referred to the several parties, and both have given different reasons why there are more than two parties in this house. I am going to give the correct one. The reason why this party is in the house is that throughout the world over the last half century there has been growing a new philosophy of life, a philosophy based on cooperation and on social ownership, and throughout the civilized world parties which represent that point of view have been gaining strength and gradually assuming power. The struggle today is really between those who believe in social ownership and cooperative endeavour and those who believe in the continuance of the exploitation of the people by powerful groups of vested interests.
I want to say something, too, about the speech from the throne. Apart from expres-
The Address-Mr. Coldwell

sions of self-satisfaction regarding Canada's role in international affairs, the speech from the throne contains only a few vague references to social security, old age pensions and preparations for the next general election; and I say that in this respect it is an unsatisfactory document. Parliament has the right to receive more specific information in order that our electors and the country generally may consider and discuss prospective legislation. Why? In a democracy opportunities must be given for the formation and expression of public opinion by widespread discussion of legislative proposals, in the press, over the radio and in lively discussions among our citizens. Nothing in the speech from the throne discloses the kind of legislation the government intends to introduce; hence no opportunities are provided for the kind of discussion, either in this house or in the country, which may influence or modify in any degree the proposals of the government. I think this is unfortunate, because it comes at a time when democratic institutions and procedures are threatened over wide areas. It indicates, too, that the long term in office of the party opposite has, I think, made it somewhat careless of those great principles upon which this institution of parliament was founded.
Canadians cannot afford to disregard well-established democratic procedures for they are being challenged, as I said a moment ago, all across the world. We must beware lest, in destroying nazi and fascist totalitarianism in a great war, we allow some of the attributes of totalitarianism to corrupt our own institutions. That is why we were alarmed by the methods used to secure the apprehension, inquisition and subsequent prosecution of persons suspected of traitorous conduct last year. We have no sympathy with those who were found guilty of traitorous conduct, but the methods used were not the methods of democracy. That is why my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) received in previous sessions of this house the unqualified support of our party in his proposals for a statutory bill of rights safeguarding our citizens against such undemocratic procedures as were used last year. May I add that no matter from what quarter of the house similar proposals are placed before this parliament, we shall be very happy indeed to support them provided that they are sufficiently comprehensive to meet the needs of our time.
But this is a matter which will be fully discussed later in the session. I mention it only to warn the country that Canada is not immune from the dangers to which democratic

procedures are being subjected all across the world. Indeed, the great struggle in which the world is engaged is that of social and economic freedom against forms of dictatorship and serfdom; and this is not a clear-cut, two-way struggle. The lines are blurred. In our politically democratic countries, we have long been subjected to irresponsible controls by powerful economic, and more recently, monopolistic interests. Until these have been brought under social control, freedom, social security and orderly progress will not have been won. Failure to win economic democracy now, which is the aim and goal of democratic socialist parties everywhere, may endanger the very cause for which we fought and deliver us into the hands of a kind of North American fascism, the alternative to which may well be, after upheavals and revolutionary chaos, totalitarian communism. But of course in such a struggle we shall be influenced by world-wide events. Hence it follows that Canadians should do their utmost to support those democratic forces which are struggling for human rights and fundamental freedoms everywhere, and may I add particularly at this time on the continent of Europe. Let us not forget this: though Hitler has been destroyed, political prisons, concentration camps, forced labour, secret police and condemnation without public trial are now normal procedures in many lands. Only in the United Kingdom and in the countries of western Euroupe are the lamps of political freedom in the old world still alight. Thus it seems to me that liberty-loving Canadians should do all in their power to help the European democrats rebuild that war-torn continent on truly democratic principles.
That is one reason we support wholeheartedly Canada's demand for full participation in the peace conferences; for in spite of our lapse into totalitarian methods last year I am certain that Canada's representatives would support the general concept of democratic political principles. But that democratic concept must be firmly established in our own country, and that we have not done; for there can be no real, effective or permanent freedom until our political freedom is complemented with economic freedom. Then, may I say to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) we shall have secured democracy.
We must not confuse democracy with the kind of monopolistic private enterprise we know on this North American continent. The war gave us an opportunity of moving rapidly toward the new freedom which we must achieve. From 1930 to 1939 we had no national plan to secure desirable national objectives. Policies to cope with grave

The Address-Mr. Caldwell
national problems were weak, ineffective, productive of almost hopeless confusion and great distress in our country. Then came the war. Quickly we found that we could not make the required effort by leaving our economy to the profit-seeking motives of the so-called free enterprisers. By conscious planning and direction not only did we provide our armies and our allies with vast quantities of supplies and equipment, but Canadians at home enjoyed on the whole a better standard of living than they had known in recent times.
But what happened? As soon as the war was over, powerful interests began their demands for a return to what they called normal economic relationships. Let me remind this house that these so-called normal economic relationships in 1913 and 1914, as from 1930 to 1939, were unemployment, poverty on our farms, hopeless confusion and widespread distress. Cries for the necessity of respecting some provincial rights which time and evolution have made obsolete, together with demands for what they call voluntary cooperation in the post-war world, have been heard on almost every hand; and the loudest of all come from the lips of the directors of powerful corporations such as our bank presidents, while criticism of public servants, the bureaucrats, as they are called, is promoted by every possible means. But what this means is that public servants planning the production and distribution of essential goods under the scrutiny of parliament shall be replaced by profit-seeking corporation managements responsible to none but their own shareholders, and indeed shareholders who exercise no real authority over them.
Without national planning we revert to economic chaos. Individual industries, with their plants and man-power, interfere with one another and defeat both their own and the public welfare.
The result of these unplanned activities is to reduce living standards and depress wages, which react immediately on farm prices and ultimately prevent many from producing anything at all. Because of the world-wide demand for all kinds of goods, this condition is momentarily obscured by a deceptive prosperity; but sooner than we think we shall need to substitute intelligent planning for the economic anarchy which is the normal rule of what is attractively and deceptively named free enterprise.
Just yesterday I was reading a summary of a bulletin issued last month by the federal reserve bank board at 'Washington. It warns that the United States faces an immediate
economic crisis and that a depression appears unavoidable. It suggests that it may be mitigated by shaving profit margins to the lowest possible levels, and by cutting prices on everything produced for sale. It summarizes the causes as consumer resistance against high prices of goods with which warehouses are jammed; and-
Output of most goods for civilian use has been far in excess of pre-war levels during the past sixteen months, excess inventories of goods have accumulated, and there are likely to be substantial further increases in supplies in coming months.
This, mind you, is from the board of the federal reserve bank. It means that consumer goods have been withheld for higher prices and profits by manufacturers; but because they were all doing it we may all be caught in the trap, for Canada cannot be immune from economic trends in the United States, though by economic planning we could mitigate their evil effects.
I now want to take a look at some of the examples of the government's failure to plan for the benefit of the Canadian people. The housing problem has been mentioned. It is an excellent illustration of the failures of private enterprise. Because private industry found home building unprofitable in the prewar years, there was serious overcrowding at that time. The census returns of both 1931 and 1941 testify to this. But because of delayed marriages, the reestablishment of veterans and arrested construction of homes during the war, the chronic need for housing became particularly acute in the autumn of 1945 and in
1946.	The Prime Minister has quoted certain figures tonight. The Department of Reconstruction and Supply estimated, according to their own statement, an increased requirement of some 80,000 units last year. Government reports indicate-and I will quote the Prime Minister's figure-that 60,000 housing units were completed, so that we began the year with an unsatisfied additional requirement for 1946 of some 20,000 units.
Apart from the heavy export of building material to the United States, we find, according to the government's own figures for the first ten months of 1946, that only S32.38 out of every S100 spent on construction was spent on housing. Tonight the Prime Minister gave a very substantial figure as the amount of construction last year, but when you analyse the figure you find that less than one-third of the amount spent on construction in Canada last year was spent on housing. The building of service stations, hotels, breweries-and you
The Address-Mr. Coldwell

only have to look in this city to find one- Dowling alleys and theatres has gone on while Canadian families lacked shelter.
On November 20 of last year the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe), stated that it was beyond the administrative ability of any group of officials to say what was essential and non-essential housing. Two days later, on November 22, the vice-president of Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation stated:
More houses would be built if construction controls were more effective.
He blamed public opinion for failing to support the postponement of the construction of theatres, bowling alleys and other nonessentials. The minister says the remedy is beyond administrative capacity. Major-General Young says public opinion is at fault. We say it is the failure of the government to give leadership and direction that is to be blamed, and this failure is due to the fact that the government will not control, does not believe in controlling, private interests who can make more money by exporting lumber to the United States or by building a brewery' or a theatre than by building homes for the people.
The minister's excuses cannot be accepted. When we were at war-and to his credit be it said-he found experts who could decide what was essential and what was non-essential. The war needs overrode the production for profit principle. Now the needs of national health, the reduction of juvenile delinquency, fire prevention and the conservation of human life demand that the means we found to be effective to win the war against Hitler shall be applied to preserve and improve the health, living and moral condition of our people. We all recall the regrettable fire in this city only a week ago following which the fire chief remarked that had there been proper housing facilities the deaths would probably not have occurred.
But the government does not heed the desires or necessities when put before it by parliament itself. According to its own departs mental food pronouncements, for example, a child should consume one quart of milk a day, or thirty quarts a month. In order to encourage this desirable consumption the house on August 27 last passed as strongly worded a motion as our rules permit requesting the continuance of the consumers' milk subsidy. But the government flouted the obvious desire of parliament by' removing this subsidy in October. One is constrained to inquire how the Prime Minister forgot his oft-repeated statement that of course parliament must decide. Milk increased by three cents a quart in most cities, so that the cost of milk per child rose 
by ninety cents a month. Of course children of parents in the lower income groups bought less milk. Instead of taking steps to encourage production and increased consumption, the government has taken effective steps to reduce both.
Nor must we forget this: the increased milk prices account, with other government policies, for the steady increases in the cost of living this winter; and these increases will be reflected before long in lessened demand for goods and increased demands for higher wages, and the upward adjustments of prices of commodities produced on our farms. And these demands will be legitimate and entirely proper.
Within the last few days the government has lifted certain price ceilings, one result of which is that shortening goes up by ten cents a pound. The price of soap-yes, soap, to the advertising of which we have to listen hour after hour on the radio, when millions of dollars are spent for advertising-has been permitted to increase. The cost of clothing is allowed to go up. Those of us who have been buying clothing-shirts, and the like- know perfectly well that the price is already high and the quality very much poorer than before the war.
Let us for a moment look at the farm situation. Long ago the government announced that the price of food would be one of the last to be released from pripe control. Lately ceilings have had to be raised. But the government maintains farm ceilings, raising them only after other prices have risen sharply. This means that prices of farm products always lag behind farmers' costs of production. While holding the line on living costs, of which food is a major item, is undoubtedly sound national policy the government has no right to inflict the burden of its costs upon the farmer, the producer. Yet that is the effect of the government policy of lifting the price ceiling from commodities which the farmer must buy and retaining them as long as the government dares on things he must sell. Thus the farmer is made to subsidize the consumer.
I might illustrate this by reference to the wheat industry. As we all know, the price of wheat to the United Kingdom under the wheat agreement is SI.55 a bushel basis Fort William. But wheat used for Canadian consumption on the same basis is available to Canadian millers at SI.35 a bushel. This means that the farmer, not the government, is subsidizing our bread to the extent of twenty cents a bushel of wheat.
Of course this is in addition to a milling subsidy of fifty-seven cents from the public

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
treasury, to which the farmer must also contribute. The milling industry, I believe, gets its wheat for milling purposes at about seventy eight cents a bushel. I am not suggesting that bread should not be subsidized, but I am saying that the national budget and not the Canadian farmer should bear the charges that flow from it.
The long-term outlook for agriculture is also vital to Canada's economic and social progress, as well as to the general welfare of mankind. The farmers need long-term agreements for wheat, dairy produce, hogs, poultry, eggs, fruit and so on. And to the extent that they have been made, steps have been taken in the right direction.
When making these agreements we need to establish what parity prices are. Let me point out that parity prices-and I remind my hon. friends to the right of this-demand comprehensive national planning and controls. You cannot maintain parity without them. What do we mean by parity? I believe I should say what we mean. We mean the establishment of a proper relationship between prices of commodities which the farmer must buy and prices of the produce he must sell. Obviously there can be no such parity when the producer is left to the tender mercies of speculative markets.
Mr. LaGuardia appeared before the United Nations Organization. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) was there, as was the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). I, too, was there; and we all heard him. At these recent meetings of the United Nations Assembly Mr. LaGuardia underlined the statement I have just made when he said:
"You cannot have both stability in prices and security for the farmer as well as fluctuation in prices.^ It is no use saying that we are not going to interfere with free exchange and free sales. If you want what is needed," Mr. LaGuardia warned, "you will interfere, and you will put every gambling grain exchange out of business in Chicago, Winnipeg, in Liverpool or wherever it exists."
I noticed that in the course of the many speeches which followed his forthright statements, of which this is but a sample-and some of his other statements were equally forthright-no delegate from any of the fifty-four nations including Canada sitting around that table expressed any disagreement with Mr. LaGuardia's statement.
What I have said with respect to farm returns lagging behind price increases applies equally to labour. Wages and salaries have remained constant to a large extent, although there have been increases in some fields while 83166-6
others have decreased. For example-and I take this information from the Labour Gazette -the average weekly wages in manufacturing industries dropped from $30.71 in 1945 to $29.53 in 1946. On the other hand the cost of living index rose from 119-5 to 127-1 in the same period, an increase of more than six per cent. This, I would add, fell heavily on old age pensioners, pensioners from the last war, people living on government annuities, and others with small fixed incomes. Thus every dollar the wage-earner or pensioner received bought less than ninety-four cents worth of necessities in 1946 compared with 1945. Indeed since the war ended the purchasing power of Canadian industrial workers in Canadian dollars has dropped to ninety cents. This is due to the failure of the government to hold the price line, and accounts for the unrest which is growing in the industrial and rural areas. Because of all this I move an amendment to the amendment:
That the following words be inserted in the amendment, after the word "motion" and before the word "we";
"We respectfully submit, however, that in the opinion of this house Your Excellency's advisers have shown a readiness to return to the policies of uncontrolled and unplanned private enterprise which resulted in the depression and unemployment of pre-war years;
And further that Your Excellency's adivsers have failed to introduce comprehensive measures for the socialization of the financial institutions and monopolistic industries of the country, and thus have failed to plan the full and proper use of our natural resources and our currency and credit in such a way as to provide for full production and a rising standard of living for the Canadian people;
Therefore in their failure to recognize these basic needs we respectfully submit to Your Excellency that Your Excellency's present advisers do not possess the confidence of the country."
But there is a limited group in our Canadian economy which has not suffered. According to the Bank of Canada statistics summary for November, 709 of Canada's largest corporations received $273 million in profits after all taxes had been paid. This was $3 million more than in the previous year. But according to the Financial Post, December 28, 1946, 28 large Canadian companies actually showed net profits after taxes of $52,000,000, an increase in profits last year of over 55 per cent. I quoted these figures and their source on the air on January 22, and the Financial Post commented editorially on what I had said. They wrote:
In his national radio speech last week, CCF Leader Coldwell used the familiar tactics of his party in quoting partial figures and comparing non-comparable items, in order to build up a totally false impression. He said:

The Address-Mr. Coldwell

"During the past year, average weekly earnings of industrial workers rose from $32.16 to $33.23-a rise of less than 4 per cent. Over the same period, the profits, after taxes, of 28 of Canada's largest corporations, rose from $33 millions to $52 millions, a rise of 56 per cent."
Then the Financial Post went on to say that that was not a fair comparison because all of this increased amount earned by the corporations after taxes had not been distributed in dividends, that part of it had been used for capital accumulations. I should like to know why money which has been obtained in profits and is kept by a corporation for the expansion of that corporation does not belong to the shareholders of the corporation and should not be considered in their profits. I think their figures and my deductions from them are correct.
And if we look at the nine large chartered banks we see their profits during the past year ranged all the way from 9-5 per cent to 19-9 per cent on their paid-up capital. This again underlines the necessity for socializing the chartered banks and controlling our currency and credit issues in terms of public need as the Prime Minister suggested in Edmonton during the election campaign in 1935. Yet powerful corporations and institutions demand the elimination of public controls and the drastic reduction of taxes on business profits.
The C. C. F. does not urge the retention of controls for controls sake, but we do demand that where controls are necessary for the welfare of our people they shall be continued. As for taxes, let us relieve those in the lower brackets and continue to get as much revenue as possible from those who can afford to pay.
I have, I believe, said sufficient to prove that the government's economic policies are not in the best interests of the masses of the people of this country. For a time the deceptive prosperity of this post-war period, caused by unusual demands due to war shortages at home and abroad and accumulated war savings. will lull many into a sense of false security. But the time will come when we shall regret the return of our economy to the private monopolies and enterprises whose policies led us to disaster after the first great war. This time machines are more efficient, man-power more productive and the world less able to buy our surpluses than in the nineteen-twenties.
Even if the world succeeds in clearing channels of trade our prosperity will still depend upon our ability and willingness to plan our economic life to meet our own needs and the needs of mankind. Indeed the welfare of the world in the final analysis will depend upon

the intelligence of individual nations to plan and play their proper parts. It is because Canada is looking back to former ways and policies that we wish to record our lack of confidence in the government's economic policies.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I trust that I shall be able to follow the very commendable example of the mover of the resolution (Mr. MacNaught) which we are now debating and make my contribution to the debate brief. If I am to do this I will not be able to spend time on the pleasantries usual on such occasions; rather I propose to get right down to work. I do not intend to spend much time either on the speeches which have been made by the other leaders. I should like to assure the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on behalf of this group that we are prepared to get into the business of this session swiftly and to expedite the business of this house as we have always been ready to do, and to honour our agreements when they are made. This is one group in the House of Commons that has always kept its pledge to the Prime Minister and to other leaders when it came to adopting measures to expedite the business of the house.
I should like to mention one thing that arose out of the Prime Minister's speech. I cannot speak for any other group on this side of the house; I would not want to; but I certainly can say in answer to the Prime Minister's statement that no group on this side is prepared to form a government, that here is one group that is not in this House of Commons with the major purpose of attaining political power. Here is one group that is quite ready to cooperate with any other party here that will set out to do the job which the people of this country are demanding. But I assure the Prime Minister that if the other groups or some other group of this house do not start some real action toward implementing the desires of the people, then naturally we are going to set out to do it ourselves. I believe we have thus far given pretty fair evidence of our ability to organize the people and to get them to speak with one voice. Of course I do not need to mention Pontiac, nor do I need to mention the fine showing that we made in the Richelieu-Vercheres by-election where, within a period of less than a year and a half, we were able to bring up our following, our ballot and support, from about 900 to well over 6,000.
Let me say right here, sir, that I welcome into this house another young supporter of this movement, the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Caouette) and to assure him that the voice of Quebec will now be prominent

The Address-Mr. Low
amongst us, and it will be one more reason why the Prime Minister will have to give increasing attention to this great movement, the Social Credit movement.
Thus far we have been neglected; we have been relegated to the ranks of the nobodies; we have not been considered as a national movement; but I wish to point out that within a few months, a veiy few years at the most, the Prime Minister is going to have to recognize us as a great national movement that is determined to establish in Canada a free Christian democracy.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before my hon. friend leaves that subject, are we to understand that the Social Credit party and the Union des Electeurs are one and the same party?


Mr. LOW:: Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit
organization of Canada has never considered itself in any respect a political party machine. Furthermore the Union des Electeurs is a union of the electors of any constituency of any province, mobilizing the efforts of members of all political faiths for a definite objective. They do support the Social Credit objectives in this House of Commons.


An hon. MEMBER:: The ice is thin.


Solon Earl Low: Some of the Prime Minister's
own followers seem to have very short sight, and it is difficult for them to understand.
Just one word about the speech of the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell). I cannot agree in any way with his statement with respect to the great world struggle. Actually I think it must be apparent to any student of world affairs that the great struggle in the world today is between those who seek to extend individual personal freedom and free moral agency on the one hand, and the forces which advocate compulsion and regimentation on the other. I do not apologize for one moment for classing myself amongst the former. Furthermore I say to you, sir, that it is my belief and the belief of those in this group in the l ouse, that any time the government sets out to achieve as its major conscious objective full employment, social security, or a planned economy, that government is going straight down the road to slavery of the people in the country. In his day the Master said:	"Seek ye first the
kingdom of God and His righteousness and all else shall be added unto you." I imagine that if He were here today looking at things through the eyes of a mortal individual, as He once did, He doubtless would say to the people of this country and to the world in general: Seek with all your might to preserve your 83166-61
free moral agency and extend your individual personal freedom to the utmost possible limit, without interfering with the same rights of others, and all these other things will come as a natural consequence.
Since we last met and debated the over-all government policy as revealed in the speech from the throne the great north land of Canada has come more and more into the spotlight of world attention. Spectacular advances and improvements in 1he communication and transportation facilities throughout the world have brought home to thinking people everywhere the very few short hours of flying time between any two points on the earth. If one examines a global map he is struck with the fact that Canada's north land now holds the most important position on the crossroads of international airlines between the three continents, North America, Europe and Asia. This alone gives the north of Canada tremendous strategic importance. But when the economic possibilities of this vast area in our north are brought into sharp focus against the background of its strategic importance it is only then that we realize or begin to realize that a mere twelve million Canadians face a challenge at least comparable with any challenge that Canadians have ever faced in their history. Whether we meet that challenge successfully and well might, in my opinion, be a major factor in future peace or international devastation.
Everyone knows of the gold, silver and copper and many other minerals of undreamed-of value in the pre-Cambrian shield. In the past few years I believe many Canadians have seen for themselves the vast resources of timber, fur, fish and game to be found in the north. A limited number know about the agricultural possibilities for thousands of farm settlers in a number of different sections in that great region. The discovery of one of the world's few sources of uranium accentuated the strategic, as well as the economic importance of the area around Great Boar lake; and only just recently, as some hon. members may have heard, tantalum has been found in some quantity in the territory just north of Alberta. Already there is being constructed at Edmonton a processing plant for this very precious mineral, the production of which will be used for making steel to withstand the terrific pressures and temperatures in the building of rocket planes or jet-propelled weapons and planes. Our uranium, tantalum and oil deposits in the Yellowknife, Great Bear lake and Fort Norman districts are closer to Russia than they are to Toronto, which fact may give
The Address-Mr. Low

/6
some emphasis to what I should like to say now about the north. Canada must get a move on and develop that great territory.
I was very much disappointed that the speech from the throne made no mention of the government's intention to enter upon a bold, progressive and systematic programme of development in the north, and its colonization as well. I know that the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen) is much concerned about the matter. I compliment him warmly upon the things that he has already done in that direction during his short term of office. He has given evidence of a knowledge about the north and its incalculable values not only to Canada but to America as a whole. I only wish that his concern was shared by more members of the cabinet. For joining with the Alberta government in building the Grimshaw-Slave lake highway I want personally to thank the Minister of Mines and Resources. That one artery of transportation will undoubtedly thrust far northward the area of settlement, agriculture, mineral, lumbering and fishing production. But transport and communication facilities are lagging far behind in that vast north country. The government must come to realize that the building of means of transport and communication comes first in any worth-while programme of northern development. The Minister of Transport, I suggest, will have to put the bee on the railways and needle them along into a building programme down there so that settlement and development can proceed with dispatch to meet the challenge facing Canada in a world of crowded countries whose people are looking with astonishment at twelve million Canadians trying to hold on to and spread themselves over three and a half million square miles of territory.
Let me mention that the Alberta government has sensed the tremendous importance of the north. With their limited means in the past few years they have extended a network of roads into the farthest part of the Peace River country, which is the gateway into that north land. They have pioneered winter roads and survey's into territories beyond their boundaries in the north. Telephone lines they have built to serve the growing population in that country, and recently long distance telephone connections have been secured from the northern and western Peace River towns with the outside centres; but these need to be improved and extended.
Among their concrete achievements the Alberta government has recently' commenced a vast scheme of clearing and colonization of lands in the Peace River country which in
rMr. Low.]
five years' time will result in 200,000 acres of new farms being brought under cultivation and production. The government there arranges to clear and break the land and to get it ready' for cropping. Roads are built in to the new farms to make them accessible and veterans of world war II are given a half-section on terms that are at once the finest and the most commendable that I have heard of anywhere.
In ten y'ears' time these men will have title to these farms and there will be no spectacle of Canadian heroes carrying, in twenty years, burdens of unpayable debt such as are still owed by heroes of world war I. Under the stimulus of this new and orderly colonization and settlement the Peace River will become a much greater producer of grains and live stock for which she is already world famous, and she will also become the greatest seed producing area in the world. Grey wooded soils up there, together with the climate, make possible a tremendous production of alfalfa, alsike, and sweet clover seed, eagerly' sought for by the seed houses of the world.
I mention this to give some idea of the growing importance of the northland, which includes the Peace River; and second, to accent the imperative need for a carefully conceived and properly-integrated programme of transport and communication development for the Canadian north, a matter in which in my opinion this government must be prepared to take the lead. With these facilities settlement and development will follow quickly and the north land will become a source of great strength and comfort to all America and not Canada alone.
Let me mention another matter which in my humble judgment will affect our country, favourably or adversely as the case may be, for many years to come. I refer to what has already been discussed by other speakers, namely, the matter of dominion-provincial relations. The speech from the throne makes reference to negotiations that have been carried on for tax agreements with the provinces, over the past number of months. To the average onlooker these negotiations have had more the appearance of a poker game or a juggling exhibition. It is not my purpose to place or even to attempt to place, the blame for what has gone on, but it is a disgraceful state of affairs in Canada when individual provinces find it necessary to protect themselves in the course of negotiations by a most-favoured province clause. That one thing itself indicates that the federal government had no clear-cut idea as to where it was

The Address-Mr. Low
going when, in an effort to bolster up an outworn financial policy, it started to arrogate to itself the most lucrative, I should say, of the remaining provincial tax fields.
It must be obvious that there is yet no properly calculated formula by which rental values can be placed on taxes that are to be surrendered temporarily to the senior government. That the negotiations thus far have seriously impaired Canadian unity is, I think, beyond any question. Every one of us must realize that the difficult years ahead will demand the greatest possible measure of unity among our peoples and governments if Canada is to face squarely and successfully the serious challenge that threatens our very survival as a nation; and it is because I believe that sincerely, and in no sense because I wish to be destructively critical, that I throw out these suggestions.
Let me make it abundantly plain that it is not a question of lecturing the government on what they should do. I merely state what I think are the criticisms of the government's policy, and I am not afraid to stand up and say what I would do if I were in the government's place. In the first place, the government must realize that any agreement covering rental of tax fields from the provinces is only a transitional or interim agreement and not in any sense a permanent solution of the problems of dominion-provincial relations. That the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) partly realizes this is evidenced by the fact that the agreements are to be signed for a period of five years and that another conference is to be held one year ahead of the termination of the contracts.
In the second place, it must be driven deeply into the consciousness of all governments in Canada that nothing in the proposed agreements apparently touches on a permanent solution of the two most important problems affecting the relations of the dominion and the provinces, which are these:	We must soon
clarify and redefine the respective responsibilities of the dominion and the provincial governments. It seems imperative that specific statements of the rights of individual citizens of Canada be drawn perhaps through a bill of rights such as I suggested last session, together with a detailed delineation of the responsibilities attaching to these rights, which each government is prepared fully to assume.
Then the senior government must allocate to the provinces sufficient revenues to enable them fully to discharge their responsibilities at all times. The federal government need not lack for money. They are limited in that respect only by the combined total production
of all the people of Canada. We ought to have learned a lesson from the hungry thirties. At that time the burden of providing social services for the people was heavy on the provincial governments and they found themselves without the means of furnishing those services. Serious results have followed which in some provinces may not be entirely overcome for many years.
I think it is clear to most students of the subject that the interpretations which have been placed on some sections of the British North America Act by the courts have had the effect of handing serious and heavy responsibilities to the provinces and at the same time denying them the means whereby they could do the jobs that have been expected of them.	,
Millions of Canadians today are demanding a rewriting of the constitution so as to clarify the rights of citizens, to define and divide the fields of responsibilities of the governments, to decentralize and give more power to the provinces-not less-and to allocate to the governments, dominion and provincial, the means of discharging fully their respective obligations. I believe that no Canadian unity and solid strength will be possible until this is done, but let it be done 'properly. Rewriting the constitution should not be delegated to a royal commission or a series of royal commissions. It should be accomplished at government level. The machinery of the dominion-provincial conference, in my opinion-the machinery already in existence with some real achievements to its credit-could be used to lay the foundations for the rewriting of the constitution. I suggest that this machinery be made permanent, .perhaps attached to a new department of dominion-provincial relations, and that it be set in motion now to work out proposals for permanent solution of dominion-provincial problems, these to be placed before a conference or a series of conferences during the years immediately ahead. We should not wait until four years from now, just a year before the termination of the tax contracts that are about to be entered into, to try to find permanent solutions. I say that now is the time to begin to develop these fair and equitable scientific formulae for the distribution of powers and the allocation of revenues which we must have if governments in this country are to do their jobs as they should, and if Canadian unity is to be brought to the high level for which we all pray. The social credit movement of Canada is committed to the rewriting of the constitution along these lines, decentralized lines. We demand of the government that it be undertaken at the earliest possible time.
The Address-Mr. Low

I have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that external affairs occupy a very large part of the speech from, the throne. I am not in a position intelligently to discuss the part which Canada has played in the united nations organizations, for to this date the Prime Minister has not seen fit to invite anyone from my organization to attend as a delegate .at any one of them. Therefore I must speak as an onlooker and not as a participant. One wonders if the government is not over emphasizing external relations in some respects to the neglect of pressing internal matters. I am prepared to grant that Canada must assume her full place and responsibility in the world community of nations, and to contribute her utmost to the achievement of world peace and security. At the same time it is obvious to me that we cannot hope to exert any substantial influence for peace in the world unless Canada is strong and unless her people are happy and united. Setting our own house in good order must precede any attempt to try to tell other nations how they .should keep their houses. We have a real job of house-cleaning to do right here at home and I suggest that it should not be neglected. I do not in any way minimize the importance of a strong, nonpartisan foreign policy for Canada, but I do say that the very essence of strong, independent and sovereign nations within the British commonwealth rests in complete understanding and the fullest possible cooperation with each other on foreign policy. Canada, we cannot help noting, failed to support Britain on the Jewish problem in Palestine. Why? Britain in turn failed to support Canada when she accepted Zaroubin as Soviet ambassador to that country after he had violated the recognized code of diplomatic relations right here in Canada. This government, the Liberal government, demonstrated lamentable weakness when it did not protest vigorously against the acceptance by Britain of this man, Zaroubin. We took a slap in the face. How can one explain such extraordinary surrender to fear or inertia? Could it be the result of socialist influence in Canada?
There can be no strength and no vitality in Canada if they are continuously sapped by enemies and leeches from within. It must be evident to the least observant amongst us that the Liberal government has failed to provide adequate safeguards against the perfidy of the enemies within our gates. There was a time, I submit, when the great Royal Canadian Mounted Police force was more than a match 'or any of those who would

betray Canada into the hands of foreign powers or disrupt and destroy us internally. The force would still be capable of coping with the dangers had not government policy made conditions within the force so unattractive, particularly in the special investigations branch, that many of the best men have been drained off entirely, or have gone into ordinary constabulary work.
The failure of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to deal with the rising menace to security in Canada during the war years, which culminated in the recent espionage fiasco, was not due to lack of knowledge of what was going on. Their investigators filed numerous reports with the authorities as far back as 1943 and 1944, showing in detail exactly what the traitors were hatching and what dangers we faced. There is some evidence to show that these reports were pigeonholed and forgotten, and that some investigators were told in effect to leave that sort of thing alone. In the meantime the disrupters continued to go about their nefarious subversive work unchallenged; and had it not been for Gouzenko and his revelations they would likely still be furnishing foreign countries with our secrets. Indeed, news reports this very day would indicate that there may yet be traitors in high places in our country. As the situation now stands, subversive elements in Canada are still making ready for the communist world revolution that has been projected for a number of years.
In the name of millions of Canadians who sense the danger I demand that the government at once make conditions much more attractive in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force so as to encourage into the service the best men Canada has for that work, and at the same time to develop a strong special investigations branch of the force, untrammeled and free to investigate and report on anyone regardless of his station, against whom there is evidence of treasonable or unlawful subversive activities. If we are to check the spread of treason and disruption, amongst other measures the government will have to take, they will have to do two things. They will have to revitalize our democracy so that it may succeed in removing reasons for discontent among our people, and they will have to issue orders to officers of the police force to take off their gloves and go to work when reports come in showing dangerous conditions or conditions which may become dangerous. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, let us make absolutely sure that the rights and the liberties of our people are safeguarded in every possible

The Address-Mr. Low
way, but let us clean house right now before Canada surrenders to communism and its fellow-travellers.
As an aid to this revitalized special investigations branch of the force I propose that this House of Commons set up a continuing watchdog committee on subversive activities similar to the Dies committee in the United States. The personnel of this committee should be satisfactory to the whole house, chosen much as select standing committees are now chosen. The government, in my estimation, could not be trusted to select such an important committee ; their inability to choose advisers other than those who have led this country by the nose through socialist policies to a virtual socialist state would indicate that parliament must itself set up the committee and lay down its duties. The people of Canada will expect an answer to these proposals; for most Canadians are awakening to the dangers which beset us from within as well as from without, and they want vigorous and effective action to make Canada secure. Let me give this warning:	only when our own people in
Canada are at peace amongst themselves, and free from the influence of subversive, disrupting forces can we ever hope to contribute effectively to the achievement of world peace and security, which is our aim in international affairs.
In setting our house in order the government must not overlook the two most vexatious impediments to large-scale production in Canada. I refer to punitive taxation and continued rigid controls. In spite of statements to the contrary by at least one member of the government, producers all over Canada have assured me during the past six months that high taxation does continue to discourage production of many lines of wanted goods and foodstuffs. Somehow the government does not seem to understand that we can never meet with success the threat of inflation unless the floodgates of production are opened wide, and unless every serious discouragement to large-scale production is removed.
The present high level of taxation is unnecessary. The people of Canada are beginning to understand that this is so and are mobilizing vast movements from one end of the country to the other to win from this government a progressively diminishing tax load. Failing this, they will put into office a government that will bow to the will of the people and do what they are told. It should be noted that an already serious shortage of teachers and nurses in this country has been aggravated by the action of the government last session in lowering exemptions on incomes
earned by married women. In my judgment that action was premature. This group will continue to fight for a substantial reduction in the tax load upon the people, and that beginning immediately.
As to controls, we will not be prepared to grant any blanket controls to the government under the terms of legislation proposed in the speech from the throne. Any specific controls the government is able to convince us beyond any reasonable doubt they need to protect the welfare of the Canadian people as a whole, will receive our support. All the others must go, as far as we are concerned.
There is one other matter about which I should like to speak briefly before I close. Lately the world has been witnessing some most shocking demonstrations of organized interference with free elections in various countries, particularly those where communist influence has grown strong. Scandalous intimidation, brutality, disfranchisement and irregularities of all kinds have become the usual order in elections in Poland and certain other countries. That is bad enough in Europe; I say it would be terrible in Canada. I see some hon. members of the house beginning to shift a bit uneasily in their seats for fear I might be leading up to Richelieu-Vercheres. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I am leading up to. Decent Canadians were appalled at what went on there during the contest which closed on December 23. Intimidation, brutality, and organized gangsterism raised their ugly heads, especially at Sorel in Richelieu-Vercheres county. What went on at Sorel puts at least one Canadian election in the same class as those carried on in Poland. There was theft of electoral lists and lists of poll workers of one of the parties in the contest. There was dictatorship and intimidation of voters by employers who told their men, "If you don't vote Liberal you may have to eat crusts after the election." There was dereliction of duty on the part of the police, municipal and provincial authorities. There was certainly brutality and hoodlumism by a group of hired gangsters.
The finger of suspicion points directly at the Liberal party as the instigators of the whole dastardly demonstration. That is why I expected the Prime Minister would be quick to ask for a thorough investigation. I still say he owes it to his party to clear them of this suspicion or to condemn their actions if investigation shows that the Liberal organization or any part of it is guilty. The Prime Minister's silence condoned all that went on at Sorel; and decent people all over Canada feel
so
The Address-Mr. Low

that he owed it to them and this country to issue an immediate statement condemning in the strongest possible terms the appearance in a Canadian election of practices now all too common wherever the communists have a considerable hand. But for some unaccountable reason he kept silent.
It must be a source of great sorrow to the Prime Minister to behold the certain decadence of the Liberal party and the things to which some parts of that organization will stoop in order to win an election. Of course one can understand quite well why the Prime Minister did not want another Pontiac, and why he issued instructions to his organization down in Quebec that there must not be another Pontiac; but Richelieu-Vercheres was an extremely hollow victory for the Liberals. In the name of decent people everywhere I condemn the irregularities and the gangsterism which took place in Sorel. That sort of thing must not be allowed to interfere with free elections in Canada, and we must be quick to stamp it out before it becomes an established practice and habit.
All this could have been avoided, I contend, if the government had not been asleep, or if the Liberal party had not surrendered to communist tactics supported by the influence of individuals who could speak with the voice of money. It would appear to a great many people that the time has passed when it is any longer safe for the people to allow their political parties to keep hidden the sources of their funds, because it is by the use of substantial funds that such things as happened at Sorel can be caused to happen. The people should demand that legislation be enacted forthwith in this house to provide that every political party shall have to account for the sources of their finances. To illustrate, the people back home in Alberta, where they look at things quite realistically, have wondered how a comparatively minor group, the C.C.F., for example, by the mere acquisition of David Lewis and a trip to New York by their leader, could suddenly flood the country with organizers and propaganda, and in these things outdo the parties whom the C.C.F. had hitherto ridiculed for doing the same thing.


Mr. MacINNIS:: May I ask how many organizers they have in the field? I do not know of any.
Mr. LOW; If the C.C.F. have nothing to hide I suggest that they join with us in making this demand. I feel sure the government party, too, will be only too glad to set at rest the talk one hears in various parts of the

country that the rising financial fortunes of the Liberal party are the result of fat war contracts.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the house for the very courteous hearing it has given me during these thirty minutes. I assure hon. members that if they would like to go into some of these matters a little more fully in caucus tomorrow morning, I shall be here to help them.
On motion of Mr. Brunelle the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
Tuesday, February 4, 1947