March 1, 1943

LIB

Daniel (Dan) McIvor

Liberal

Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):

I wish to give, for the use of the minister and his committee when they get down to work, a few facts about the head of the lakes which I think they should have and which may be helpful in the reconstruction period.

The first fact is that at the head of the lakes we have hundreds of square miles of virgin timber, good for lumber, firewood, pulp and shipbuilding. I found out the other day that we have in the Thunder bay district the western white spruce picea glauca. Its existence there was not known until recently, because nobody had explored the full extent of our timber. A tree is of little value until it is cut down. I have not very much patience with those who want to revert to such primitive processes as the burning of peat, when we have all kinds of good coal and wood. So that the first point which should be borne in mind by the committee is that we have timber in abundance.

In the second place we are rich in mines. We have gold, silver, copper, zinc, chromium, and also iron in abundance, ready to be mined and put on the market. If the Department of Mines and Resources can make money out of the socialization of their muskrats, they can turn loose some of their experts in the Thunder bay district, and soon the rest of Canada will hum as a result of what we have in that section.

Remember also that we have an excellent harbour. It is well protected; it is needed for shipbuilding; when the minister and nis committee make as an outstanding factor in reconstruction the development of the St. Lawrence waterway, the dream of so many people at the head of the lakes will come true, and the head of the lakes will become the Chicago of the west. We shall have there a great distributing centre, which will mean much to the whole of Canada.

But the best thing to be found at the head of the lakes, and something which is perhaps

Post-War Reconstruction

not very well known, is our farming area. Some people think we have no farms, and thereby show their lack of knowledge. We have in the Port Arthur and Fort William districts 25,000 acres of farm land, of which 12,784 acres are assessed. This is a greater area than will be found round the city of Hamilton, which has only 9,694 acres, or Windsor, with 8,251 acres, or Sudbury, with 1,522 acres; and anyone who has gone through these districts and knows anything about soils and what they can produce will admit that ours is the coming farming district, not even second to Manitoba.

What are these farms capable of producing? All kinds of grain, apples and other fruits; in fact the best strawberries with the finest flavour of which I have any knowledge are grown in our district. This is on account of the cool atmosphere during the summer; they are not subject to frost as in some other places. The climate is damp and cool in summer because of our proximity to a great cold freshwater lake. This, too, is favourable to the growth of abundant grass, and the lakehead during the past years has become a feeding centre for fat cattle. The soil has been tested by the chamber of commerce and by our experts at the experimental farm substation, and has been found to be capable of producing sugar beet of a very high grade.

Our district is also distinguished by its ability to produce poultry and eggs. There are those who say that our hens can lay more and bigger eggs than any others. The climate is cool and the hens do not have to sweat at their job to the same extent as elsewhere. During the past week our poultry association passed a resolution asking that eggs from the head of the lakes be marked accordingly to show that they are better eggs and have more flavour.

We are also known for our fisheries. Lake Superior trout is known all over Canada and in some places in the United States. The only trouble is that there is not enough to go around. Fresh herring is just beginning to come into its own.

The municipal air field was taken over by the Department of National Defence when the war broke out. Originally this field was intended to be on a feeder line to the Trans-Canada Air Lines but it will now be on the Trans-Canada Air Lines when the war is over.

We have power at the head of the lakes. We do not have to depend upon Niagara falls because we have the Cameron falls ninety miles from Fort William. We also have the Ivakabeka falls which are known for their beauty and usefulness. We have a water system second to none. Loch Lomond is

situated 400 feet above the level of the lake. All that needed to be done was to put in a pipe and the water flowed down sweet and clean. In order to have the right type of development, we must have the right kind of laws. We must have progressive laws. There are men and women who want to use the talents that God has given to them and not hide them under the earth.

This committee should see to it that the right of free enterprise and the right of the worker to cooperate are continued. I have a legal adviser who sometimes comes to my room to give me some free advice. His advice is good, and he says that it would be a good thing if we could look down at the world from above, see ourselves as the good Lord sees us. That of course caused my mind to go back into the realm of the queen of sciences, namely, theology. There are two phases that are used a good deal in connection with the new social order. One is, "the banishment of fear" and the other is, "the banishment of poverty." I think of fear as one of the great blessings of mankind. There are men in this house who are afraid of their own conduct, afraid of their own speeches. Fear is often protective. It is a blessing to us from the time we first got burned by touching something we should not have touched.

There are those who will say that we should banish fear, but there is only one way to cure fear. Work cannot cure fear. Success is no cure for fear. Quite often the man who has the most money has the greatest fear that he will lose it or that someone will get the better of a deal with him. The only cure for fear must come from that great Teacher, who said:

But perfect love casteth out fear.

If you have not love of the right thing, then you are not going to get rid of fear. Poverty is a relative term. There are people on relief in Ottawa who in the days of King Tut would have been considered as living most luxuriously. But there will always be people at the bottom of the human way of living, people who will be called poor. Again I hear the Master Workman coming out with this clear statement:

For ye have the poor always with you.

He was one to whom the future was an open book.

This committee should obtain brief statements from the different reconstruction committees which have been set up across Canada. I can give the name of Alderman Fryer, who is head of our committee, to the minister. I am sure that Alderman Fryer will be able to provide some useful information because

Post-War Reconstruction

at the head of the lakes we have resources which, if put to proper use, would be a blessing to mankind.

Mr. WILFRID LaCROIX (Quebec-Mont-morency.) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I wish to take advantage of this debate on post-war problems to voice my views and those of my electors on the financial burden which is being laid upon the wage-earners of this country and the effects of which will necessarily be felt after the war.

In this connection I desire to offer to the government a suggestion for the better apportionment of the taxes necessitated by our participation in the present world war, a participation which takes into account neither our population nor the limit of our possibilities. I feel that in the financing of our war effort, capital should be called upon to supply a substantial share of the required funds. Since the outbreak of this war, many wealthy people in this country have undoubtedly invested their money in securities or real estate so as to put their Capital outside the reach of the government.

In many cases, such investments produce no income, but the capital is protected for the future. The men who risk their lives on land, at sea and in the air are also fighting for the protection of those investors' property.

Here is what I would suggest for compelling those people to assume a greater share of our war effort. The government should decide to force them to lend the money needed by this country, even though they might say that they have none available. The government might thus say to those investors: "You own securities or real estate unmortgaged in a definite proportion. An act of parliament will compel you to file an application with the Bank of Canada, which will lend you the funds needed by the government for the war effort." They would give to the Bank of Canada, or to the latter's agents, a mortgage on their securities or real estate, and would file with those banks guarantees for the amount loaned, and they would lend to the dominion government the money thus obtained from the bank. In return they would receive a dominion bond which would be deposited with the Bank of Canada or its agents. After the war, the dominion government would, at a certain date fixed by them according to the development, the resources and the income of the country, say within about thirty years, redeem those bonds, the holders then paying back the banks.

Such a plan would enable the government to obtain billions of dollars for our war effort.

In order to protect modest fortunes, which will never be too numerous in this country since they ensure a better distribution of public wealth, only the owners of securities or real estate worth more than $25,000 would be called upon to lend money to the government according to the above plan.

The plan would not apply to properties used for religious, charitable or educational or hospitalization purposes. I may point out, Mr. Speaker, that this plan would not mean confiscation. For our war expenditures of 1943, 10 per cent of the value of all securities or real estate in Canada could be loaned, and should the war be still going on in 1944, another loan of 10 per cent might be required. Through such a plan the government could considerably reduce the income tax now being paid by the people in the lower and medium salary brackets, because the latter have no capital other than their salary, and it would enable us to honour their obligations, which they cannot do at the present time.

It should not be forgotten that the greater part of the revenue derived by the Canadian government from income tax is levied on the lower or medium salary brackets, as few people draw large salaries and the income tax on salaries is much higher here than in the United States. To my mind, it is not fair that a single generation should have to pay the whole cost of this war, because the benefits of peace will be enjoyed as much by future generations as by ourselves.

Our soldiers make great sacrifices and wealthy people have no right to elude the financial sacrifices that are necessary. The guarantee they would receive from the government is certainly greater than that given to the army as regards the opportunity of finding employment after the war. Such a plan would make billions of dollars available to the dominion treasury. One can imagine the meaning of a 10 per cent levy on all securities or real estate in Canada. One cause for strikes lies in the fact that so much money is now taken from the small wage earners because they find it difficult to make both ends meet and to cope with the cost of living, which notwithstanding what is said, shows a considerable increase.

Moreover, the banks would not take the slightest risk for it must not be forgotten that they have lent up to 75 per cent of the value of stock exchange securities which were certainly not worth as much as the guarantees to which I am referring.

To-day, Mr. Speaker, capitalists take advantage of the difficulties which beset the small land owner, to confiscate his properties. Here is an example. Lieutenant-Colonel Jack

Post-War Reconstruction

Price, of Quebec, has been a prisoner of war in Japan since the fall of Hong Kong. He was the owner of a property that cost him $75,000. His wife had to sell it for the amount of the mortgage, $13,000, because she did not have the money necessary to meet her obligations. So, while some of our men are making the supreme sacrifice on the battlefields of Africa, Europe or Asia, these greedy capitalists take advantage of this fact to confiscate properties, even though they be non-revenue bearing, so that, after the war, their capital will remain intact even if our dollar becomes devalorized. Every one knows, of course, that in the event of such a devalorization, the price of commodities and properties would increase in proportion to the decrease in value of the dollar. Mr. Speaker, I point out to the government that they are at present discriminating against the great majority of wage-earners. They force them to loan part of their salary without interest, while the capitalists who subscribe to a loan make sure that they will draw interest on their investment.

Often, the capitalist's subscription to a Victory Loan is nothing but a publicity stunt; as soon as the contribution has been publicly announced, he repairs to the bank to sell his bonds and buy more and more property. At the present time we are witnessing the monopolizing of real estate by the trusts and, at the close of hostilities, we shall be a country of unevenly distributed wealth, a condition favourable to the development of subversive ideas inviting communism.

It may be claimed that a reduction of taxes on salaries might very well provoke inflation, by virtue of the consequent increase in the purchasing power of the public. My answer is that the government has the necessary means of preventing this increased purchasing power. Indeed, they have, at the present time, let us not forget it, all the necessary power to control both prices and wages and the additional power to freeze at the 1942 level all production deemed as non-essential to the war effort, thereby preventing the purchasing power from exceeding that of 1942. The government is empowered to set a ceiling at the 1942 level, on the amount of goods obtainable by both retailers and wholesalers, at the same time preventing the consumer from buying more than he could buy in 1942. Thus, no increase in the purchasing power could provoke inflation by an increased demand for goods as a consequence of an increased supply of money. The exercise of the above powers by the government would necessarily compel the wage-earner to save money for the postwar period, for, let us not forget it, after the

war, this class will not have the same opportunities as the capitalists, their only capital, in most cases, being their salary.

The adoption of such a policy will prevent the worker from becoming a public liability. It is imperative, by a reduction of taxes on the small and medium salaries, to compel their recipients to accumulate savings for the post-war period and thus lighten the burden of the administration when the time comes for them to face this problem. The harder the wage-earner finds it to spend his earnings the lighter will be the burden of the government after the war.

We must not overlook the fact that, for 25 years, the capitalist has been in the position of increasing his holdings, because our soldiers gave their lives for him from 1914 to 1918, and that, in the course of most of these 25 years, the workers and a considerable proportion of the wage-earners have been unemployed, through the depression which we all remember, and that, only since the beginning of the war have they been able to afford the luxury of life insurance to protect their families and insure some degree of future social security for their children.

I have discussed this plan with a number of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and some have suggested that, by striking at capital I would alienate the Anglo-Canadian element of the population for, they said, they own most of the capital, the French Canadians making up the greater portion of the wage-earning class of our country.

My answer to them, Mr. Speaker, is that we, French Canadians, are not to blame for the fact that a certain group of Englishspeaking Canadians, especially those known as the "Two Hundred," in Toronto, have raised imperialism to the dignity of a dogma It is much more important that the same fair treatment be meted out to every one and the financial burden of the war be evenly distributed. Furthermore, let those who subscribe to the dogma of imperialism pay for the expensive consequences of their opinions to the benefit of the large class of wage-earners.

I know that, at the present time, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) is seriously considering this plan. Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to express the fond hope that it will be implemented, for we must remember that our professional and labouring classes are the main props of our nation and that their whole capital is the salary they draw every week or every month.

Topic:   SUBSIDIES TO MAINTAIN SUPPLY-REPORT AS TO APPOINTMENT OF SUBSIDIES OFFICER
Subtopic:   POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION APPOINTMENT OP SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION AND REESTABLISHMENT
Permalink
CCF

Joseph William Noseworthy

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South):

I hesitate to prolong this debate which has already run into the second or third day.

Post-M7ar Reconstruction

There is, however, one subject pertaining to reconstruction that I think deserves more attention than it has received to date, namely, the subject of education, and I shall confine my remarks this afternoon to the importance of education as part of our reconstruction programme. So far only one hon. member in this debate, the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) has made any reference to the importance of that subject.

First I should like to congratulate the government upon the Vocational Training Act that was passed in this house last year. In my opinion it is the most progressive piece of legislation in the field of education that has ever been passed in this house. It is far-reaching in its effect. I wish to congratulate the minister also. It is not very often that I have the opportunity' to congratulate the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) but I want to take this opportunity of congratulating him upon the committee that he has set up to advise him under the authority of last year's act.

That act, however, is limited in its scope to vocational training. It provides for the education of those who are being trained in our war emergency classes for some place in the armed forces, for the education of our men who return from overseas, and it makes possible cooperation with the provincial governments for education on the secondary school level after the war is over. I suggest that the special committee appoint a subcommittee, not for labour and education as was done last year, but to study the importance of education and its bearing on our post-war problems; and in the few moments at my disposal I should like to suggest four definite subjects which I think might very well come up for study by the committee.

In the first place I consider that there is need for a vocational guidance committee in the federal field. Under the Department of Labour we have employment offices and placement officers in all the important centres across this country. We have heard some criticism of these employment offices. It may be true that they are staffed with personnel who have had little training for their jobs, but if they could be staffed with well trained personnel, when the war is over these offices should be very important in preventing an employment muddle. At the same time we have tens of thousands of our boys and girls being trained in vocational schools, and I am satisfied that in view of the nature of employment, in view of the fact that employment and trade and commerce are national in their scope, only a committee which

can view this field from a national point of view can adequately advise our young people on the courses to study and provide them with guidance in securing employment. In England such offices were set up thirty years ago, and there is a place for the guidance of young people in the labour set-up there. The employment offices are staffed with trained personnel. Juvenile vocational councils have been established. Officers from those councils do not wait for boys and girls to come to them for guidance; they go into the schools and advise the young people on the courses they should follow, and assist the parents in placing these young people in employment after they have left school. One thing I fear we are likely to get in Canada after the war is a federal office of education superimposed upon and working independently of the present nine provincial departments of education. I believe it is important that some federal bureau or committee be set up which will coordinate or correlate the work being done in the educational field by the federal authorities with what is being done in the schools of the provinces, particularly in the field of vocational guidance.

A second matter which I think might well come before the committee-and I am passing over these points rapidly this afternoon in the hope that there may be an opportunity of discussing them in further detail with the committee-is the setting up of a federal bureau of education. In the United States, where education is a state matter as in Canada it is a provincial matter, a federal bureau of education has functioned since 1887, and never once during all those years has any question been raised as to its infringement upon the rights of the states. That bureau serves to coordinate all the educational research work being done throughout the nation. It serves as a clearing-house for information, and is regarded by educationists of that country as being of immense value. We have in Canada, under the bureau of statistics, an educational office which educational authorities across this country consider has done a remarkably good job. Almost every educational association and authority in this country has recommended from year to year that the services of this bureau should be extended. We now have an opportunity of extending the work being done by that office until it becomes something similar to the bureau of education which functions in the United States. There is no intention that such a committee or bureau should in any way usurp the authority of the provincial departments of education. Its function should be, as it is now, to

Post-War Reconstruction

correlate all the research work being done, to give some leadership in directing research work along educational lines, and to serve as a clearing-house for the dissemination of such research as has been carried out. We talk a great deal about Canadian unity, and its lack. Anything we can do through a central bureau that will enable the boys and girls of one province to become better acquainted with those in the schools of the other provinces; anything we can do that will enable the work being done in the schools of one province to be made known to the authorities of the other provinces-all will help in building Canadian instead of provincial citizenship.

A third field to which the committee should give some consideration is that of providing federal bursaries and scholarships at both secondary school and university levels. Today it is a fact that the educational opportunities accorded our young people are to a large extent determined by the economic status of the family. Recent research in the United States covering many hundreds of thousands of students has shown that more than fifty per cent of boys and girls who leave the secondary schools before completing their courses do so on account of economic reasons. They leave because their families cannot afford to keep them at school until they have finished. That is taking place continually in our Canadian schools. In a survey made a few years ago in Toronto and suburban areas it was found that more than fifty per cent of the brightest boys and girls in the schools in that section were forced out of school before completing their matriculation, or before graduating from secondary schools, as a result of lack of finances to keep them in school. It is a well known fact that a boy's opportunity of attending university to-day is to a large extent dependent upon the financial ability of his family to assist him. As a consequence we are losing in Canada some of the brightest of our young people. Thousands of them who could best profit by education have no opportunity of acquiring it. This incidentally is no innovation. In Great Britain and in other parts of the British empire scholarships such as I have mentioned are provided, at both secondary school and university levels, for capable but indigent pupils.

As a fourth matter for the study of the committee I would sugest a subject bristling with difficulty, namely, federal financial support to the provinces for primary and secondary education in the schools of the province. I suggest furthermore that such federal assistance must of necessity be given on the basis

of provincial needs. Any assistance which has heretofore been given in the field of education to the provinces has been given on a basis of population, or on a basis whereby the province contributed fifty per cent and the dominion the other 50 per cent. As a result, with regard to grants made for technical education in past years, only the wealthiest provinces were able to make adequate use of those grants within the time specified by the act. And even in those provinces only the larger urban centres could take advantage of the grants. The result is that to-day we have fairly adequate vocational education opportunities in our larger centres, but throughout the rural areas and in the smaller towns and villages we find inadequate opportunity for anything in the nature of vocational training.

Whatever else the Rowell-Sirois report revealed, it did reveal the great differences in the ability of the several provinces to bear their share, or to bear an adequate share of the cost of education and other social programmes. For instance, if Prince Edward Island were to provide from the provincial treasury an adequate system of education it would require the expenditure of nearly eighty per cent of the income of that provincial government. There are provinces which can provide out of provincial revenue an adequate educational programme, but there are others- and I have in mind the situation in Saskatchewan a few years ago-which find it simply impossible. So that if effective federal aid is to be given in respect of education, and if that aid is to serve the purpose for which it is given, it should be allocated on a basis of provincial need.

Speaking for the moment with regard to the need for federal support, may I remind hon. members that in Canada we began to finance education by a tax on real estate levied by small municipalities. We did that because in those days there was nothing else to tax. We have continued from that day to this to ask real estate in local communities to bear about SO per cent of the cost of education in Canada. We are the only part of the British empire where education is supported by a tax on municipal real estate. In every other part of the empire the cost of education is borne by governments corresponding with our provincial and federal governments. In every other instance throughout the empire not less than 50 per cent of the cost of education is borne by the central government.

Let us for a moment ask ourselves the result of our present method of financing education. The type of school a boy attends, the nature of equipment provided, the library facilities

Post-War Reconstruction

available, the qualifications of the teacher and in many instances even the length of time the school is open are determined to a great extent by the value of real estate assessment in a local municipality. The result is that a boy living on one side of a street, in one municipality, in many instances has an opportunity of gaining a much superior education than can be gained by another boy who may live on the opposite side of the same street, but who lives in another muncipality or another school section.

Surely the time has come in Canada when we must realize that education is a matter of vital national importance, and, being so, surely some means should be taken whereby the provinces and the federal government working in cooperation could be made to bear the major share of the cost. Granted, I know, that by the British North America Act education is a matter of provincial concern, there is no reason whatever why the federal government should interfere in any way with the programme of a provincial department of education, because the assistance would be by way of financial support.

The one great need from the federal point of view is to see to it that no boy or girl in Canada is deprived of an educational opportunity because his or her parents are poor. Under present conditions many boys and girls lack that opportunity, and that is a situation which should be remedied.

Subject to your approval, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) the following amendment:

That this motion be amended by inserting after the word "committees" in line 6 the following words: "including a subcommittee on education".

Topic:   SUBSIDIES TO MAINTAIN SUPPLY-REPORT AS TO APPOINTMENT OF SUBSIDIES OFFICER
Subtopic:   POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION APPOINTMENT OP SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION AND REESTABLISHMENT
Permalink
CCF

George Hugh Castleden

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the reconstruction committee of the house last year, I should like to make a few constructive observations. There are two or three fields in which I believe that committee failed to make sufficient progress. If reports and words would reconstruct Canada I feel as a result of the experience of that committee that the job would be pretty well done by now.

The purpose of the James committee and the work of the reconstruction committee and of its subcommittees has been to study problems which face Canada under the present set-up. It seemed to me that one of the first things we should have done was to make a study of why it was that Canada had not provided that life which she was capable

of providing in the years prior to the war But we were told rather bluntly in the committee that no such study was being made. We wanted to find out what had been wrong with our national set-up. Then possibly we could have found some basis from which to effect a cure. We have not, it seems, clarified our aims. We are pretty much in the position of a physician who has been called upon to administer treatment to a sick man, and who is unwilling to make a diagnosis in order to find out what is wrong with him. Very often I felt that we were trying to administer some sort of temporary palliative instead of getting down to the root of the evil and finding out what was really wrong. Canada in the past few decades has not made much progress. We have sunk to what I think could properly be termed a C 3 nation. Our living standards, our health and housing standards, our educational standards in most of the dominion have been low, and unemployment and insecurity have been our lot.

I believe that the committee would do well first to make a survey of the things which our twelve million people approximately, and we hope twenty million within a few years, require. Then it should make a survey of the resources and the materials we have in the dominion in the way of natural resources, machinery of production, labour, brains and ability, to provide our people with these things which they need. After we have made those two surveys our big problem will be to bring the two together. In other words, how can we so arrange our national -economy that our people who need those things, and are willing to make their contribution in the way of effort toward obtaining them, shall have them? Frankly, I find in the reports of the committee which have so far been submitted much which causes me to feel that we have not touched the real problem of making these services and goods available to the people.

One of the particular fields which I wish to discuss is agriculture. To-day agriculture is the forgotten industry in this land. It seems to be looked upon as the legitimate prey of business. We find that the grain exchanges are carrying on their gambling operations.

We find millers and packers waxing wealthy on the farmers' products, and we find money lenders who have loaned the farmers into debt. We find machinery companies and others charging what they like for what the farmer has to buy, and the prices he receives for his products bear no relation to the cost of production. The only attempt at freezing those prices has been to freeze them down at a level

Post-War Reconstruction

which can ultimately lead only to a sort of pauperized peasantry. The farmer now finds himself regulated almost to death.

The subcommittee set out to study something in the field of agriculture, and their studies led them into the field of trying to ascertain a proper balance between agricultural and industrial populations. They proposed to investigate the whole field of the industrial use of agricultural products, internal trade within Canada, and external trade between Canada and other parts of the world. A study of the external trade should include a careful gauging of the requirements of foreign markets and a planning of Canadian agriculture so that the surpluses we have can best be disposed of. We believe that the national marketing boards should to a certain extent take the place of grain exchanges and food exchanges, and through these boards there should be set up machinery for establishing a proper parity price within the dominion, and for effecting a proper exchange of goods within the various parts of the dominion.

In the foreign field we should be finding out what things Canada will require and how we can best provide the things which other nations will require and which we can offer in exchange. In both these fields we believe that the committee has failed to study properly the place for wholesale and retail cooperative organizations. In the internal economy of Canada there are many things which must startle us as we look at them. There is the fact that we in the west have such boundless abundance of grains and foodstuffs which seem to be lacking in other parts of the dominion.

I am glad that the committee is studying the field of nutrition. I have often considered, when thinking of the large wheat surpluses of western Canada, that it was shameful the way in which that grain with all its nutritive qualities had been changed in its manufacture until all the good was taken out of it and these nutritive properties were not made available to the people who should have them. Again, there is an abundance of fruit growing as in the Okanagan valley, but the children on the western prairies are unable to get fruit as a part of their necessary nutritive supply.

Another problem which is a part of the agricultural problem is that of debt. Agriculture cannot expect to be restored until there is a proper attack on this debt problem throughout the whole dominion. There can be no security until the people on the land are placed in a position of solvency and given an opportunity to provide themselves with security. I should like to recommend for the

committee's study the work of the farm security administration in the United States. Under the circumstances which exist in Canada to-day, the agricultural burden of debt deprives about eighty-five per cent of those engaged in agriculture of a decent livelihood, of health and of hope. We believe that the foundation of any good national life is the agricultural industry. In Canada that foundation is failing, as is evidenced by the movement of so many people in recent years from the farms into the cities. This is not just a war-time phenomenon; it has existed during the past forty years, being accelerated by the difficulties placed in the way of those who try to make a living by toiling on the land, so that to-day less than thirty-three per cent of our population is engaged in agriculture. That is not a healthy condition in any national economy.

The other field in which we are failing is that of education. On this subject I have the honour to second the amendment which is at present before the house. Sir William Beveridge in his report says, at page 6, that there are five giants to be overcome on the road to reconstruction. Want is only one of those; the others are disease, ignorance, squalour and idleness. Education is the first and the natural attack on that giant of ignorance. The attack on ignorance is the basis, we believe, for solving most of the other problems; and this amendment provides for a special subcommittee to devote its time to that vital phase of reconstruction.

We are of opinion that knowledge should be socialized across the whole of the dominion. We mean that it must be made available to everyone. The committee would be required to study education from the national viewpoint. We believe that education should be a national concern.

Topic:   SUBSIDIES TO MAINTAIN SUPPLY-REPORT AS TO APPOINTMENT OF SUBSIDIES OFFICER
Subtopic:   POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION APPOINTMENT OP SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION AND REESTABLISHMENT
Permalink
NAT

John Ritchie MacNicol

National Government

Mr. MacNICOL:

The British North America Act states that it belongs to the provinces.

Topic:   SUBSIDIES TO MAINTAIN SUPPLY-REPORT AS TO APPOINTMENT OF SUBSIDIES OFFICER
Subtopic:   POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION APPOINTMENT OP SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION AND REESTABLISHMENT
Permalink
CCF

George Hugh Castleden

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. CASTLEDEN:

If Canada had had a national educational policy, properly carried out, we would not have suffered from the degeneration which had been our lot for the past twenty years. We would not now be a C3 nation; we might have been able to make a greater contribution in the battle for freedom in which we are now engaged. We must be prepared to equal the social improvements which have been established in our sister dominion of New Zealand. Unless we have a national programme of training and education we cannot hope to make Canada one of the first nations of the world. I am doubtful whether we are likely to overtake some of the nations which are now leading the world

Post-War Reconstruction

in this direction, and which look upon the brains of the young people as being the greatest natural resource they have.

The committee could make a complete investigation of the educational needs of Canada, surveying the possibilities of federal assistance to provincial departments of education. I do not believe there is any necessity for interfering with the powers or authority of the provincial education departments. We propose merely to give federal assistance to those provinces which, on account of their economic condition, are unable to maintain a decently high and minimum standard of education. We believe that a federal educational programme assisting the provinces to maintain that minimum standard in respect of primary, secondary and adult education would benefit the whole dominion, and that we as a nation can no longer afford to neglect this problem. I cannot imagine a proposal of this kind being opposed excepting by those who fear real social reform.

In closing, I would just say that we believe Canadians must be trained in leadership so that they can develop confidence in themselves and be enabled to make their contribution in a society with a cooperative outlook, while maintaining that sturdy independence which is so essentially a part of the common man.

Topic:   SUBSIDIES TO MAINTAIN SUPPLY-REPORT AS TO APPOINTMENT OF SUBSIDIES OFFICER
Subtopic:   POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION APPOINTMENT OP SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION AND REESTABLISHMENT
Permalink
LIB

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of Pensions and National Health)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I submit that the amendment which has been moved is not in accordance with the established rule as set out in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, paragraph 422, and in May, 13th edition, page 473. This committee has already the power to set up subcommittees as it may decide; and this is a specialized instruction from this house to a committee of this house not yet formed.

Topic:   SUBSIDIES TO MAINTAIN SUPPLY-REPORT AS TO APPOINTMENT OF SUBSIDIES OFFICER
Subtopic:   POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION APPOINTMENT OP SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION AND REESTABLISHMENT
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Vien (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

I have considered the

amendment which is moved by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) and seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden):

That this motion be amended by inserting after the word "committees" in line 6 the following words: "including a subcommittee on, education".

The house will realize that the motion is:

That a select committee of the house be appointed to study and report upon the general problems of reconstruction and reestablishment which may arise at the termination of the present war, and all questions pertaining thereto; with power to such select committee to appoint, from among the members of the committee, such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable or necessary, to deal with specific phases of the problems aforementioned, with power to said

select committee and to such subcommittees as may be formed therefrom, to call for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath . . .

In the first place, the proposition as stated in the motion is general in its terms, and there is no power for the house to instruct a committee which has not yet been formed. It is only after the committee is formed that instructions can be given to a committee to deal with some matter which the house thinks ought to be included in the terms of reference to the committee.

In the second place, it seems to me that the inclusion of the amendment is only giving such powers as the committee shall have when the motion is adopted by the house. They will have the general power to study and report upon problems of reconstruction and reestablishment, and also the power to appoint subcommittees to deal with any specific matters which are included or could be considered as included within the general terms of "reconstruction and reestablishment." For that reason, if any hon. member wished, and the amendment was relevant, he could propose a subcommittee on agriculture, or a subcommittee on any other phase of our activities, and the house would then be directing the committee on matters which are already included and governed by the general terms of the motion which is before the house. Further, if in the committee some effort is made to have included within it a subcommittee on education, that is certainly a matter which can be raised within the committee, and if the committee so decide the subcommittee can then be appointed. If the hon. members of the committee are not satisfied or there is refusal of a request to appoint a subcommittee, there is nothing to prevent hon. members of the committee from bringing the matter back to the house, and then instructions might be given by the house to include among the subcommittees a subcommittee on education.

For these reasons I rule the amendment out of order.

Topic:   SUBSIDIES TO MAINTAIN SUPPLY-REPORT AS TO APPOINTMENT OF SUBSIDIES OFFICER
Subtopic:   POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION APPOINTMENT OP SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION AND REESTABLISHMENT
Permalink
IND

Alan Webster Neill

Independent

Mr. NEIL (Comox-Alberni):

May I say a word? It is customary, Mr. Speaker, before you give your decision to ask members of the house if they wish to express their opinion. Your Honour did not follow that practice in this case. May I suggest that a few days ago the house was permitted to do something entirely similar to that to which objection is now being taken. At that time the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) moved an amendment, almost identical with what has been moved to-day, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) accepted it.

Post-War Reconstruction

At that time the hon. member wished to add to the matters which a committee would be permitted to go into and the government accepted his suggestion.

Topic:   SUBSIDIES TO MAINTAIN SUPPLY-REPORT AS TO APPOINTMENT OF SUBSIDIES OFFICER
Subtopic:   POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION APPOINTMENT OP SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION AND REESTABLISHMENT
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Vien (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member is perfectly correct in what he states with regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver South, but the house will also remember that I took exception from the Chair to that amendment. I did not think it was relevant to the matter then before the house, and I stated that I must not be bound by what the house did, and that it should not be considered as a precedent. The house agreed to it unanimously, but I am now faced with this amendment which involves the same principle that was contained in the amendment of several days ago. I am now asked to give my ruling, and I think if I had been called upon for a ruling at that time I would certainly have ruled it out of order, as I am doing in connection with this particular amendment.

Topic:   SUBSIDIES TO MAINTAIN SUPPLY-REPORT AS TO APPOINTMENT OF SUBSIDIES OFFICER
Subtopic:   POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION APPOINTMENT OP SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION AND REESTABLISHMENT
Permalink
LIB

Robert Wellington Mayhew

Liberal

Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Victoria, B.C.):

Mr. Speaker, I do not apologize for rising at this time to speak on rehabilitation, although I realize it is not the unanimous opinion of the people of Canada that when we are in the throes of a struggle, the outcome of which no one can definitely foretell, is the time to talk of rehabilitation. However, I do not think time can be divided into compartments of war and peace. In peacetime we should try to plan for war, and in war we should plan for peace. If we had made adequate plans for peace and for the development of this country during the last war, we would not have been in the position we are in to-day. I think in all probability this war might have been postponed. Had we during the twenty years between the end of the last war and the beginning of this one planned for this war, fewer of our men and ships would now be at the bottom of the Atlantic.

I think we should plan for peace at the present time even though we are in the midst of the desperate struggle which I mentioned. Hope is about the only antidote for fear that we have. Unless we can plan for peace as earnestly and as sincerely as we are planning for war, unless we can assure those who are fighting our battles that they can look forward to something fairly definite when they come home, or to something fairly definite for their families should they not come home, I think we shall be making a great mistake.

I am glad the government is assuming this role. I am glad to be associated with a

government that is ready to put forth a programme which I consider necessary for Canada at the present time. I thought that the minister from British Columbia would be the man to head up this rehabilitation programme because he started it, but I understand now that it is to be a matter for the whole cabinet. I think that is a mistake. If we are to rebuild Canada as we want to rebuild it, this plan will require a driving force greater than has ever been presented to the government before.

This programme will not be completed by the building of a few public buildings here and there, although the building of such buildings may form part of the programme. It will not be sufficient to say that we will build some roads here and there, even though we complete the long dreamed of main highway from the Atlantic to the Pacific. That is necessary, but of itself it is only a means to an end. We must clear the slums from our cities; we must rebuild the homes on the prairies which are now quite inadequate and which I am sure make us all feel most uncomfortable when we pass through the prairies these cold wintry days. These things are necessary, but of themselves they are only items in the programme.

We shall need the construction of power dams, the creating of power from the Fraser river, the Thompson, the Mackenzie, the Saskatchewan, the Ottawa, the St. Lawrence and the Saguenay; these are all necessary, they may form part of the total plan, but they are not the total plan. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNieol) refer to the need of power in the west. We may be able to put electric lights into the homes and make power available to everyone in Canada at cheap rates, but that wull be only part of the plan. The electrification of our railways to use the power of which there is no end instead of oil which must be brought from the United States, should be another feature in this plan. The creation of a merchant marine will not be sufficient in itself, nor will the providing of adequate air transport. A proper foreign policy is also necessary, as wmll as an immigration policy. These undertakings constitute a programme which is a challenge to the people of Canada and to this government, a challenge which I hope they will be able to meet.

I have no intention of dealing with each of these items individually and telling the government what should be done. I was glad to hear the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) speak of education. I

Post-War Reconstruction

think that, too, has to come in on our general plan. The little red schoolhouse was red at one time; to-day we do not know what colour it is because they have not had enough money to give it a coat of paint. Unattractive schoolyards, poorly-paid teachers, all have to come in. The youth of this country is the rock on which the country will be built solidly, or it will perish. We must pay proper attention to the education of our children.

But there are four things that I rose specially to mention to-day. I mention these because they relate to war time as well as peace. One is our merchant marine. During peace time Canada had no merchant marine worthy of the name. Are we to have one when this war is over? I think the Minister of Transport (Mr. Michaud) should announce to the house before this session is over whether it is the policy of the government to have a merchant marine in Canada or not. I should like to ask him whether the present boats we are building are adequate to compete in marine service when this war is over, if our eight- or ten-knot boats will fill the bill, or if we shall need larger and faster boats to compete with other countries. Yesterday I picked up a little book published by the Swedish Traffic Association in which I find this statement:

At the turn of the century Sweden was still to a great extent dependent on intermediaries abroad for her foreign trade and regular Swedish shipping lines extended only to the Baltic, the North sea and down to the Mediterranean.

Conditions have changed with amazing rapidity. Nowadays about 45 per cent of the direct shipping between Sweden and other countries, which in 1937 comprised 47-4 million net tons (incoming and outgoing vessels), is accounted for by Swedish tonnage, and of the total tonnage of the Swedish mercantile marine about half is employed on transoceanic routes. There are now direct Swedish routes to all parts of the world, with regular sailings several times a month, and the extension of these shipping lines has led to the opening up of valuable new markets for Swedish wares. So the truth of the maxim "Trade follows the flag" has been confirmed once again by experience.

I wonder whether Canada's trade will follow Canada's flag or follow the flag of some other country. Are we to let this service be given to us by outside people or to conserve it for the boys who are risking their lives to get our goods to the other nations of the world? Before this session is over, the minister should announce some policy as to our merchant marine.

Another matter I would speak about is air transport. Here again I could quote from the same book telling what has been done in the way of air transport in the little country of Sweden. In 1937 they put us to shame. Here are we in Canada at the top of the world, the one place where we should be giving every

consideration to air transport. In peace days we were running our ships, the fastest we had, from the far east to connect with the fastest trains in Canada and pushing them across to the Atlantic to farther east, the shortest and fastest route. Are we to lose that trade, hand it over to someone else to develop, or to develop it for Canada and for the boys who are to-day learning to fly and defending us? This government should now appoint a committee to go into the whole matter of air transport and where we stand in connection with transport for the world.

I say the same thing about our navy. These things should be declared now, for the benefit and the encouragement of our young men. Are we to have a Canadian navy, and in what proportions? The boys serving in our navy to-day want to know whether it is to be their life work. They do not want to feel that when the war is over we are going to have a few skiffs on the east coast and a few on the west coast. No matter what the size of it, the policy should be announced now by the government as to whether there is to be a Canadian navy or whether we are still to be sheltered under the Monroe doctrine or by Great Britain. Canadians want to stand on their own feet and they have a right to do so. Out of our strength we should help the others. If we want to be a good neighbour to our two closest neighbours then Canada must be developed with the greatest possible optimism and energy. I would not want to be the hon. member who spoke just before me. I cannot understand a man who is young and looks so full of energy and strength being so pessimistic about Canada as I know it and see it. There never was a time in my life when I could not see fifty jobs to do for every time I had one to do. For any man to rise in his place here and say that we have not this, or we have not that, I cannot understand it. What is more, we shall never have it without cooperation, no matter who is heading up our programme.

The same announcement of policy should be made as far as our air force is concerned. Are we to have an air force in Canada? Our policy should be announced this year, to encourage the boys who want to stay in this kind of work. To those who say we should wait until the war is over before deciding these things, I say now is the time for us to decide on these policies. I know our foreign trade is something we have to develop, but Canadians have a good reputation for honest dealing, for good merchandise; we have something to build on. We can cultivate that spirit and go ahead building on it. I see only

Post-War Reconstruction

two obstacles in our way. The first obstacle to the development of our foreign policy is the growth of hatred between all nations.

I cannot see a world at peace for very long unless we can build on the foundation that all men are brothers. I cannot envision a world peace that will last very long if even to-day we are afraid to include our enemies. St. Paul said, "Feed thine enemies" and I think there is a good lesson in economics in that statement. I do not mean to say that we should do the foolish things we did after the last war, that we should give our enemies money hoping they will spend it on butter and allowing them to spend it on guns, but we can give to them out of the surpluses which we are sure to have, and see to it that they use it for butter and not for ammunition. The other obstacle in our way is perhaps our political prejudice in that we will not follow a lead when it is presented to us in all sincerity. The development of Canada should be our objective.

Topic:   SUBSIDIES TO MAINTAIN SUPPLY-REPORT AS TO APPOINTMENT OF SUBSIDIES OFFICER
Subtopic:   POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION APPOINTMENT OP SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION AND REESTABLISHMENT
Permalink
IND

Alan Webster Neill

Independent

Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):

Mr. Speaker, I desire to express my hearty support of the purpose behind the appointment of this select committee which we are discussing now and which we discussed on Friday afternoon. He would be a poor politician and an unworthy citizen who would want to throw any obstacle in the way of discussing anything that would improve economic and financial conditions in the post-war period. Many of the speeches that have been made have been highly constructive, sensible and valuable. Perhaps some hon. members fell into the habit, inevitably, of picturing a utopia without telling us how to arrive at it. We all put forward our ideas of what the post-war world should be like, but we are all rather vague in describing the method of reaching that objective. I suppose it will be the purpose of the committee to endeavour to reconcile these divergent views as to what may be best for the future.

I should like to present a couple of ideas which I think may be useful to the committee, but before doing so I wish to voice a mild protest at the hide-bound party political machinery that is used, and has been used of late years, in the appointment of select committees. Perhaps for the benefit of any new members I might explain the difference between the standing committees of the house and these select committees. Ever since confederation, I suppose, there have been standing committees of the house appointed for the purpose of considering relevant matters which may be referred to them by the house. Those committees have been struck for this year, and they may be found set out at page

407 of Hansard. They number thirteen. I need not mention them all, but they include the banking and commerce committee, the public accounts committee, the committee on industrial and international relations, the committee on agriculture, the committee on marine and fisheries, the committee on mines and so on. That indicates the idea of the thing, does it not; and the procedure was that when specific matters came up in the house which should be discussed at greater length than was possible in this chamber, they were referred to the appropriate committees. Any hon. member who so demands may be placed upon one or more of these standing committees appointed under the rules of the house. In 1922, when I first came here, I had myself appointed to two committees; and since they dealt with various subjects I have been able through the years, I hope, to contribute some useful effort to the benefit of the district which I represent. But this has been changed by the government, not suddenly and violently, which would give one an opportunity to protest, but subtly and quietly. Of the thirteen standing committees of the house I think six or seven did not sit at all last year. Of the two to which I belong, one has not sat for four years and the other has not met for seven years. Standing committees, forsooth 1 They have just died a sort of natural death, or perhaps it could not be called natural; perhaps it was an inspired death. It was not that occasion did not arise from time to time when subjects came up which should have been sent to the appropriate committees. Not at all; the government simply did not refer matters to these committees, but began this system of select committees. I think that is a nice, appropriate word, too; they were selected by the various parties in this house, particularly the larger ones. What the idea is, I do not know; but if one wanted to be cynical-of course I would not-one might suggest that when a subject came up in the house which the government felt could not be safely entrusted to the proper standing committee, that committee was sidetracked and a special, hand-picked select committee was appointed solely by those on the government benches and desiring to stay there, and by those on this side of the house equally willing to take up the reins of office. But the common herd, to which I shall refer presently, did not come into the picture at all.

Look at the order paper. It contains five resolutions to appoint select committees to consider matters all of which could and should have been sent to standing committees. Take the first resolution on the

Post-War Reconstruction

order paper, dealing with social insurance. Could that not have gone and should it not have gone to the committee on industrial and international relations? Would it not have gone there ten years ago? That is the committee which always has dealt with anything of this kind. I remember spending weeks in that committee dealing with old age pensions, and later we considered the matter of family allowances in the province of Quebec, which was brought up by someone coming from that province. That was the appropriate place for a discussion of that kind; but that is not the case any more; this subject is to be sent to a special, handpicked select committee. What about the public accounts committee? Should that not have been the place to send matters in connection with the expenditures of the government? It always used to be. What about the radio investigation? Should that not have gone to the banking and commerce committee?

In my own case-and I am using this as an illustration only for the moment, because presently I want to give the broader application-in twenty-one years I have never had an' opportunity of serving on any of those select committees; and since the standing committees of which I was a member have not been meeting, I have been prohibited from serving in that way at all. It may be asked why I did not complain. Well, I remember that a president of the United States said something about being too proud to fight, and it might be that I was too proud to beg as a favour that which I could not demand as a right. Any hon. member can demand to be placed on a standing committee, but it is an entirely different story in connection with these select committees. To get on them you must have party pull.

Topic:   SUBSIDIES TO MAINTAIN SUPPLY-REPORT AS TO APPOINTMENT OF SUBSIDIES OFFICER
Subtopic:   POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION APPOINTMENT OP SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION AND REESTABLISHMENT
Permalink
NAT

John Ritchie MacNicol

National Government

Mr. MacNICOL:

Being Scotch you would not beg.

Topic:   SUBSIDIES TO MAINTAIN SUPPLY-REPORT AS TO APPOINTMENT OF SUBSIDIES OFFICER
Subtopic:   POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION APPOINTMENT OP SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION AND REESTABLISHMENT
Permalink
IND

Alan Webster Neill

Independent

Mr. NEILL:

In any event it was only one man's grievance, and I was willing to pay that as part of the price for not being attached to any party; perhaps it was worth it. But now the situation is different; it is open to objection on broader lines. I want to refer to the aggregation of members-I cannot call them a group or a party-in the southeast corner; they are not all here now but perhaps they will read my remarks in Hansard. I do not speak for them, for I have no authority to do so; I have not consulted them nor have they instructed me to put forward their case, but since their case happens to be mine, since regrettably they find themselves in same situation, I will speak of them. They are being neglected in this matter

for the same reason, that they are not affiliated with any of the larger parties. My sympathies do not extend to the political doctrines of those gentlemen. I think one or two call themselves independent, while the others have given themselves titles more descriptive of their political views, but they are all independent in the sense that they are not attached to any of the larger parties. A great statesman once said to his opponent, I abhor your sentiments but I will fight to the death that you may have the privilege of expressing them. I do not abhor the sentiments of hon. gentlemen in the corner, though I do not agree with them; but I think they should be allowed to express their views and given an opportunity to share in the life of parliament. There has grown up in that corner what I might call a cave of Adullam.

To those hon. members who were not brought up on the Scotch shorter catechism I might mention that the cave of Adullam is a place to which David, when he was out of luck, retired. It was a dirty old cave, and of it the Scriptures say:

And every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one that was discontented, gathered themselves unto him; and he became a captain over them: and there were with him about four hundred men.

In case it might be thought that I am reflecting upon that group I might remind them that David lived to be a very great king, the greatest of his times, and one who will always be remembered and respected as long as the Christian religion is taught. So that it is in no sense a reflection upon them if I refer to them as being a bunch of Adullamites; and if they will allow me I will include myself with them.

They number nine members in the house, a group about as large as that of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, or the Social Credit party. On the committee on social insurance to which I referred a moment ago there are two members of the Social Credit party, and two from the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. Together those two groups number nineteen, but there are four of them on the committee, or twenty-one per cent. We Adullamites also number nine, but we have no representation on that committee. And we never shall have, for the reason I have already given.

After all, we were elected by the people. We are responsible only to them for the wisdom of our action, and to our God for the integrity of our motives. I do not think we should be held responsible to any political party with which we are not amalgamated, or to which we do not wish to be attached.

Post-War Reconstruction

Topic:   SUBSIDIES TO MAINTAIN SUPPLY-REPORT AS TO APPOINTMENT OF SUBSIDIES OFFICER
Subtopic:   POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION APPOINTMENT OP SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION AND REESTABLISHMENT
Permalink
NAT

John Ritchie MacNicol

National Government

Mr. MacNICOL:

The Adullamites have no leaders.

Topic:   SUBSIDIES TO MAINTAIN SUPPLY-REPORT AS TO APPOINTMENT OF SUBSIDIES OFFICER
Subtopic:   POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION APPOINTMENT OP SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION AND REESTABLISHMENT
Permalink
IND

Alan Webster Neill

Independent

Mr. NEILL:

Did the British North America Act, when it formed Canadian confederation seventy years ago, contemplate that? Was that the idea of fhe democracy about which we talk so much? I do not believe it was. There would be no danger to the government if they put one or two of these Adullamites on a committee, because the government always keeps a huge majority-and quite properly. If they form a committee of twenty-five they would have eighteen members from the government side of the house. So that it would do no harm if they did recognize occasionally-and only occasionally, perhaps- the right of members of parliament to be members of parliament, and not just to be automatic recorders of the views of a party in office, or of another party which would very much like to be in office. The very fact that we have no hope of or aspiration to office suggests that it might be a good thing to have some of us on that committee, with the assurance that we at least would not be governed by party considerations.

It is notorious in committees of the house that politics is played. If there is an investigation of some alleged action by the government, government followers try to develop a clear record, and members of the opposition try to do the opposite. Of course they play politics. And when a report comes to be written one can see the political complexion of a committee. If that is not so, then why does the government insist upon having a majority on committees? So that if one or two of these political Adullamites who are not committed to any party were put on, it would not hamper the work of the committee. It might even have a good effect upon it; it might even prove beneficial. There are some good men in the group in the corner. One of them is new, and I am informed he is an able man. How is he to demonstrate his ability or gain experience if he is not allowed to sit on a committee? I suggest that the government should be more tolerant in dealing with those who are not attached to one of the larger parties.

I would advise those hon. members sitting in the corner seats to insist upon their rights; and to insist upon them now because-and I speak from experience-they will find, as time goes on, it is a great deal easier to lose a privilege in the house than to regain one.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   SUBSIDIES TO MAINTAIN SUPPLY-REPORT AS TO APPOINTMENT OF SUBSIDIES OFFICER
Subtopic:   POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION APPOINTMENT OP SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION AND REESTABLISHMENT
Permalink
IND

Alan Webster Neill

Independent

Mr. NEILL:

Mr. Speaker, I now turn to the work of the reconstruction committee and I hope to make a couple of suggestions that may be worthy of their consideration.

I want to support strongly those members who have advocated that the government or the committee should consider and put into effect an increase in the old age pension and a reduction in the age limit. I need not reiterate the reasons for that because they have been often given to the house and are so obvious. The feeling seems to be almost unanimous both in this chamber and in the country in favour of an increased old age pension and a reduced age limit. The minister told us to-day that representations had been received from five of the provinces, through their legislatures, I presume, begging for action in connection with this increase. I am' surprised that the government does not realize the force of public opinion. It has become a positive demand for this legislation. I notice that in Great Britain the government is far more responsive to public feeling than it is here. Apparently here we need an impending general election or a vital defeat or something of that kind before the government of the day - I mean any government - realizes and responds to public feeling.

There is one angle that has not yet been touched upon which makes it important that this action should be taken and taken quickly. Several members have emphasized the point that this committee should take action quickly, recommend measures and have parliament pass them-pass them, they emphasized-in order that our soldiers at the front might see definitely in front of them some evidence that we were really in earnest, that we were not simply contenting ourselves with talking and making promises. They stressed that we should present our soldiers with an accomplished fact.

The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Wood) said the other night that it would be difficult for us to go very far with any post-war rehabilitation plans until peace was declared because we would not know into what scheme of general things we would have to fit our proposals. There is a great deal in that. Peace certainly will not be signed before six months and probably eighteen months after the armistice, and eighteen months is quite a long time. Also the peace treaty, when formulated and signed, will purely be a peace treaty. It will consist of an ultimatum laid down by the victorious allies telling the defeated nations what they have to do, and it will not go much

Post-War Reconstruction

beyond that. There might be some proposal of a general character for maintaining an international allied police force. But that treaty will not go into details of economic or social reform. So that this committee, if it is to wait until peace comes, will have to wait still longer before we can adopt any forwardlooking policy. A great deal of the policy we must adopt after the war will depend upon the treaties that will have to be made between us and other nations or possibly other groups of nations. It is upon the progress we make with them that our own changes in organization will depend. That will take a long time, and the boys at the front-they are not boys, they are men now-will be looking with very suspicious eyes upon any delays and saying, "What is this? Is it all talk?"

The question of the tariff, for instance, is a very large one. The government of the day is traditionally free trade in its outlook on the tariff, and when I say "free trade" I mean not bigotedly so. The Progressive Conservative party on this side have recently announced their very strong trend1 toward free trade, and I presume that they would go as far as they have announced. Many people believe in free trade, but many people believe that free trade would be fatal if it were not universal. Suppose that Canada went all-out for free trade and announced1 that she would throw down her tariff barriers, trade with the whole world and allow any imports to come in. Suppose our two big customers, Britain and the United States, decided in favour of the closed-door, putting up their barriers and keeping our goods out. It would be impossible in that event for us to adopt a policy of complete free trade. These things will not be expressed in the terms of a peace treaty. We shall have to make these treaties after the war with the different nations, and that again will take time. It is partly for that reason, and partly for the political advantage that would obviously accrue, that I would anticipate that the present government, when it goes to the country, as it will do this fall or next spring, would rather adopt the policy of dangling before the electors a pleasing platform of promised reforms, instead of putting them into legislative effect and presenting them as a fait accompli to the people. That is always more dangerous than to talk nicely in connection with promised reforms at election time. Will the men at the front accept such a course? Will they not say in regard to your promises, "Oh, heck; we have heard that before. Why don't you do something?"- They will ask us to deliver the goods. These men are used to the grim realities of life, of sorrow and of death, and I am

afraid they will be at least impatient of measures that are only dangled before their eyes. They will be impatient of any talk that we shall do such and so when we can get around to it.

I know an action which can be taken, and it can be taken now. The expression has been used in connection with national debt of making a token payment. Suppose we take a token action now, and not attempt to carry out the whole policy of rehabilitation at once because that would be impossible now. But let us give the men at the front a token of our good faith. Here is something that will not require to be embodied in the terms of the peace treaty. Here is something that is not dependent upon other nations. Other nations have gone far ahead of us in this regard. Here is something we can do now, and therefore I say, let us pass legislation now, increasing the amount of the old age pension and lowering the age limit. If we did that now, the soldiers would say, "They have done what they could. They have given us an earnest of their good faith. It looks as though we could trust them." And they will trust us. But if we continue to try to beguile or cajole them with pleasinglooking programmes, they will lose faith in constitutional parliament and might go to lengths-for want of having any other place to go-that would1 be disastrous for Canada.

It is a notorious fact that any government that I have seen in these halls is ruled by expediency. First and last, expediency is the deciding factor. Very often it is expediency that has the final word in the decision as to what policy shall be carried out. But here is a case where justice, fairness and expediency would all go together. It certainly would be most expedient to give the men a guarantee that this thing is being done for the aged people about whom so much has been said, and would also be just and fair. Therefore I urge this committee to recommend this to the government-and that the government should implement the recommendation this session-an adjustment in the amount of the old age pension and in the age limit.

I have time to speak on one more subject, one on which I have discoursed so often in the last twenty years. I refer to the Jap situation, and I note that everything I have predicted1 has come true. What I suggest now

unlike the old age pension-must be written into the peace terms or it will not take place at all. I refer to the deportation of the Japs and a guarantee that there will be a total refusal to allow any more oriental immigration into Canada. I say it must be embodied in the terms of peace, for this

Post-War Reconstruction

reason. Do not believe when you are told -I have been told already, and I do not believe it-"Oh, well, this is a matter for after the war; win the war first and then we will deal with this question; we will be glad to take it up with you." It cannot be done after the war because it will then be too late. These people whom we want to deport are, or many of them are, British subjects ostensibly, and you cannot deport British subjects after the war. You can do so before the war is over or as part of the terms of peace.

No matter how slim the allegiance of these Japanese-British subjects may be to the British crown; no matter how obvious the fraudulence of their dual nationality-because they may be good British subjects and at the same time loyal Japanese subjects; that is their creed and custom and what they adhere to-no matter how designedly they were sent here-for it was not casual immigration; they were sent here by the Japanese government to start a system of infiltration into the most desirable province of Canada, from both climatic and geographical considerations, and as being useful for the purposes of aggression later on-yet they are ostensibly British subjects and cannot be deported. Therefore, if there is any deportation to be done it should be done as part of the terms of peace.

But we are told that big business interests, the big business men of whom it is said with bated breath that they are the spawn of the devil, or very near it, want these men because they want cheap labour. I have seen no evidence in recent years of anything of the kind so far as big business is concerned, and we must assume that big business is fairly shrewd or it would not maintain itself in these days of keen competition. And big business has seen within the last year that when cheap labour- if it was cheap labour

or labour of any kind was most needed, we lost it all because we had to take it away from the British Columbia coast for our own security. When we needed labour the most we lost it, and spent five million dollars in taking care of it; and before we have finished repairing boats, building houses, and paying for keeping these people idle, the cost will be twice as much. Call it anything you like, but do not call that cheap labour which disappears as soon as you need it, in case of war.

I have in my hand a copy of a bargain-or rather it was not a bargain, it was a benediction-made by the British Columbia security commission with the province of Alberta, under which they agreed to put a number of Japanese on farms in Alberta, under very stringent, named conditions. We talk about the

Jews being the favoured people of God; they could never have had a look-in with the Japs, in so far as the British Columbia security commission is concerned. The commission heaped favours on them. It guaranteed them transportation; it guaranteed that they would never go on relief; it guaranteed them medical services galore, even dental service; hospitalization, education, housing. Each house had to have a garden, and it had to be guaranteed that if the man went out of work temporarily he should not be disturbed in the possession of his house and his garden plot. This was much better than was done for our unemployed during the depression. I will quote section 10 of this remarkable document:

The commission agrees to remove or to have removed from the province, upon the termination of the state of war . . . the Japanese temporarily placed or maintained within the province pursuant to the terms of this agreement, as requested so to do by the province.

What about these people being British subjects? You cannot deport British subjects after the war is over; you cannot even move them from one province to another. The "British subject" status seems to have disappeared when it comes to the matter of their continuance in residence. I am no lawyer, but I should like to know if any government can delegate its sovereign powers to an outfit calling itself a security commission. It may delegate the commission to do certain things under its jurisdiction. But the commission apparently considers itself an independent state; it assumes it can take the Japs back or do anything it likes of that kind. I should like to see this question investigated. In addition, similar deals were made with Manitoba and Ontario before the Japs were allowed to go there, and they have all to go back to British Columbia. After the war we shall have twenty-four thousand Japanese unloaded on the people of British Columbia, who do not want one of them, any more than you do in Ontario, or anywhere else.

It may be, Mr. Speaker-it is no use my disguising facts-that in British Columbia there are a few who, from ignorance, or hopes of votes, or hopes of campaign funds, champion their "little brown brothers." Oh, they are very, very few, I can assure you. These enemies have to be given work when they come back, have they not, either by government authority, which is compulsion, or by a system of undercutting the white man-and they can easily do it, because their standard of living is much lower-and these jobs will either be given to or obtained by them in the manner I have indicated, at the expense of returned men. By that time our men or

Post-War Reconstruction

Topic:   SUBSIDIES TO MAINTAIN SUPPLY-REPORT AS TO APPOINTMENT OF SUBSIDIES OFFICER
Subtopic:   POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION APPOINTMENT OP SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION AND REESTABLISHMENT
Permalink
NAT

Douglas Gooderham Ross

National Government

Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):

Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Neill) who has just spoken. Something must be done at once. Theories are all right for the long-range plan, but we must act immediately. I am not sure that I understand the hon. gentleman correctly, but I believe he said that some suckers in Ontario might give the Japanese the vote. There are no suckers in Ontario because we shall not give them the vote. This afternoon the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) said that the people of Canada were sick and tired of being regimented. Since the hon. gentleman belongs to the socialist party, I am glad to hear him say that. If they ever get a chance, there will be nothing but regimentation in this country.

I rise to support the resolution. I was interested in the remarks made yesterday by the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power). He gave the public of Canada a real idea of the problems that will have to be faced when our boys come back to Canada. We shall have to be careful what is done with and for them. They deserve the best because we owe a great deal to them for what they have done in defence of the British isles. We can never repay them for that. Make no mistake about it; when they were defending the British isles they were defending Canada as well. However, I think there are many opportunities for them in this country. Much of Canada is still undiscovered. The spirit of enterprise shown by these young men will be the spirit that can be used to discover those great parts of Canada which have not yet been discovered.

The war is just beginning to be won. We must not relax one minute in the prosecution of the war. We must do everything we can to win this war, and we must not let talks of peace, talks of reconstruction and all that sort of thing take our thoughts away from the winning of this war. However, it is our duty to think of the future, to think of the period immediately after the war. These men expect us to be doing something like that. They expect that something will be ready for them when they are demobilized. My opinion is that it will take some little time to demobilize our forces. We should not let them go until we have something for them to go to. We shall have to have a gradual relaxation of the controls now exercised.

There is great hope for Canada. I am a believer in the future of Canada. For some time we have had an agricultural, an industrial and a scientific revolution going on in this country. The war has been responsible for the spurring on of this movement. Not only has there been a scientific revolution in agriculture and industry; it has occurred in the domestic field as well. Many new materials have been coming out. Science must not be overlooked in connection with reconstruction and planning for the future. In that connection I recommend a booklet containing a paper by J. K. Robertson on that very subject, read before the Royal Society of Canada. On page 10 he says:

According to the fourth clause in the Atlantic charter, the United States and the British commonwealth "will endeavour ... to further enjoyment by all states, great or small, victor and vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity."

Post-War Reconstruction

We certainly shall have to put a great deal of money into research and the scientific development of this country. Think of what is happening in Canada, new materials being developed from time to time in connection with the war, replacing old ones which were uneconomic. Increased use of forests and coal can be looked forward to; we shall have nylon and similar products made from coal, air and water; rayon and plastics replacing metals, plastic automobiles. To-day we have need for the plastic plumber, the installation of plastic pipes. All these things are new; why can we not develop new sources of raw materials to be used, for instance, to produce aluminum instead of importing material from British Guinea? Science will enter into the reduction of costs of production by scientific methods instead of by sweated labour. New methods, new materials will reduce the actual time necessary just to live, giving a more balanced day between work, study, recreation and sleep. All these things are possible. Science will influence the future prosperity of Canada more than anything else. Many times as much money will have to be diverted to research in conjunction with the industries of this country than has ever been spent before. That is where we have fallen down so badly in the past. When we think of what the national research council has already done in conjunction with industry, and in the prosecution of the war, we can easily see the need to increase this marvellous work of research in the future.

The post-war problem of Canada is not beyond solution, but all classes in the community must work together. Enlightened leaders of industry and intelligent labour leaders will have to cooperate in the solution of their problems. In the days to come I am sure that industrial leaders will welcome the organization of labour unions. It will be to their advantage to do that. It is only when people work together in organized fashion that they can bring to bear their potential strength most effectively on the solution of any problem. Our problem is so to gear our productive machinery and plan our national economy that we create and utilize our capacity to labour for the enrichment and enjoyment of our way of life. Many people look askance at the expression "planned economy", but I would point out that the oldest planned economy in the world was that of Egypt. Joseph was the first minister of agriculture in a capitalist country; he planned in the seven good years for the seven bad years. Every big corporation, every extensive enterprise makes its plans and plans

its campaigns months and even years ahead. Perhaps in the past there has not been enough of this planning in conjunction with the state. A planned economy does not mean regimentation or submission to bureaucracy; it is a way to give individual enterprise greater freedom of action and incentive for the exercise of its ingenuity and industiy. Organized industry and organized labour, each recognizing the rights and prerogatives of the other, should give leadership, guaranteeing freedom from want for all. They should encourage the government to assure at least a minimum of security for all. If the citizens of the country are strong, independent and secure, what follows is a strong but flexible government, strong enough to protect the people but not so powerful as to dominate them. The government does not own and drive every machine, but its function should be to regulate the flow of industry so as to avoid snarls and collisions. Free enterprise without constraint and without pressure will invite labour to take counsel with it in planning work so that there will be employment at all times and a decent level of income for all. But it is going to be a long time before plans can be put into effect, and "the best-laid schemes, o' mice an' men gang aft a-gley". The impact of the termination of the war may be sudden and great. Now is the time to plan for the day when the war ceases.

There is a solution in part as far as my own city is concerned. Many problems are facing it. A tremendous increase has taken place in the productive capacity of the city and in the population. Not only that, but the day-time population has increased very largely, and with that the problem of public services has become exceedingly acute. The question of sewage disposal is serious; the present plant was built with a capacity for less than two-thirds of the present population, and there is already a real danger to the health of the citizens and also to the other cities bordering on lake Ontario. Something will have to be done. It cannot be done very well while the war is on, although if the war lasts years more something will have to be done. At the present time raw sewage is going into the lake; the plant is not big enough to treat it. Water is being well filtered and treated; there is a fine system, *but any breakdown in that system would be very serious for the citizens of greater Toronto and of the other cities bordering on lake Ontario. The problem of supplying water is difficult at the present time, and the problem of transporting the people has also to be met. I must say that the Toronto transportation

Post-War Reconstruction

commission is doing a very good job, and if the service is not everything that might be wished it is no fault of that organization. The city must provide still more fire protection and police protection, more health services and so on. Again, at the present time we need two thousand houses; we could use that number in Toronto without any difficulty. To-day people living in Toronto are working in such places as Leaside, East York, Malton, New Toronto, Weston and other municipalities bordering on Toronto. Facilities other than public services are also severely taxed and private enterprise is doing its best to maintain such facilities.

The point I am coming to is this. How does this problem fit into the picture? Will our industries in Toronto be converted to the production of peace-time goods, and how quickly will that be done? Large investments in plant and equipment are involved, which no one wants to throw away; and if those plants are to be converted, as many will be, undoubtedly there will be many projects in connection with the services to which I have been referring which will have to be completed very quickly in order to bring those services up to reasonable requirements. Already the city of Toronto is planning for a rapid transit subway, and certain research work in that connection is being carried on at the present time. There are questions of new sewers, new streets, slum clearance, a new disposal plant, public and private housing, all of which will have to be constructed if these industries are to remain in the city of Toronto, for if we do not have the proper accommodation they will not remain.

All this will provide a great deal of work which will help take up the slack in whatever readjustment period may be necessary. The trouble is that in Toronto the tax rate is already so high that it is out of all proportion, and the assessment is high as well. These services will be required not only for Toronto; they will be required by those living in the metropolitan area and even further away. How do these projects fit into the picture of reconstruction? Well, these are matters that can be planned now. Certainly they will give employment to men at present in the army. Every class of worker will be required when these projects are carried out. Men would be given work in the manufacture of the equipment necessary for these undertakings as well as in the actual undertakings themselves. Almost every class of material, and no doubt new materials as well, will be required. The employment will be far-reaching, but then comes the question of financing. Funds will

have to be provided on an equitable basis by the dominion government, the provincial government, the city of Toronto and the municipalities in the metropolitan area, all of which will benefit. They are all interested, in many ways.

My suggestion is that this is a problem in connection with which we can make plans now, so that it may be started almost as soon as the materials can be made available. All these people should get together at once and lay plans which could be put into operation without delay when the war is over. It would be time and money well spent. I believe the question of financing is the only thing that stands in the way, and it is my opinion that the dominion government must give some assurance to the people of Toronto and district that it will be prepared to do a certain amount of financing in connection with that work, which certainly will provide a great deal of employment.

Topic:   SUBSIDIES TO MAINTAIN SUPPLY-REPORT AS TO APPOINTMENT OF SUBSIDIES OFFICER
Subtopic:   POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION APPOINTMENT OP SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION AND REESTABLISHMENT
Permalink
SC

Frederick Davis Shaw

Social Credit

Mr. F. D. SHAW (Red Deer):

Mr. Speaker, one cannot approach the subject of rehabilitation and reconstruction without reflecting upon the fact that last year we had a committee of this house charged with the responsibility of looking into the various aspects of this subject. I was not so fortunate as to be a member of that committee, but I am informed that it held approximately sixteen meetings. From time to time interim reports were submitted to this house, but I am under the impression that all in all very little was accomplished by that committee. In fact I rather fancy, putting it in my own way, that our good ship reconstruction and rehabilitation, after passing through very stormy weather, foundered somewhere near the isle of nutrition. I was rather disappointed in that connection, but I trust that I shall not be disappointed with the result of the deliberations of the committee this year.

Before proceeding further may I say in all fairness that I have been impressed to some extent by the attitude of the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie during this debate. He has not spoken, it is true, but he has been very patient. Whether or not he has absorbed what has been said we have no way of determining, but it is encouraging to see the apparent interest which he shows. I believe our plans for rehabilitation and reconstruction are predicated upon the assumption of an allied victory; there can be no question about that fact. Therefore I am inclined to the belief that any person who feels that we should not be discussing this subject at the present

Post-War Reconstruction

time has not very much faith in the outcome of the war. When we have achieved that victory we shall do honour to the men of our army, our navy-including the men of the merchant marine-and our air force; but I wonder if it is going to be more than lip-service, which is pleasant to hear but hardly adequate to meet the situation. We who are at home are expected to make Canada worthy of the high democratic ideals for which our boys are fighting, and any plan for rehabilitation must be determined in the light of their heroic achievements.

I am satisfied that we shall be chastised for devoting to this subject the time we are taking. A certain cross-section of the press has chastised us, and I know, too, that many others across this country consider that we have no business whatsoever in devoting our energies toward this subject at the present time. But I am not worried, and I believe hon. members will not be worried about the things which may be said about us for doing what we know to be right, and doing it at this time.

History records one very important fact, namely that the enormous expenditures entailed in the financing of a war invariably lead to business recession, industrial stagnation and general unemployment. History has proven that fact. Those conditions have been accepted in the past as being the inevitable outcome of these huge expenditures. But I say that under the present system, while they may be inevitable, the time has arrived when we, the Canadian people, must declare that we must remove those things which have made this condition inevitable. And when I speak of business recession or depression or panic, I am obliged to refer to a copy of a newspaper I have before me, in which I find this definition. It says:

A recession is a period in which you tighten up your belt. A depression is a time in which you have not a belt to tighten. When you have no pants to hold up it is a panic.

So that we want no recession, no depression and no panic.

Another point upon which I should like to lay emphasis is this: I have been appalled to have some of our men in uniform actually say to me that they hope the war will not end soon. There can be only one reason for any young man making an assertion of that kind, namely, that he fears the conditions which may prevail following the cessation of hostilities. That is not good morale, and I say it is our duty to do everything possible to stimulate the high degree of national morale essential for total war. Our boys in the

IMr. Shaw.]

fighting forces and our citizens engaged in producing the tools of war must be imbued with confidence regarding the democratic postwar order. That is essential. Any such proposal must reflect the will of the Canadian people, and not the will of someone or some group of people far removed from this fair dominion. I say, furthermore, that our plans for the post-war period must embody the desires of those fighting forces. We must lay the basis for a truly reconstructed democracy. If in establishing the basis for what some people believe may be a reconstructed democracy we infringe upon the democratic rights of our people, then I say we shall have failed, and failed most miserably.

For a moment or two I wish to deal with some of the suggestions which have been advanced during the debate by various hon. members. I was rather disappointed to-day when the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Mayhew) had finished speaking, because during the course of his speech he stated that all of these local projects which have been enumerated by various members are fine, but that they are only part of a great scheme. But he left me in the air, because he did not tell us what the great scheme is that he has in mind.

Then just a few days ago the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) who, I am forced to conclude, is a faithful disciple of Clarence Streit, who advocates federal union, indicated his belief that we should establish a world police force. In fact he recommended, in my judgment, that Canada and this parliament be deprived of the sovereignty they now possess. I cannot tolerate that type of philosophy. Are we in Canada making the sacrifices we are making only to find, after the war, that some other government, somewhere, is dictating what we the Canadian people shall do in our own country? If that is the purpose of the war we might just as well quit to-day, because Adolf Hitler has a similar proposal in the back of his mind.

We then listened to the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Turgeon) who is always a delightful speaker. I enjoy listening to him. However he made an admission to the effect that we, and we alone, are responsible for the deplorable conditions which prevailed during the depression. I am putting what he said in my own words, as I understood him. We agree. Social Crediters have been telling the house that ever since the first session they attended, in 1936. It was not new at all, namely, that we the Canadian people are responsible for the conditions which prevailed in Canada during that time. Unfortunately, however, the hon. member for Cariboo, who

Post-War Reconstruction

happens to be the chairman of the committee on reconstruction and rehabilitation, did not go far enough to indicate how we who are responsible might change our course of action so as to remove the shame which necessarily rests upon our shoulders, and not upon, the shoulders of others.

The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Wood) advanced some rich philosophy-and I use the word "rich" advisedly, coming from a farming community. As I interpreted it, the hon. member for Brant indicated that the million unemployed in Canada and the hundreds of thousands who secured wages enough only to meet the bare necessities might have had their whole condition corrected had they purchased annuities. Out of what, Mr. Speaker? Then he advanced a theory which was slightly more preposterous, namely, that if we remained in our own little bivouacs and produced sufficient for our own needs all the troubles which have confronted the Canadian people would automatically disappear.

I now move on to the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), the former leader of the Conservative party, and a member, I understand of the Progressive Conservative party. But he did not show himself to be very progressive the other day. He said, Yes, I am in favour of reform, as long as you do not divorce yourselves from the status quo, and as long as you use as your course of instruction grandma's old book of etiquette.

That is all it amounts to. I want to retain everything, he intimated, and yet I want to change everything. But he will change nothing. That is the inevitable outcome of such a philosophy as he harbours.

There were others in the Progressive Conservative party who spoke who devoted a great deal of their time to local projects. All fine, I grant you, sir, but not one of those local projects will reconstruct Canada or rehabilitate the men who are coming back from overseas or are discharged from the armed services here in Canada.

I want to refer to a suggestion that was made by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). I must confess that I am not completely in agreement with the hon. member inasmuch as I am thoroughly convinced that government monopoly can easily become much more vicious than private monopoly. Under a system of government ownership of the productive industries of the country I rather fancy that the government of the day might be motivated by political considerations unless, of course, opposition is eliminated. It is true that monopoly has developed during recent years; it is true that special privilege has developed; it is true that abuses have

72537-51J

developed; but I blame the government which permitted these things to come about far more than I blame those who are guilty of such vile practices. I say, further, that I am definitely opposed to a few, whether in this country or in any other, fattening themselves upon the poverty of a community. I do not believe that the individual has become utterly incapable of managing his own affairs; I do not believe that he has become utterly dishonest. I say, however, that we must eliminate the abuses that have been responsible for so much condemnation having been heaped upon the heads of those who are engaged in private enterprise.

I come now to the speech by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch). I make this assertion, that he is the only speaker in this debate so far who has advanced a broad proposal to meet the whole situation as it will be faced by the committee. On reading over his speech I notice that he pointed to the tremendous increase in the productive capacity of Canada. I am told that our productive capacity has reached the staggering total of about 89,000,000,000. Furthermore, he asserted that it is not at all unreasonable to conclude that if we could produce nine billion dollars worth of real wealth in this country per year, much of which will be destroyed during the progress of war, it should also be quite possible to produce even nine billion dollars worth of consumers' goods. I think that is sound argument. He also laid stress upon the disastrous results that will ensue if industrial collapse is not prevented through the systematic con- ' version of our war industries to peace industries. He enumerated three definite facts that might be used as a foundation upon which this committee could begin its work. I would suggest that the committee start all over again this year, forgetting what was done last year. I hope you will pardon me, Mr. Speaker, if I read those three facts because I wish to add to them a fourth which will make the picture absolutely complete. The hon. member for Acadia asserted at page 715, February 25, 1943:

1. That a complete survey should be made forthwith to ascertain the nature and volume of the products of industry which will be required by the Canadian people following the war to rehabilitate themselves, and to raise their standard of living to the level which our natural resources can consistently maintain.

2. That a complete survey of Canadian war industries be made to determine the adaptability of each to the production of those peace-time requirements, and to plan and prepare the steps necessary to bring about that conversion in each case at the end of the war.

3. That a survey be made of the possible foreign markets which may be available at the

Post-War Reconstruction

tices to be dishonest, continue to support them. When this war is over we shall still have the productive capacity of Canada. We shall no more than scratch the resources of this country even though we give Britain a billion dollars worth of goods, even though we blast billions of dollars worth of goods into eternity. The resources of this dominion are almost limitless. We are not going outside Canada to get the finances with which to finance this war. All the financing in existence came into existence here. It will still be here when the war is over because we do not shoot money at the enemy nor do we export our bills or our credit.

When this war is over, our boys will ask to be given an opportunity to have security with freedom. I lay emphasis on the words "with freedom." If we fail to grant them that which we are capable of granting, then I fear the outcome. Bloody revolutions are born out of such conditions, and I am not saying that I would ever want to see the day when we shall have revolution of a bloody nature in order to get a revolution of a purely democratic nature.

Not only that, but out of the vast abundance which we are capable of producing we shall have to export billions of dollars worth of our real wealth to help reestablish other countries in the world. We shall have to give them these goods. I should like to quote an article which appeared in the Journal this evening entitled "No gold or goods". It reads:

The house of representatives foreign affairs committee, recalling the international debt problems arising from the first great war, cautioned the country Saturday against expecting repayment in gold or goods when the time arrives for a post-war settlement of lend-lease aid.

There are only two ways of paying debts as between nations. One is by the exportation of goods and the other is by the exportation of gold. That committee recommended that neither practice be adopted, which would leave only one alternative-give your goods to the countries which require them and which must be rehabilitated. We must recognize that principle, and I hope we recognize it before it is too late. .

Mr. T. J. O'NEILL (Kamloops): Mr. Deputy Speaker, my first word in rising to take part in this debate must of necessity be to congratulate you upon your appointment to the office of Deputy Speaker. It is only fitting that one who is so fluent in both languages, one who is so experienced in parliamentary procedure, one who is so free from religious bigotry and racial prejudices, should occupy this high office. I am sure you will

[Mr. Shaw.l

discharge the duties of your high office with honour to yourself and credit to this house.

It seems to me that a discussion of this motion for the setting up of a committee on reconstruction and rehabilitation cannot be divorced from the question of the setting up of a committee to discuss social security. In many of the speeches which have been made much stress has been laid on private industry. I am in accord with private industry up to a certain extent, but when we have private industry that cannot pay wages which will provide a decent standard of living, then I say we have carried private industry too far. To-day when we are discussing wages, one of the considerations is whether the industry can afford to pay. I do not think that should be the influencing factor.

There are many things that could be done immediately that we are not doing. For instance, we ha%m not allowed the cost of living bonus to all those who labour. There is no reason why, when we pay the full cost of living bonus to the highest paid labour, this bonus should not be paid to all who labour. At present some do not receive a bonus at all, and others receive only sixty cents a week. Many of these inequalities must be eliminated now, not only after the war.

To-day we are told not to ride on the railways, because they want to conserve power for the handling of necessary freight. That is all to the good. We were asked not to ride on the trains until February 18; then the time was extended to the end of February, and now it is extended indefinitely. But we are hauling hundreds of thousands of carloads of steel from the middle of Ontario to British Columbia, and we are hauling hundreds of carloads of coal from Alberta to British Columbia. Yet there are untold millions of tons of coal to be mined in British Columbia. We have everything in British Columbia that is required for the establishment of steel mills and iron works. Surely we do not believe that when this war is over we shall continue along with a population of ten or twelve million people. Everyone within sound of my voice remembers General Hornby coming to this country and his appeal to have British settlers brought here. The province from which I come is one of the finest in Canada, if not the finest, in climatic conditions and with natural resources capable of providing as high a standard of living as exists anywhere in Canada to-day, for a population ten or twelve times our present population. Why are we not making some provision for these people while we still have a voice as to who they shall be?

Post-War Reconstruction

We should be setting up industry in British Columbia; why not now? We talk about all the things we are going to do after the war, but we are not attempting to do anything to-day. These things are crying out to be done at once. There are thousands of acres of land in British Columbia that will produce anything that can be grown anywhere else in Canada; all that is required is water. Water is there in abundance, but we must have power to get that water on the land for irrigation. The rivers-the Thompson, the Fraser, the Clearwater, the Adams and the Columbia- are capable of producing power in unlimited amounts which would make those acres that are now just range country the most productive gardens in North America. That can be done now. There is no reason why those things cannot be done. If you wish people to believe in your sincerity of purpose when you talk about setting up these different committees, you should be prepared to do some things now that you could do so easily.

Tor instance, why cannot we pay our old people a decent standard of living? Why do we keep them trying to exist on twenty dollars a month? When we provided the cost-of-living bonus we recognized that that was necessary in order to keep up with the increase in the cost of living. We gave that to men and women making anything from $150 to $300 a month. But our old people are told that they must continue to live on $20 a month; they cannot have even that small increase. No old people in this country should have to attempt to live on less than a dollar a day, and no one should be forced to work after sixty-five years of age. Industry says, you cannot work after sixty-five; they lay you off at sixty-five. But the government say that they will not pay the old age pension until you are seventy. Who is going to take up the slack between sixty-five and seventy? No provision is made. The old people of this country should be pensioned at sixty-five and should not be asked to live on less than a dollar a day.

Then in my province we have some of the last great west; some of the greatest stock farms in Canada are in British Columbia. Those stock farms could be made very much more productive if there were some system of storing water. The winter snow runs off with a great rush in the spring. If there were storage dams to collect and conserve and control that run-off, the range could be made a hundred times more productive than it is for feeding large herds of stock. These are things that can be done now. But we are not making any provision at all for them.

I do not think there is much more that I can add to the present debate at this time, but I would urge this committee that instead of talking all the time about what is to be done after the war they give some thought to these things that can be done and should be done now.

Topic:   SUBSIDIES TO MAINTAIN SUPPLY-REPORT AS TO APPOINTMENT OF SUBSIDIES OFFICER
Subtopic:   POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION APPOINTMENT OP SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION AND REESTABLISHMENT
Permalink
?

Thomas Miller Bell

Mr. M. J. COLD WELL (Rosetown-Biggar):

Before this debate closes I should like to say something about the committee which is to be set up. I have been looking over the minutes and proceedings of the special joint meeting which w'as held in Ottawa on December 4, under the chairmanship of the Minister, of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie). It included representatives of the provinces, the committee on reconstruction, the subcommittees of that committee, the research investigators. Looking over

those minutes and seeing as I thought certain trends. I considered it might be wise to say something, not so much in a controversial spirit as to express a point of view to the minister and the committee which is about to be set up.

But before doing so, I should like to endorse what has just been said by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. O'Neill). I think our honesty of purpose will be very largely judged by what we do now, whether we are able and willing during this war period to improve the condition of those whose condition needs improving. I have in my hand a letter which came to me this afternoon. I am placing it before the committee not in any criticism of the minister, because I am well aware that when I send this letter, as I shall to-morrow, to the Minister of Pensions and National Health, this case will receive his personal attention. But from time to time cases come to us which indicate that perhaps we are willing to do what we can as far as this house is concerned, but that somehow or another in the far hospitals and departments, where the eye of the minister and the house is not directly upon the people responsible, things are happening which I believe neither the house nor the minister would wish to have happen. It is because I feel that there should be a backing for the committee in regard to these matters that I bring this letter to the attention of the minister and the house to-night.

This letter is written from Wetaskiwin, Alberta, and reads in part as follows:

I was in England for tw'o years and eight months and returned to Canada September 9, 1942. I was discharged from the army for medical reasons and have been treated like an old worn-out tire, no more use, so have been discarded.

Post-War Reconstruction

I was admitted to the university hospital on September 25, 1942, and kept there till October 30, 1942, I was told that if I would consider an operation it would help my health. After waiting five weeks I had my operation and was discharged from hospital November 20, 1942. I was in worse condition than when I entered hospital. After being home a week I wrote the pension board to see if I could be returned to hospital. On December 14 I was admitted to hospital again. I left and come home for two weeks at Christmas and was admitted again on January 4, 1943. I was discharged again January 27, 1943. I am still quite unable to work. A pamphlet which was given to me at the time of my discharge promising the exsoldiers lots of things for rehabilitation does not seem to connect with the way I have been treated. I was truly given the $35 for clothes, one month's pay and allowances, but when I was discharged from hospital my wife's allowance was cut off and from the 21st November to the 21st December I received nothing, and then I was put on this welfare scheme of $13 a week. I have notice that my operation-[DOT]

I presume he means his injury.

-was caused in a theatre of actual war but was not serious enough for a pension.

Now if I am able to do any sort of work in the near future I am in no way financially able to get work clothes. What I want to know is how or where is the rehabilitation when I had to use the month's pay to live on after coming from hospital and if they treat the men who now come home like this, how will they ever take care of them when they all come back, and there will be plenty of them?

I read this letter because it is one of a few, fortunately as yet very few, such letters that I have received; and it seems to me that the sincerity of what we do in the future will be judged largely by what we do now. As the hon. member for Kamloops has just said, I suppose there is not a member of this house who has not files of letters in his office from old age pensioners, the contents of some of which, because we have had an unusually severe winter, would almost make one weep.

With regard to the committee to be set up, I notice of course that there has been a change in the status of the James committee, if I may call it that. Apparently now this is to be an advisory committee which will report directly to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). The committee consisting of the senior officials of the Department of Finance, and so on, will be actually the committee charged with the responsibility of devising ways and means of dealing with the post-war problem.

The point I particularly want to make tonight is this. I have noticed that through the papers submitted on December 4, which I have read with some care, there seemed to run the considered, unanimous opinion that what should be done was to wait until the war ends to see to what extent private industry

could cope with the situation in which we shall then find ourselves; and that if private industry were unable to cope with those conditions, then the government should adopt plans and devise schemes to supplement what industry might be able to do. If I may pay it this tribute, the committee, however, seemed to have an appreciation of the problem. I notice that Principal James stated:

The single central problem which the committee on reconstruction has faced from the day of its first meeting is that of attaining full employment of our population-of those able to work and desirous of working-at as high a standard of living as is possible in the light of our available resources and the optimum rate at which we can utilize them.

Then he went on to say that this was the central key to everything else in the picture. I would agree with that summary as to the target at which this reconstruction committee, this parliament and the government should aim at this particular time. The problem of finance, which was discussed a few moments ago by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw), was dismissed by Principal James in a few sentences. He said that in due course they would be called upon to propose to the cabinet certain suggestions regarding a fiscal and monetary policy designed to correct business depression, proposals that involved definite government expenditures at certain periods in a trade cycle. Evidently he was contemplating periods of prosperity and depression, periods of peaks and depressions, to which we have been accustomed in the past, and was referring to policies involving a definite and careful interrelationship of central banking policy, a taxation policy and a borrowing policy so that there might be developed in the community in all periods, through a combination of private and public expenditure, a demand for goods and services which would be adequate to maintain full employment. In other words, the committee apparently as yet has not given any serious consideration to the financial problem which is involved1 in the programme of rehabilitation which many of us believe will be necessary. He went on to say that the problem has been discussed in general terms but is a long way from being solved. Then he went on to add this, which I thought was interesting:

. . . we are not yet sufficiently far advanced in our practical studies of financial systems and our theoretical studies of monetary and fiscal policy to be able to lay down a definite prescription and swear that this is exactly the method that must be followed in a particular country.

In other words, the advisory committee seems to be as much at sea as ever in regard

Post-War Reconstruction

to the manner in which the programme, when it is instituted, can be financed. Yet the same document shows that the committee did have an appreciation of the tremendous problem which will face this country when the war ends. In the course of his remarks Doctor James sketched in a very few words the problem which will face Canada immediately after the war. He said:

There are approximately 600,000 men and women in the armed forces, and some 900,000 men and women in war industries, a total of a million and a half-

And I think this is important.

-which is roughly fifty per cent of the total number of people gainfully employed in Canada before this war began, or one-third of the total gainfully employed population in Canada at the present moment.

That gives us some indication of the tremendous problem which will face this country when the war ends, and which ought to be constantly before any reconstruction committee we set up now. Then the committee saw something else, in regard to putting these people into jobs when the war ' over. Doctor James said:

We cannot rely for this purpose on the immediate reorganization of industry with a view to producing peace-time consumers' goods. With the best will in the world, it takes considerable time for an industry to switch over from wartime to peace-time activity.

That is something which the committee should keep in mind. There are those who believe that the moment this war is over, there will be such a backlog of purchasing power and of needs that there will be such an upturn in business as will take care of the men and women dismissed from war industries and those who are gradually and progressively demobilized from the armed forces. But here we have the considered opinion of the advisory committee dealing with post-war reconstruction, to the effect that we cannot rely upon that.

Someone said the other day that we were preaching depression after the war. That is not true. Personally I do not believe that a depression after this war is necessary, if we take the essential steps to plan our industrial and economic life so that when this war ends we shall be able to carry forward with great projects both in industry and in the development of our resources. But there are those, and I share the view, who believe that unless we do something of that sort we shall face a very serious situation indeed. And the committee which is advising on reconstruction definitely also shares that view.

I was struck with this sentence in that connection used by Doctor James and found on page 12.

Topic:   SUBSIDIES TO MAINTAIN SUPPLY-REPORT AS TO APPOINTMENT OF SUBSIDIES OFFICER
Subtopic:   POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION APPOINTMENT OP SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION AND REESTABLISHMENT
Permalink
LIB

Roy Theodore Graham

Liberal

Mr. GRAHAM:

Is that the James' report from which the hon. member is reading, or the evidence of Doctor James?

Topic:   SUBSIDIES TO MAINTAIN SUPPLY-REPORT AS TO APPOINTMENT OF SUBSIDIES OFFICER
Subtopic:   POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION APPOINTMENT OP SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION AND REESTABLISHMENT
Permalink

March 1, 1943