March 1, 1943

?

Thomas Miller Bell

Mr. COLDWELL:

No; I am not reading from either. I am reading from the official proceedings of a meeting held on December 4, and I am giving some extracts from the papers presented at that meeting. At the moment I have Doctor James' comments before me. At page 12 of the proceedings Doctor James says:

During the period immediately after the conclusion of hostilities, a period that may last for months, or for years, we must face the problem of finding jobs for a million and a half men and women demobilized from the armed forces and munitions industries. And we shall have to find these jobs at the verv moment when the process of retooling will tend to reduce the demands of private industry for workers. This problem of the immediate post-war period must be met partly by social legislation, and partly by publicly financed construction projects.

To what extent one or the other will have to be used will have to be decided before this war ends. But I am convinced that this committee-and now I refer to the James committee-is too prone, as I shall attempt to show in a moment, to rely upon the ability of private industry to undertake the major reemployment problem when the war ends. He said this:

The activities of the committee on reconstruction that attempt to develop practical measures for the attainment of full employment, or the attempt to guarantee full employment, in the immediate post-war period are. first of all, the excellent work that the committee on employment opportunities, under Tom Moore, has been carrying on in regard to the training and recruitment of labour, and the work of the dominion employment service, which I mention briefly because you will have a fuller report on that this afternoon, as well as an opportunity to discuss it. Secondly, an attempt is being made to develop a programme of construction projects privately and publicly financed by the municipal, provincial and dominion governments.

The reason I refer to that statement in the report is that I am glad to note that on account of the illness of Mr. Tom Moore the government has appointed his successor to take his place. -I refer to Mr. Bengough. Throughout this report I find that except in one or two isolated instances, of which this is one, the cooperation of labour and of the farmer has been overlooked by the committee, and by the government which set up the committee. I noted this in the report, and I hope that more attention will be given

Post-War Reconstruction

to the representations of labour and the farming community, the two greatest producing groups in our country.

Something else we should like to emphasize is this, that Doctor James said that in the few words he had been able to put together that afternoon he had tried to sketch the committee's report on the immediate post-war problems of Canada. And then he used the expression, "which is concentrated and which is urgent", and added this significant sentence, "There is no possibility of delay in the tackling of this problem".

But as I said earlier, the committee has apparently come to the conclusion that it must rely largely on private industry to meet the needs of the situation, for he says this:

By and large hcnvever it is the unanimous opinion of the committee on reconstruction that the initial planning of industrial rehabilitation is a matter for industry itself rather than for any governmental committee.

I believe that statement is based upon quite a mistaken understanding of what the postwar condition is likely to be. To suggest that initial planning is the responsibility of private industry is wrong. We as a nation must undertake the planning of our industrial and economic effort when the wTar ends, if we are going to meet the needs of the situation which will develop. And Doctor James' own statement, the unanimous view of this committee, is discounted almost immediately in the words which follow in this report, when Doctor James states that up to the present time he knew of only two industrial groups that are actively at work in post-war planning. He knew of only two, and he gave the names. One of them is the pulp and paper industry. He goes on to point out that this has been undertaken not only by persons in the industry, but by the war-time controllers of the industry as well. The second group interested in post-war planning are the life insurance companies. The life insurance companies are not industries. Moreover, in Great Britain we have witnessed lately the opposition of the great life insurance companies to the social security plans embodied in the Beveridge report. And w'e may find that the same vested interests in our own country will oppose health insurance and other social service measures.

My belief is that in Great Britain the government will ultimately be compelled to take over at least the great industrial life insurance companies, and make them a part of the entire social security set-up of that country. The probability is that we shall have to do the same thing.

I thought that Doctor Wallace, president of Queen's university, who also contributed a

paper at this meeting of the committee, brought a realistic view to the committee's attention. He pointed out that if we were to deal successfully with our post-war problems we ought to be dealing with our fundamental natural resources, and their developments. He omitted agriculture, because that was the subject of a special paper. But he placed the other fundamental resources as being mining, forestry, power and fisheries. But even President Wallace overlooked the necessity of bringing into this picture the cooperation of labour. He referred to:

. . . conferences that represent the administration in the provinces, the industry, the bodies of a public nature that are concerned with these resources professionally, conservationally and otherwise, and private individuals who have a special interest in such resources.

It may be that in his opinion labour was covered by one of these other groups. But in my opinion we are overlooking the cooperation of the great producing masses which we sometimes separate into two groups, labour and farmers.

A w'ord of warning to those who think that by the development of our natural resources we can meet the needs of the post-war period. President Wallace said:

I think it would' be a mistake to base too much optimism on what we can do in our resources for the immediate employment of men returning from overseas, but there can be a much larger number than most people would expect possible before looking into the picture.

While assistance can be given through the development of our resources, it is not sufficient to meet in any big way the needs of our post-war requirements and the criticism which President Wallace makes of our former policies in regard to the exploitation of our natural resources should give us all food for thought. He says:

We have to a considerable measure neglected our resources as cropable assets. That applies more particularly to forestry, one of our great primary resources in Canada. . . . There are surveys needed in Canada, very much more extensive than anything that we are aware of, both with regard to forestry lands and also to our mining prospects. We find that in all our resources, and particularly forestry, we have an extraordinarily inadequate knowledge of the situation, and without the knowledge we cannot do very much in sound conservational procedure.

To my mind, in our post-war rehabilitation plans, we should pay a great deal of attention to forest conservation, reforestation, and the care of trees that grow naturally in great areas in this country. President Wallace pointed out that this neglect of our resources applies also in other fields, in mining and the geological and topographical surveys. He says:

Post-War Reconstruction

There, too, far more is needed than we yet have, in order soundly to develop our resources.

If I may say so, as many of us perhaps know, President Wallace is an outstanding man in the universities of Canada in this particular field. I hope that what he said in this regard, namely, that we are becoming conservation-conscious, is true. He said:

We are becoming conservation-conscious. We are recognizing that we are losing our resources very sadly in many places. Any one who keeps his eyes open can see it, and the end is disaster, unless we act, and at once. The time has come to begin to build up again. That applies to deforested land that is wasting away because it is not protected any longer.

I think those of us who have been to Vancouver island in particular and to other regions on the Pacific coast realize the truth of that statement. He criticizes, not this government, but all the governments of Canada, for, after all, much of this applies, of course, to the provincial governments as well:

Speaking from a government standpoint, I think we have done very little for our forests of Canada.

We have allowed these great resources to be exploited, denuded, and to a very large extent wasted.

A few days ago we had an interesting - discussion in the house on the importance of water conservation. This, too, was emphasized by the committee, and if I might lend my voice to others that have been raised in this house, I believe that the waters of our prairie rivers may yet prove to be a source of great wealth to this country. Several years ago I undertook to give an address in this house on an irrigation scheme for the dried-out areas of Saskatchewan. When we spoke of thirty or forty or fifty million dollars in those days for schemes of that kind or four hundred million dollars for the grandiose scheme that was spoken of at that time, there was a gasp almost of horror at the thought of spending such huge sums of money. But when this war is over, it strikes me that if we want to put a large area of western Canada on a really self-supporting basis we shall have to consider great irrigation projects, and in the great waters of the north and south branches of the Saskatchewan river we have the ways and means to do more, perhaps than most of us have thought possible.

I was, however, very much disappointed in the paper dealing with agriculture. It was submitted by a former minister of agriculture in the Bracken government of Manitoba, Mr. Donald G. McKenzie. He pointed out that the problem was a large one. He drew to 72537-52}

the attention of the committee, and I wish to draw to the attention of this house something which I believe is quite true.

There are now perhaps upwards of 200,000 men and women drawn from agriculture to the armed forces and war industry who normally, one would assume, would return to this occupation.

A very large percentage of the people who have been drawn from agriculture into the armed forces and into the war industries have come from the prairie provinces, and if I may interject this thought, I believe that the other provinces of Canada would be doing an injustice to the prairie regions, where war industries have not been established, but whose people have been drawn into the armed forces and into industry to a much larger percentage of our population than elsewhere, if the representation of the prairie provinces in this house were not kept as it is now for the next ten years. I think all fair-minded members of this house will agree with me.

Mr. McKenzie could see in the problem of agriculture apparently only two basic problems-the problem of markets and the problem of agricultural credits. True, these are two of the problems, but to my mind they are not the two fundamental problems. The fundamental problems go much deeper than the finding of markets and the provision of credits. They go into the whole basis of the land tenure and mortgage system of western Canada, and the manner in which the producers on the farm have been compelled to pay, through years past, higher prices on account of artificial conditions in the country in which we live and to receive unduly low prices for their products. So that we must look to more than two broad principles if we are going to find a remedy for the farm problem.

One other point that I noted in his paper was this, a fear that we cannot increase the consumption of agricultural products in our own domestic market. True, we must find export markets, but in my opinion we can increase the consumption of agricultural products in our own country. When we compare the prewar years and the per capita consumption of meat, for example, in Canada, with the per capita consumption in a much warmer country, Australia, where meat is not required in such large quantities, we find that our per capita consumption of meat is very much below that of Australia or New Zealand.

Then there is the possibility of widening the uses for our agricultural products. I hope the government will pay a good deal of at-

Post-War Reconstruction

tention to the scientific experiments now being carried on looking toward the utilization of agricultural products in other industries.

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 Reid

Liberal

Mr. REID:

Would you increase the growing of wheat?

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. COLDWELL:

I would answer, of

course, that our Canadian people cannot consume much more wheat than they are doing now, but I believe that when this war ends, every kernel of wheat we have stored will be useful to assist in feeding the starving people of the war-torn countries, and for a considerable time every cereal we can grow will be needed either in Europe or in Asia. I am not apprehensive about the amount of wheat we have; my only fear is that the farmers will not be able to cany it, unaided -largely-as they have to do to-day.

Problems of electrification, soil erosion, soil conservation ought to be considered by the committee as a part of a large general rehabilitation and reconstruction programme, not only because these would give work but because they would assist generally the coun-' try in the future. I was amazed to find in the statement presented by Mr. MacKenzie this suggestion: I am not. going to paraphrase it; I will read his words. He says:

If those folks are to be persuaded to go back to the farm, some means or other have to be found to persuade them to take a little lower income than they are now getting. So_we are looking at the problem and wondering if something could not be done that would provide a modest little home on the farm for a married couple, who would make their home there, perhaps with the use of half an acre of land and, say, with a cow or trvo to supply their needs, and who would educate their children and settle more permanently on the land than is now the case.

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

George Alexander Cruickshank

Liberal

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

Is he another

schoolteacher?

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
?

An hon. MEMBER:

A lawyer?

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. COLDWELL:

Well, I would imagine

that if we tried to put a family, with a couple of cows, on half an acre of land in the prairie provinces, we would have not only dead cows but the funeral of the man, his wife and the family in a very short time, because over a very large area of our country half an acre would not begin to keep half a cow.

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

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. GARDINER:

He must have meant

half a section.

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. COLDWELL:

He must have meant

half a section? Well, he says, "half an acre." As the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) knows, although half a section is not quite so bad, there are places where it would not be sufficient.

I do not propose to refer more to this particular document, but I was interested in the trend of thought to be found-it runs through the other papers as well-that we must wait and see. We must wait and see if industry can undertake the job, and if industry cannot undertake the job then we must supplement it. I think we should have sufficient knowledge of what is going on in the world to-day to realize that industry will not be able to undertake this job, that the thing we must do is to decide on 'the plans we can formulate now so that we can provide the means of life for this large number of people to whom this report refers. Industry will have to assume some of the job, and in my opinion will be able to do so. Of course it will be said that we believe in taking all industry out of private hands. I have often said that this is not so. We believe that when industry becomes a monopolistic affair it is high time to take it out of private hands so that it shall not exploit the people. But, contrary to what most people think and say, we should like to see more Canadian people owning more homes and owning more property which they themselves and their families can use and enjoy. The only kind of property we do not want to see privately owned is that which is used to exploit other people. In other words, we want less public property privately owned and more personal property privately and personally owned, and the more that this ideal is kept before this house and the committee, the more likely are we to arrive at a plan to meet the postwar period.

I have spoken rather longer than I intended, but I wished to place a point of view before the house on this occasion and to deal specifically with the trends I found in the discussion as reported in the proceedings of the meeting on December 4. I believe that we are on the threshold of great changes. We must win this war, it is true. That is fundamental. We could not do any of these things if we did not win the war. I agree with that fundamental position. But we shall have lost what we are fighting for if we do not prepare, before this war ends, to organize our economy and our social life so that the men and the women who have fought and sacrificed, who have produced the goods in our war industries, who have produced the foods back on our farms, who have given of service to this nation and to the united nations in the time of need, shall have the kind of life to which they look forward and for which they fight.

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

Brooke Claxton

Liberal

Mr. BROOKE CLAXTON (St. Lawrence-St. George):

The war has now lasted three

Post-War Reconstruction

years, and if it lasts another three years and we do not do anything more in the next three years to prepare for the peace that we are going to win than we have done in the last three years, we shall not be ready for the peace.

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:

That is pretty hard on the government!

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

Brooke Claxton

Liberal

Mr. CLAXTON:

The government has been occupied wdth something else more important, which comes first; namely, the winning of the war. But now a beginning has been made of that, and we can turn our attention more to the post-war period. Hon. members in all parts of the house have emphasized in this debate the importance of that subject, and equally they have recognized-every one of them, quite properly-that we have to win the war first, that we must put it first in our thoughts and that we must put it first in the national effort. But even in winning the war it will help us to think of the post-war period. That was expressed exceedingly well in one of the reports made in the United Kingdom, the Uthwatt report, in which it was said:

It is our firm belief that a vital incentive to the war effort is the presentation of a clear picture of a better world which lies ahead and which, if plans are drawn up and the essential preparations made in advance, can be achieved after this struggle is over. To delay planning and the legislation to carry the plans into effect until the time for action is upon us-at the end of the war-we believe to be a fatal error.

Already we have seen some of the signs of the first glimmer of victory over the eastern sky. No sooner had the 8th army begun to make some advance and the allies begun to operate together in north Africa than we saw some reactions in Canada to this first glimmer of victory. On one side there began to be a public clamour against government control. It was as though business felt that the war was beginning to be won, and that it had better prepare itself for the post-war period. On the other side there was agitation of a new character by various labour organizations. In both instances there was the unconscious feeling that the time had come when they should begin to look to the preparation of their own post-war position. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) warned this house and the country, not once but three times, that we had to wrin the war first. I think every hon. member agrees with him.

But that does not mean that we must leave all consideration of the post-war period to some other time. We can deal with both matters together. One thing that is important is that we should put ourselves in the place of industry and try to realize what is in their minds to-day. If you have been in conference

with those engaged in business and industry to-day you will realize that many of them are wondering what is going to happen after the war. If you are meeting labour groups; if you have been involved in labour disputes, you will find out that this is also in the back of their minds. I suggest that the more assurance we can give now of what will happen after the war, the better it will be for both those groups and for everyone else. If we cannot give an instalment of the post-war conditions to-day, at least we can give an earnest of it by indicating our seriousness by thinking and planning ahead and trying to anticipate and see just what will happen, trying to dovetail the various parts of this nation's effort, so that at the end of the war they will make a fighting team together to fight and win the victory of peace in the same way as they are making a fighting team to win the war.

It is easy enough to look ahead and see what labour wants. Labour does not want handouts; labour wants an opportunity to work. Agriculture wants an opportunity of selling its products at fair prices. Industry wants a chance to make a fair profit. It is that kind of thing we should have in our minds to-day. We should be trying to think of the conditions under which these three great elements in the country can work together so that we can make an attempt at the end of the war to face the problems of reconstruction. May I suggest that if we plan and put into this effort something of the spirit and the concentration of will and united purpose that we are putting into the war, we can look forward to the future with confidence. Speaking about the new order, the Prime Minister said at Toronto on March 24, 1941:

If that new order is not already on its way before the war is over, we may look for it in vain.

Of course he is right. The war is not going to come to a sudden end and then the millenium come in at the zero hour of victory. When peace does come we may find ourselves in somewhat the same position as that of the boy who has attained his twenty-first birthday; we shall be just one day older. In a large measure we are making our peace now. We are setting to-day the conditions that will make the conditions under which we shall have to work in peace. The kind of people who are in charge of our economy and our affairs will be the same people who will be in charge of our affairs then, or so many of us expect and hope. A year or two ago some people thought that there would be a millenium after we had won the victory. That is not likely.

Post-War Reconstruction

People have become more realistic. We know now that conditions will not be very much different except that the emphases will be changed and the purpose of all our activities will be changed. But there will be some differences. One difference will be the fact that there will be 2,000,000 people for whom work will have to be found. Another is the fact that something will have to be found to take the place of the $4,000,000,000 or more which the government has put into the Canadian economy for purposes of the war. Our economy may go back to the 1939 level unless that is done. We have those two challenges ahead of us-to find employment for something like 2,000,000 people and to get our economy at a level where, instead of a national income of something in the neighbourhood of $4,000,000,000, as it was in 1938, we shall have a national income of something like $8,000,000,000, as it probably is this year.

That cannot be done by private enterprise or private industry alone, nor can it be done by the government alone. It can be done only by the two getting together and working out plans in considerable detail in advance. Industry, labour and farmers; government, both dominion and provincial; engineers, lawyers, members of parliament; all the people who go to make up this nation must realize that unless they keep together, unless they work together at that time with the same united purpose as that which they have shown during the war, they can look forward only to a short-lived boom followed by a long and unpleasant depression. This point of view was put forth very well in the annual report of the Bank of Canada which was issued this month, when Mr. Graham Towers, governor of the bank, said:

[DOT]-the experience of the last four years has shown that government war expenditure on a sufficient scale can produce full employment.

He continued:

The government's willingness to spend the large amounts of money involved in the war programme has been a necessary and important feature but even more important has been the unity of national purpose which has produced such remarkable economic results over the past four years.

After the war is over, the present driving stimulus to maximum employment and production will be removed. If we are to maintain full employment in peace time, we must substitute other objectives for the current will to win the war. Broadly speaking our goals should be to provide a rising standard of living and to contribute to the establishment of a world economy which will remove the threat of war.

Notice what he said-the two-fold incentive that is necessary, the two-fold goal "to provide a rising standard of living and to contribute to

[Mr. Claxton.l

the establishment of a world economy which will remove the threat of war." He ends with these words:

If we are to achieve success, I feel that we must have the same broad measure of public support behind those objectives that is now back of our efforts to win the war.

Therefore it comes down to this: are the people of Canada willing to work and fight for the fruits of their victory, to fight for their best interests after the war with the united purpose they have shown during the war? Are we to do that, or are we to let the devil take the hindmost, stick our noses in the trough, and go back in a wild flight to normalcy, similar to that which we saw in 1919 after the end of the last war? That is the challenge which faces Canada. That is the challenge which faces all the civilized world.

All the countries in the world are thinking about it, and many of them have been thinking about it for a long time. In the United Kingdom, as I think hon. members know, they have not only the Beveridge but the Uthwatt and the Scott committees' reports. They have dozens of government agencies set up to study the post-war situation, and all the activities are coordinated under the general direction of the paymaster-general, Sir William Jowett. On December 1 and 2 they had two days debate on the subject of reconstruction when the work then under way was surveyed.

In Australia, which is in some ways similar to our own country in having a federal system and an economy that is largely dependent on exports and in being a great British dominion, they have already faced one part of the problem by calling together a constitutional convention in which the federal government sought for a term substantial powers from the states in order to carry out the purposes of the national government after the war. It was interesting to note that in putting this forward the attorney general of the commonwealth of Australia said that Australia was committed to a course of action under the Atlantic charter which she could not fulfil under the existing constitution. I think that should lead us to consider in Canada if it is possible for us to fulfil our obligations under the Atlantic charter and to the Canadian people under our existing constitution. The Atlantic charter to-day constitutes a treaty for Canada. It was signed on August 14, 1941, by Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill, and paragraphs 4 and 5 read:

(4) They will endeavour, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all states, great or small, victor or

Post-War Reconstruction

vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity.

The internal situation is dealt with in paragraph 5:

(5) They desire to bring about fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field, with the object of securing for all improved labour standards, economic advancement and social security.

Of course, by the declaration of the united nations signed at Washington. January 1, 1942, Canada agreed to its preamble which said. "Having subscribed to a common programme of purposes and principles . . So that we see in the Atlantic charter a description in broad terms of the purposes to which our own government and, I am sure, all the Canadian people have subscribed. The question is, are we doing enough to-day in the internal sphere to get going the kind of machinery to study and plan for what is envisaged here and what is needed to turn our economy from a war basis to a peace-time basis; and in the second place, have we contributed as much as we can to set up the international machinery to bring that about between nations? My suggestion is that though Canada has done much we can still do a great deal more. Hence we all keenly support the resolution to set up this committee in order that it may get on with its work in close collaboration with all other government agencies.

The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. O'Neill) said there was a great deal we could do to-day to deal with this post-war situation. I have one thing that I should like to bring before the reconstruction committee for its consideration which I do not think has yet been mentioned in the house or before the committee. It concerns the one Canadian industry which does not require re-tooling, which almost inevitably is due for a tremendous boom immediately after the war, and which can count on a steady period of growth and development indefinitely after the war if we only think about it to-day. That is an industry which has been all too infrequently mentioned in this house. I refer to the tourist industry.

Immediately after the war there will be in the United States millions of people demobilized from war services and industry with savings in their pockets. The strain of the war will be over; they will want to go, on a holiday and to go some place. They will not be able to go abroad because the ships of the world will be engaged in carrying food and supplies to the devastated areas and in bringing troops home. We may see in North America in the immediate post-war period the greatest boom in the travel business that the

world has ever seen. Canada may well expect to get a very considerable part of that business.

Hon. members may not realize what this means to Canada. In 1941 we had 13,968,088 Americans coming to Canada, and they spent somewhere in the neighbourhood of $150,000,000 here. They brought into Canada in that year more dollars than any other single industry brought, with the possible exception of gold mining. Here is something which can be considered as a post-war activity and on which we can work now. The kind of work I have in mind is well illustrated by the activities of the wartime prices and trade board. One might not expect it to be building to-day for our post-war reconstruction, but that is precisely what it did indirectly. When sugar rationing was introduced the official of the wartime prices and trade board in charge of rationing discussed with an officer of the foreign exchange control board how it should be introduced. This officer of the foreign exchange control board was interested in the tourist business on account of the United States dollars it had brought to Canada. He said, "Have you thought of the problem of rationing American householders in Canada?" The official of the prices board said, "I did not know there were very many; how many are there?" The foreign exchange control officer replied, "There are nine thousand. Instead of forcing these Americans to line up at Canadian offices to get their sugar ration cards after they come to Canada we should write every one of them an individual letter offering to send him by mail his ration card before he comes to Canada." Therefore a letter was sent addressed "Dear Neighbour." I suppose the letters must have cost easily $50 in postage and mimeographing and paper. They brought back thousands of replies. I have seen a number of them. One from East Orange says:

Thank you again for your courtesy in telling us how to take care of this matter. It is one more evidence of the unfailing courtesy and kindliness I have found each of the twelve summers I have spent in Canada.

Here is one from Toledo:

I am delighted beyond words with the thoughtfulness and courtesy of your circular letter. ... It will give me great pleasure to turn it over to one of our newspaper columns and believe it will receive some favourable publicity. I feel the entire United States admires Canada and the wonderful effort it is putting forth on behalf of us all.

One from Detroit:

I certainly appreciate the spirit of your letter. In fact it gave me quite a shock to find a government organization so far-sighted as to anticipate future requirements.

Post-War Reconstruction

*When I learned of this by accident it gave me quite a shock to find how far-sighted our officials had been. Later I went to the United States, and after speaking to audiences in Chicago, Cleveland and even in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, people came to me from the audience saying they had received such letters and expressed their appreciation. Then I felt that this was one of the most far-sighted, courteous acts I had ever heard of a public official doing, and I thought I would take the first available opportunity to mention it to the house in order that it might receive the commendation which I feel every hon. member would wish to express.

What I have just mentioned has a very definite post-war implication. It is building for the post-war period in the most practical way. It is creating good-will. It is leading our United States friends who own houses in Canada to look forward to the time when they may return to Canada. It is making every one of them an ambassador of good-will for us. I suggest that there are dozens of ways in which other agencies of various kinds, governmental and otherwise, can pave the way for this tourist business that we may have after the war. We should make sure that when tourists come to Canada after the war, they meet with good reception and carry back a good report. The first wave of tourists returning from Canada to the United States after the war will do more good or harm than all the publicity we could possibly buy. If . they meet with a good reception, then this highly important Canadian industry will be placed on a sound footing for years ahead. If they carry back a bad report, then all the publicity we can buy will do no good. The tourist business may seem out of the way, but it is the sort of thing which people with imagination, who are thinking ahead, can work on as a way to help make Canada's situation better after the war.

If it is possible to do this in connection with something so remote as the tourist business, there must be dozens of ways which our committee and all the interdepartmental committees and the members of this house and business associations can think of which will give them an opportunity to apply their brains and their industry when that effort is needed after the war. That is the sort of planning we need, so that we, a small nation, by the use of intelligence may make the most of our resources, and it does not take a great deal of intelligence to think of these things. All it requires is continuous attention, someone whose business it is to apply his mind to that sort of thing.

It is quite obvious that what we do in Canada in regard to the post-war situation will

[Mr. Claxton.1

affect us here very greatly. We can make conditions difficult for industry, for agriculture and for labour more than anything else by being uncertain, by preventing them from feeling any security as to their future. What they want above everything else is to know where they stand, to know what they can do, to know what they can plan for; and of course one of the things that should be indicated fairly soon is the kind of controls that will be necessary after the wrar ends, because we should remember that some controls will be required. Today we are short of certain food products, for instance milk products. I should think that immediately after the war we would be much shorter of milk products, because there will be a far greater number of people in the world who will need those products much more than we shall, and I should think the cry of suffering humanity would be responded to by Canadians. So that we may see a continuation of the rationing of certain milk products. Shipping will be short; there will have to be shipping control, and so on. Therefore I suggest that the sort of controls which will be needed for the kind of economy that will follow the war should be studied and worked out now and made popular, so that we shall not have a great clamour against every sort of control and against government bureaucracy, which will make it exceedingly difficult to get the public confidence so necessary to carry out what must be done at that time.

But when we have done everything in Canada that we can do, we must remember that we are part of the world. The result of what we do in Canada will depend in very large measure upon what happens outside Canada. We can plan and work in Canada, but unless after the war we get the kind of peace settlement, the kind of peace conditions, which will enable us to sell our wheat and other products abroad at fair prices, then we may be in for hard times. Every one of us in Canada, in the east as well as in the west, lawj'ers as well as farmers, should be concerned about the kind of peace settlement we have after the war. The sort of peace we get will depend a good deal upon the sort of war we fight. If we fight the war as united nations; if we develop instruments to carry out our united will; if we develop machinery and habits of co-operation during the war, then we may expect that cooperation to continue after the war. If on the other hand we do not develop those agencies and instruments and habits and that machinery during the war, then it would be expecting a miracle to hope that after the war they could be developed,

Post-War Reconstruction

when we would have lost the main thing holding us together, namely, the desire to beat the enemy.

Accordingly I suggest that we in Canada as individuals, and I hope as a government, can support the moves that are going on around the world to strengthen the united nations, to make their union real, and gradually to evolve the agencies, the instruments and the machinery of cooperation so that the nations will get into the habit of working together, a habit which will survive the peace.

In conclusion, may I just say that I agree with the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. O'Neill) that almost everything can be done to-day that will help us in the post-war period, and what cannot be done to-day must be planned to-day. Think of housing. Most of us, I believe, look forward to a great series of housing projects in Canada; yet our experience in the past with similar projects would indicate how technically difficult they are to work out, since they involve the cooperation of the municipalities, the provinces, the dominion and other agencies. We have discovered that if you want to get a housing project started a year from now, you must begin planning a year in advance. That is the sort of thing we can do to-day.

In connection with the committee I have only a word to say, namely, that in a matter of this importance the committee surely should be given every possible assistance by members of this house, by the public, by public bodies and especially by the government, which should not only make available to it the work done by other government agencies but make available research assistance of its own so that it could carry on its own work as well as listening to what other people are doing. Even to coordinate the results of the work of other people or to draw up any sort of well rounded report, it is necessary that the committee should have some full-time assistance. During the last three years of war it has been my privilege to attend perhaps five or six international conferences. I believe every one of those had a number of secretaries who spent weeks, months or perhaps even years preparing for those meetings which were unofficial and off the record. Not long ago I attended one such conference which lasted some ten days, to which some governments thought it worth while to send delegates some tens of thousands of miles by air. That conference was planned during two years. Perhaps more than twenty secretaries worked- on that occasion in planning the conference. Yet we have a committee of this house which has no secretary who can devote a full day's work to the committee. It is high time that we gave

parliamentary committees of that kind and of that importance some technical assistance. It would not require very many -[DOT] a full-time secretary, an economist and probably one or two other experts to consider representations, to organize the work, to prepare submissions and to draft reports. In this way the committee can do a job which will be far more useful than it could otherwise do.

Nothing comes without work. This is the most important work upon which any one of us could be engaged, apart from the actual winning of the war itself. Unfortunately most of us cannot take part in that; we are not physically fit, or we are too old or something of that kind. But here is one thing we can do, namely, to give the boys returning from overseas a fair chance for a useful life. That is all they want.

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

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the fine discussion which has been carried on since it was proposed to set up this committee. I have been really disappointed, though, by the extent to which every hon. member who has participated in the debate, from the three other groups in the house, has studiously avoided telling us about how all their fine dreams are to be achieved.

The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) gave us a good speech. He, however, told us there were two million people to put to work, but he did not give us an iota of evidence as to how that is to be done. He told us that we should have to distribute in Canada the equivalent of four billion dollars, in order to keep our people up to a standard where they would have their present national income of eight billion dollars. Apparently he did not consider it important to suggest how that would be done, where the money was to come from, or how it was to be distributed.

That is the major flaw, the major deficiency in the whole debate, and in all the thinking going on to-day in the various nations which call themselves the united nations. Unless that problem is solved, all the discussion in this house and in other houses, all the efforts of this and other committees are going to be completely futile, a delusion and a snare. Let us get that in mind. I will challenge anybody to gainsay what I have said.

The emphasis of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George seemed to be that we should have an international organization to settle this matter. I ask hon. members: What sort of international arrangement could have removed the unemployment situation which existed in 1935, when the United States, one

Post-War Reconstruction

of the united nations, had 23,500,000 people on relief; when Canada, another of the united nations, had about a million and half on relief; when Great Britain, another of the united nations, had a corresponding number on relief, and when a similar deplorable relief situation existed in every single one of those united nations? I ask this question: How could the binding of these nations together possibly have removed the unemployment which existed? Let us by all means in the house begin to face the facts. Let us not talk idle foolishness. There must be a device by which improvements can be achieved. Let us find that device, and discuss it.

In passing, I should like to deal with the various speeches which have come from the Liberal side of the house. It seems to me there has been a well-organized debating team performing before us from the Liberal benches, the object being to give us the impression that the Liberal party apparently wishes us to get. I wish to indicate how it seems to me they have endeavoured to convey the impression.

The hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Turgeon) told us about the great changes which are to take place. But he took care not to indicate in the slightest degree the nature of those changes, how they were to be brought about, or whether the changes would make us better or worse.

Then the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) talked about changes, and indicated that one change Canada had to make was to bind herself hand and foot so that she would be utterly unable to do anything by herself, so that she would have to get the permission of Timbuktu in order to determine, for instance, what credit she would advance in northern Saskatchewan. If I have been unfair to the hon. member for Essex East I will appreciate his coming into the house tomorrow and asking me questions, and I promise him that when he asks me questions I will answer them. I will not do what he did when I asked him questions the other night. I will not say that I have no time to answer.

Both these hon. members spoke about free enterprise. They neglected utterly to tell us why it was that free enterprise failed us in 1929 and 1930. We had free enterprise then. Why did it fail us?. What was the reason? There was a reason; why not seek it out, and prescribe the remedy? I am not condemning free enterprise; I am saying there was something wrong either with it or with the environment in which free enterprise operated.

May I leave the Liberal side of the house now, and reflect for a moment or two on the proposals of my neighbours who sit next to

me in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. I believe I have not yet a correct interpretation of their stand. I once thought it meant government ownership, but after listening to-night to the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) I do not know just what they stand for.

I will just say this, that if the government took over industries from private enterprise, it would be faced with the all-important problem of selling its goods. It would be no easier for a government-owned shoe factory to sell its goods, than for a privately-owned factory. Let us bear that in mind.

The first great problem is to sell the goods. If we can establish in this Dominion of Canada a set-up under which private industry can sell its goods, private industry will carry on very successfully, provided we put a few regulations around it, so that it may not exploit us. If the government owned all the industries and the government were unable to sell its goods, will someone tell me how the government could employ men to work in those industries?

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:

They could not employ

them.

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

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. BLACKMORE:

Exactly, and you

would think that any one with common sense could see that. Our problem is the problem of discovering where to sell the goods.

On motion of Mr. Blackmore the debate was adjourned.

It being two minutes after eleven o'clock the house . adj ourned without question put.

Tuesday, March 2, 1943

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