July 3, 1944

LIB

Thomas Vien (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

In the meantime, the position so far as the Chair is concerned is-distinct. I ask the hon. member for Parkdale to withdraw the meaning he implied in his remarks.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
NAT

Herbert Alexander Bruce

National Government

Mr. BRUCE:

I had no intention of implying that Your Honour had been unfair. I meant only to say that when a man is punished for exercising his undoubted right of freedom of speech in this parliament, then I think it is time that somebody should speak up for him. I would have expected that the leader of this house, who has always been so careful about the privileges of parliament, would have said something in this regard before now, but nothing ha3 been said. That is pretty nearly all I had intended to 6ay. It does seem to me and to others that men who are outside this parliament should not have a right to punish members of either house for something they say in the house. We have had an illustration of that happening within recent days. It is against that method of interfering with freedom of speech that I wish to protest in the strongest terms possible, and it is only because of that that I have intervened in this debate this evening.

The Budget-Mr. Rose

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LPP

Fred Rose

Labour Progressive

Mr. FRED ROSE (Cartier):

la discussing the budget which according to the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), calls for an expenditure of over $5,000,000,000 in this the most decisive stage of the war, If am not going to delve into figures. I am not even going to spend very much time on the problem of the justice or the injustice of certain taxes. I wish to deal instead with the problem of national unity.

To me the destruction of fascism does not merely mean the destruction of fascism overseas. I believe that our men fighting overseas feel that while risking their lives there they would not want to come back home where they would find groups of fascists threatening Canadian democracy. I am not an alarmist, but I believe that at all times it is better to face issues than to resort to the ostrich policy.

In 1938, a few years before the name of Quisling became generally known throughout the world, I wrote a little pamphlet in which I warned about the danger of small fascist groupings, a danger that I said must be met or it might become serious in a critical period. In the pamphlet I used the following words:

There is no doubt that at present the various fascist movements constitute a very small minority among the great political movements in our country. But this is no reason why fascism in Canada should be ignored. Far better to turn the spotlight of truth and reason upon it right now and to take those measures at the outset of its growh, to make it impossible for fascism ever to grow into a force strong enough to challenge Canadian democracy.

There are certain people who believe that just because the foundations of fascism are being destroyed overseas, people with fascist ideology here will give up, cave in. I do not share that opinion. I would say that just because the cause of fascism is failing, because it is being defeated on various European battlefronts, fascist groups here, like nazism, will fight like a wounded beast. What makes this dangerous is the fact that we are in a decisive stage of the war. What makes this dangerous is that it divides the people, that it raises doubts in the minds of many people, that it weakens morale. That is why the issue must be faced.

What does Hitler want? He wants to see division. He may even fight a war of defence on all fronts. He hopes the war will drag out as long as possible, while his supporters throughout the various countries of the united nations will work up a campaign of disunity. This, he hopes, may bring about a patched-up peace. That sort of peace would not last. That is not what the people of Canada or of the united nations want.

Not long ago the United States Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau Junior, gave the following warning:

Our enemy 'has one real secret weapon, the weapon of division. As disaster confronts him be will use that weapon cunningly. He will try to shatter unity we have achieved, will try to blunt and confuse our purposes and soften the defeat which he now knows he cannot escape. He will try to make our victory partial, rather than complete.

If we yield to such blandishments, if we allow doubt of one another to divide us, if we soften in our resolve to stamp out this hideous nazi curse-we shall have lost this war. Worse we shall have betrayed all those who suffered and bled upon the soil of Europe-the living and the dead alike.

I fully agree with that statement, and that is why I emphasize this problem of national and international unity, and wish to warn the people against division and confusion.

We shall have betrayed the living and the dead alike, if we stand aside and minimize the events which have taken place in Quebec in the past few weeks. There is, of course, the possibility that someone may try to say, "He is attacking the province of Quebec." I am not. I say that I have much more faith in the people of Quebec than many who would use that argument against me. I have said in the past, and I repeat to-night, that small dangerous cliques are carrying on that type of activity which is hurting the people of Quebec and Canadian morale.

I was coming down through the Laurentians in a car, and picked up a young airman who happened to be travelling on foot. He was an air gunner; in fact he looked more like an ail cadet, because he was so young. This boy had been stationed at Valleyfield when the fights took place. I had tears in my eyes after listening to his story. He said that these young boys, young air gunners, boys doing the most dangerous type of work, and who would be going overseas in a few weeks, did not dare to walk alone. They had to go in threes or fours.

Was anyone arrested? I have not heard of a single arrest. The young airman told me that many air force boys were beaten up very badly. In that same town of Valleyfield another gang attacked a meeting of the textile workers' union. That gang entered the hall where the meeting was being held, and smashed all the furniture. That was a union of people of Valleyfield. And still nothing was done; no arrests were made.

Then, in the city of Quebec a synagogue was set afire a couple of months ago. Prior to that fire a campaign was carried on by an intolerant clique within that city, against the rights of Jewish people to build their syna-

The Budget-Mr. Rose

gogue. In that campaign signatures were collected and meetings were held. The people who addressed the meeting were known. Among those who addressed meetings in that city was a fellow named Roch Poulin, a member of the young Laurentians. This same Roch Poulin was, only a few weeks later, at a meeting in Quebec which was to have been addressed by the leader of my party, Tim Buck, and roused the young boys to break up the gathering.

Anti-Semitism: suppression of free speech- they go hand in hand. But that is not all. A few days after the attack on the union hall in Valleyfield a well-known union organizer went out to Huntingdon. We was met by a group of people there who told him, "You are not going to hold a meeting "-desipite the fact that the textile plant at that place is organized within the union. He was prevented from holding the meeting, and there was no protection given him.

A tense situation is being created. One would not be surprised if the workers decided that if such things are going to occur they will organize defence groups of their own. That would be dangerous, and might lead to all sorts of trouble. Something drastic has to be done.

It is unfortunate that so many people who are responsible for these shameful activities call themselves nationalists-which they are not. They say that they work in the interests of the people of Quebec. I say that they do not. When they go out to smash up union meetings they are not working on behalf of the French-Canadian workers; they are working on behalf of Blair Gordon. When these people go out to tell workers that they must not belong to neutral unions, they are taking away from those workers weapons through the use of which those workers in many industries of Quebec have attained equality in wages with other provinces.

In some industries in Quebec, notably aircraft, shipbuilding and some others, the workers have attained equality. Who brought this about? Was it the group of people who rave about equality, or was it the trade union organizations of the workers? The trade union organizations of the workers did it.

These nationalists say that they are interested in the welfare of the people. But when there is talk about health insurance they say, " Oh, no, no; that is socialism. We do not want any health insurance. We do not want to interfere with the individual." What does that lead to? It leads to a situation under which the health of the people in Quebec is

bad, and it will continue to be bad if the people in that province follow the clique I have mentioned.

Let me give some figures. Per 100,000 of population 8Q-6 people in Quebec die yearly from tuberculosis, as compared with twenty-six in Ontario, or three times as many in Quebec as in Ontario. Here are some figures for some of the cities: Quebec city, 108-1; Chicoutimi, 143-4; Three Rivers, 216-6; Thet-ford Mines, 259-5, and Rimouski-shameful figure-542-2, or twenty times the rate for Ontario. The nationalists do not want any health scheme; they do not think the people of Quebec need it. The infant mortality figures give a similar picture. The rate per

1,000 live births for Canada as a whole in 1941 was 59-7 and that for Ontaro, 45-6. The rate for Chicoutimi was 95-5, and for Quebec city 107.

Those figures are altogether too high. We need more health schemes for our province rather than no health schemes simply because reactionaries say that it smacks of socialism, that it interferes with the individual. The so-called nationalists have opposed the idea of compulsory education. Doctor Paquette, Duplessis' lieutenant and former provincial secretary in charge of education in the province, in a discussion on compulsory education had the following to say:

When families are disorganized by the war, when young men are being conscripted for the army, is this time to conscript children for obligatory schooling ?

That argument underestimates the intelligence of the people of Quebec It was all right for Doctor Paquette to graduate as a doctor and do well in politics. If he has any children I am sure they are getting a fine education, but other children must not get an education because he considers it conscription for education.

Then again they oppose the idea of Quebec having anything to do with Canada or Canada having anything to do with the world. What will happen to the huge plants that have been built in the province and the tens of thousands of workers employed there if Canada is to isolate herself from the world?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
NAT

Karl Kenneth Homuth

National Government

Mr. HOMUTH:

We never will.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LPP

Fred Rose

Labour Progressive

Mr. ROSE:

I am much more optimistic than the hon. member to my right. I have faith in the good sense of the people and know they will make sure they will get their jobs. The so-called nationalists may have a solution, back to the land. They are ready to suggest that the people dig stumps and starve, that they keep away from the cities.

'he Budget-Mr. Rose

But during the war the people have learned that they can do useful work; they have acquired skills, and they will not want to go. back to the land. The solution of isolationism is not the solution for the people of Quebec.

The supposed nationalist leaders are not working in the interests of the Quebec people. They use all sorts of demagogy to cover up their reactionary ideology, their pro-fascist ideology, and they care very little about tha people. What is their idea about the people? I find this in a declaration issued by a group known as the bloc universitaire and drafted on April 11, 1942. In that declaration this group called for a corporatist state in the province of Quebec where, according to their theory "not all men are born equal". That is the most reactionary sort of attitude to take. A small group of people will set themselves up in the castle and the people down below will work for them. They will have the brains; the others must know nothing.

I now want to go back a little into history. Since I have been in the house I have heard several hon. members go back into the past, to the years 1934, 1935, 1936 and 1937. I have done a little digging myself, and I should like to quote what has been said by some so-called nationalists and isolationists who are more interested in an axis victory than in the welfare of the people of Quebec. First I want to quote from a paper La Nation, issued by Paul Bouchard, a paper which was suppressed or which disappeared after the war broke out. He was quite close to all the so-called nationalist leaders in the province; in fact, in 1937 he appeared as a candidate in Montreal-St. Mary's riding and was sponsored by a number of organizations, one of which was headed by Andre Laurendeau, the present provincial leader of the Bloc Populaire. This Bouchard wrote quite a number of editorials in his paper. For instance, speaking about Spain, he said:

Before a strong and determined Spain, Gibraltar will be worthless. But the political role that a rich and powerful Spain can play is of much greater dimension. . . . She will take back her ascendancy over the peoples tied by blood and culture. We can't imagine the future role of Spain without thinking that outside of Brazil, the United States and Canada, all America is Spanish speaking. The next era will belong to the Spanish world.

Meaning they will take all of South America. He went on further to say:

May Franco be inspired by Mussolini's success-

I should like to see Bouchard's face to-day.

-and adapt Mussolini's forms to his country in order to transmit to Spain the same spirit of energy, of progress and solidarity which animates Italy, and then the immense reaction

started in Rome against Asiatic barbarism will arrive by way of Spain to the Latin shores of America.

That is 100 per cent fascism; that is 100 per cent fascist foreign policy. Not only did he speak about Spain but he advised France as follows: [DOT]

Ah! If only France could at last find, under a monarchy or a national dictatorship, a great minister of foreign affairs to sell the British empire to Germany and Italy, in exchange for an alliance and French neutrality.

Those are treacherous words, but they did not stop him from running in 1942 as a candidate against the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent). What did he have to say about Canada? What did he have to say about a united Canada?

He said as follows:

Very well, I will be told; but what if Japan should want to invade British Columbia? Let us be clear that British Columbia is not the whole of Canada, and in the east, for what it costs us and What we get out of it, it means nothing to us.

He was willing to give British Columbia to Japan. These are the nationalists, the isolationists, but really internationalists in the sense of being fascists.

The so-called nationalists will not deny that they hold in the highest esteem the opinions of Henry Bourassa. Speaking in Montreal on October 8, 1941, Henry Bourassa said that the only force in Europe capable of bringing an end to Slav chaos was Germany.

Yes, Hitler tried to bring an end in his own way to what Henry Bourassa called Slav chaos. Hitler tried to murder millions of Slavs. But they refused to die, and are playing a magnificent role to-day and giving Hitler a sound beating.

Here is what Henry Bourassa said about Hitler:

Hitler is much more a product of democratic expression than are the governments of the United States, Canada and Britain. . . . One of the excellent sides of the (nazi) regime is that it has put an end to the scandalous abuses of capitalism.

When we think of the Krupps and Goering and their trusts we can see that this was but misrepresentation of the facts in order to deceive the people.

Speaking of the post-war world Henry Bourassa said:

If good sense is to prevail in the settlement of European affairs in the post-war world . . . I think that France of Petain, Spain of Franco, Portugal of Salazar, also Italy of Mussolini, will exercise a salutary influence for the world.

What a world that would be! Bourassa has since repeated the same sort of statement

The Budget-Mr. Rose

on a number of occasions. He still clings to these ideas and calls himself a nationalist! Like the nazis from whom they draw their inspiration the corporatists resort to antiSemitism as a means of doing their dirty work. It is unfortunate that such thoughts should creep into the speeches even of some members of this house. Not long ago I heard an hon. member speaking about the Aryans and the non-Aryans in this country. I did not know that we had any Aryans or non-Aryans in this country. I thought Hitler was the only one who was blessed with them.

Again on Thursday evening last the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) said:

We are wondering whether or not we are engaged in this war for the sole purpose of saving or helping out the Jews all over the world.

That is Hitler's argument. Hitler has said that on a number of occasions-this is a Jewish war-and we had a revised version of that given us the other day by an hon. member of this house.

To-day's Montreal Gazette carries a very sad story. It told of 1,715,000 Jews who had been killed, exterminated in gas chambers in two camps in upper Silesia. If some escaped being murdered are we supposed to say to them: Keep out of this country. That is not humanity. That is cruelty. This question of refugees has been mixed up by certain political leaders with the problem of immigration. Certain papers are carrying cartoons on the subject. Here is a cartoon in Le Moraliste, Duplessis' sheet, showing Jews as did Streicher in the Sturmer. I think it is disgraceful. What would have happened to the great leaders of Canadian democracy, Papineau and Mackenzie, if they had been refused a refuge in the United States. The fate of the Acadians driven from their soil in the eighteenth century, a sad chapter in our Canadian history long remembered in our province, is to-day being repeated on a greater scale in a more murderous fashion, and to make an issue of it is to disregard decency and humanity. But these pseudo-nationalists do not go back to history. They find their own cruel solutions Here is an article in the official organ of Bloc Populaire, Le Bloc, of May 6, 1944. The article is headed "Canada, England's Garbage Dump," and this paper gives its full front page to names of some of the refugees allowed to come into this country and makes sure to specify beside each name "Juif," "Juif," "Juif" -"Jew," "Jew," "Jew"! I am not a Christian myself, but that is un-Christian as I understand Christianity.

I want to read what a great man, David Lloyd George, wrote about the Jews and Jew-baiting in 1923. He said:

Of all the bigotries that savage the human temper there is none so stupid as the antiSemitic. It has no basis in reason; it is not rooted in faith; it aspires to no ideal; it is just one of those dank and unwholesome weeds that grow in the morass of racial hatred. How utterly devoid of reason it is may be gathered from the fact that it is almost entirely confined to nations who worship Jewish prophets and apostles, revere the national literature of the Hebrews as the only inspired message delivered by the Diety to mankind, and whose only hope of salvation rests on the precepts and promises of the great teachers of Judah. Yet, in the sight of these fanatics the Jews of to-day can do nothing right. If they are rich they are birds of prey. If they are poor they are vermin. If they are in favour of a war, it is because they w-ant to exploit the bloody feuds of the Gentiles to their own profit. If they are anxious for peace, they are either instinctive cowards or traitors. If they give generously- and there are no more liberal givers than the Jews-they are doing it for some selfish purpose of their own. If they do not give-then what could one expect of a Jew but avarice? If labour is oppressed by great capital, the greed of the Jew is held responsible. If labour revolts against capital, the Jew is blamed for that ' also. If he lives in a strange land he must be persecuted and pogrommed out of it. If he wants to go back to his own, he must be prevented. Through the centuries in every land, whatever he does, or intends or fails to do, he has been pursued by the echo of the .brutal cry of the rabble of Jerusalem against the greatest of all Jews-Crucify Him!

These are very fine words, but what are we going to do about it? I suggest that the situation is serious enough to demand what I suggested in my maiden speech in this house, the appointment of a royal commission to go into this whole problem. But even that is not the whole story. There must be a reason why people in Quebec province will follow these elements, and that basis lies in certain inequalities which still exist. The government must find ways and means to meet the needs of the people, to do away with these inequalities, and the people will be only too happy for anything that is done for them to bring about that equality which they deserve. What is more I say that we have to encourage the trades unions as a powerful factor in the fight for democracy. We need a bold policy, because the problem of national unity is a serious one to-day, in the final phase of the war, and will be just as serious to-morrow, in the post-war period.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Robert Ryan

Liberal

Mr. ROBERT RYAN (Three Rivers):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to offer my congratulations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) upon the able manner in which he presented the budget.

The Budget-Mr. Ryan

In this regard I think it would be proper for me to read into Hansard a number of paragraphs from an article entitled "Your Taxes Will Go Down", by Mr. Beardsley Rural, appearing in the Magazine Digest for June. Mr. Ruml, author of the pay-as-you-go income tax plan, is chairman of the federal reserve bank of New York. In this article he refers to federal budgets and taxation, and he says:

The federal (budget itself has an important influence on the value of our money. Whether the federal budget is inflationary or deflationary depends on the kind 'and amount of federal taxes. The real purpose of our federal taxes in the providing of revenue is to make sure that we have a budget that has the right kind of economic influence on the country.

The federal budget commits us every year to a set of expenditures, most of them necessary and desirable, and yet always with some waste, tradition and unreasonable sentiment.

We have federal taxes because we have national expenditures. If we had the expenditures without any taxes (at all, the budget would be extremely inflationary.

The reason we have federal taxes is so that the federal budget will have the right influence on the rest of our economy-that it will do its part in keeping employment and production high year after year. . . .

We have another good reason for expecting lower taxes-we do not want a deflationary federal budget when we have too much unemployment. We shall have to figure out how much employment and production we want as a "standard normal" and then make our federal tax programme so that income will balance outgo when we are at this desired normal level.

Such a tax programme will produce a budget surplus without changing the rates, provided that the outgo is kept steady and employment goes beyond what we think normal ought to be.

If employment and production go below our standard normal level, and if we keep our rates the same or even reduce them, then the effect . of the budget will be to add to public purchasing power and thus help raise employment and production to our normal level.

Expert estimates all agree on one point: with high employment after the war, national production and national income will actually be very much higher than ever before in our history.

For future taxes, this -means that either we shall have a high level of employment and production and can therefore have lower tax rates and a balanced budget, or we shall have lower tax rates to arrive at the employment and production level we feel is desirable.

Lower tax rates will help us achieve -high post-war employment, -but we must remember -that during the first year or so after hostilities cease, strong inflationary influences will be at work. They must be combated, and taxes will have to be used to help fight rising prices.

In this uncertain period we must proceed cautiously with tax reduction, even if the budget is balanced and possibly shows a surplus. But after the American economy is established, -we can use the tax programme to help provide the means of going where we want to go, in terms of high -production and high employment-and this will mean far lower tax rates than we have to-day. .

I believe that the paragraphs which I have read apply very fully to the present budget of the Minister of Finance. It has been my opinion since I have been in this house that the minister, in bringing down his annual budgets, has always had in thought the welfare of the country and has built up his taxing system with that in mind.

There is a question in regard to the importance of control, and I should like in that regard to quote a statement made by Sir George Schuster, one of Britain's foremost business men. He says:

We must have some measure of government control over the nation's commerce after the war. If each business seeks to run its own affairs according to its own single interest, I -see little hope of avoiding state control at every point. The main problem is achieving a balance between the organizing power of the state and the driving force of the free individual.

That, I think, can be easily understood.

Further with reference to controls, let me quote the following statement of United States price administrator Chester Bowles:

That price control has saved -the people of the U.S.A. $67 million and that much would have been added to the' building of the military -machine had there been no price restrictions.

Comparisons of the cost of the two wars compiled by the O.P.A. research division show that $22 billion more has been saved consumers through price control over civilian goods and service. That saving alone amounts to $169 for each person for 1943, and that figure is growing every month.

It would be interesting to have an estimate of what Canada has saved by price control.

I wish to make one more quotation, which is taken from "Democracy Reborn", by Henry A. Wallace, Vice-President of the United States of America:

Dollar .principles are all right when they serve human principles and free enterprise must be maintained, -but the "Big Three", big -business, big agriculture and big labour must work -together for the general welfare and-above everything-adhere to the principle of complete utilization of all sources, all manpower, all skills in the service of the common man in his search for jobs.

On Friday we listened to an able speaker, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, who told us what he thought of the all-out war effort carried on by this government; that it was not only his opinion, but that of the most important men in the world to-day that Canada has done a wonderful job. There is no doubt about that. It has been well known by everybody except those who wish to criticize the government. On the subject of the war effort, the Prime Minister of New Zealand referred to man-power, war equipment and so forth. On Saturday morning,

The Budget-Mr. Ryan

while going on the train to Montreal, I clipped from the Ottawa Journal the following short article:

British Believe Canadians Best Street Fighters

British soldiers rate Canadians the best street fighters in Italy, Lt.-Col. Frederick L. Nicholls of Toronto, former commander in Italy of the Carleton and York regiment, a New Brunswick unit, said in an interview to-night.

He said the morale of the Canadian soldiers is "tops" and expressed belief it is high because of the fact all the Canadians overseas are volunteers.

"Therefore they're over there because they want to fight. They have a job to do and they want to clean it up."

Col. Nicholls was in command of the Carleton and Yorks along the Adriatic coast during the Cassino fighting. He has just returned to Canada to join the military training branch at defence headquarters.

I congratulate the government upon the new legislation and the new departments that are being created which will permit the government to carry out a post-war effort with the same success as they have carried on the all-out war effort since 1939.

It is laughable to listen to statements made that the Liberal government has stolen the programme of the Progressive Conservative or the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) informed this house at the first or second session of this parliament of his intentions with regard to social legislation that would be submitted for approval before this parliament was prorogued and, at the opening of this session, a definite plan of social reform was outlined in the speech from the throne.

I believe this government is working out the very best form of cooperation with the commercial banks and industry. The government's intention, I understand, is to cut out everything in the management of the banks and industry that has been found to have been a hindrance to the full development of Canada and the welfare of our people.

The Minister of Finance has advised us that understandings have been arrived at with the Bank of Canada and the commercial banks which will permit them to finance any development the government will find it necessary to undertake, and also place the banks in a position to finance all legitimate demands made on them by industry and commerce. He has also informed us that the government has complete control of currency and credit, and the system of banking to-day is not the same system that existed from 1929 to 1939. A new system has evolved since 1939.

The government is gradually weeding out what might be termed bad in banking and free enterprise systems without destroying what has been found good, which I would term constructive evolution.

I do not think this government will hesitate for one minute to take over any industry or to organize any industry that they decide should be established in the interests of the public, if they find private capital is not forthcoming or sufficient for the full development of such industry.

I would say to the leader of the C.C.F., in answer to his statement on page 4019 of Hansard, that the Canadian soldiers will return to the same beautiful and free Canada that they had left to fight the enemy and offer their blood so that we, who were left at home, would be able to continue to live in this glorious and free land known as Canada, but may I say to him that they will not return to Canada and find the same economic or social system that existed when they left their homes and loved ones.

Before I came into this house in 1940, I had arrived at certain conclusions of what I considered were the financial or economic reforms that should be made, and I am pleased to say that I am satisfied with what has been done up to the present. There are reforms that I believe should still be inaugurated to permit the government to stabilize employment and successfully carry out their social security programme.

However, the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada are confident that the reforms which are being evolved will be sufficient, and I am convinced that if the government find out-later on that other changes in our monetary or economic system are necessary, they will not hesitate to make such changes as are necessary to make a success of post-war management and development. I have confidence in the government and very much faith in the future.

In conclusion, I would say that the people of Canada, yes, the people of the British empire, should thank God that we have had in this country such a man as Mackenzie King as Prime Minister with his able government to guide us through those terrible years of the war. Canada has done a great war job and has done it well. It is therefore my belief that Mackenzie King was a good peace-time, a good war-time and will be a good post-war Prime Minister.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
IND

Lionel Bertrand

Independent Liberal

Mr. LIONEL BERTRAND (Terrebonne):

Canada is one of the most beautiful countries in the world; I would even say the most beautiful. Hurled as a challenge against the

4468 COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. Bertrand (Terrebonne)

Americas, it is remarkable because of the vastness of its territory and the inexhaustible wealth of its resources. A young country whose prospects of development are unlimited, Canada is altogether immense and rich. Three oceans, filled with wealthy products, border its shores as a fairyland of lace; to the south, an imaginary boundary separates it from the most powerful of modern countries, the United States, with which it holds harmonious relations which could be set as an example to the whole world. Within, nine provinces, unequal as to size, diversified as to their particular character and products, share a territory often broken by immense rivers and lakes on which sail ocean-going ships which supplement two railway systems serving from ocean to ocean an agricultural and industrial population. So far, Canada has played an important role in world politics; to-morrow, it will be more important. But what has the future in store for us?

Wealth, resources and progress do not make a nation. Indeed, progress is a law of humanity. For generations, the present is the transition between a mediocre past and a better future. But a nation will subsist only if it can draw from itself a sufficient amount of reason to ward off causes of internal ruin or relaxation. Material forces, alone, are inefficient; the real power of a nation rests in its ideal, this invisible power which, by creating visible objects, shows the way to our souls. A nation is a soul; as Renan said, a nation, like an individual, is the convergence of a great sum of efforts, sacrifices and devotion. We shall come out of this war overburdened with the most gigantic financial effort in our history, struggling with an economy upset by the present conflict, and compelled to undergo numerous privations and sacrifices for many years to come. What class in our society will have suffered the most from the war? The one which has paid more income tax? No. The one whose easy pre-war way of living has been curtailed by rationing? No. The one upon whom war has imposed lower revenues and all kinds of annoyances? No. What class will be most affected by this war? It is our youth.

Youth will come out of this war wounded and angry. These words may surprise a few; nevertheless they are true. The foundation of a nation, youth is its ideal, and its progress also. It renovates generations; the youth of to-morrow will be what the youth of to-day formed it to be. Youth, therefore, becomes the cell which gives superiority to a nation, or renders it more decadent.

To turn our attention to youth is one of the present-day problems. I wish to speak

for the youth of my country, whatever be its language, its creed, or the province it lives in. I know youth, because yesterday I was still in its ranks; I know its ambitions, its tastes, its reactions, its fears, because I have been living with it for the last four years, and shared its lost hopes, its set-backs, its bitter feelings. To-day I rise to state this: War has killed our youth, morally and physically. As a reward for the sacrifice it rendered the national cause-or rather the universal cause- youth has the right to be heard, and the right to be understood.

I have been a member here for four years. What has been said about our youth except for such purposes as mobilization or war effort? I pay tribute to the courage of our youth. Its valour gave democracy thousands of soldiers, thousands of airmen, thousands of sailors, who, on all continents, in every sky and on the seven seas, are reaping glory for themselves, besides the glory falling back on their own country. But glory fades away- military glory like any other. No sooner will the signatures be dry on the peace treaty than nations, already oblivious of the horrors of the war, will become intoxicated with the delights of peace. When they look at the future, they will unknowingly forget those whose superhuman efforts and frightful ordeals drew a veil on the bloodiest tragedy of the world's history. The characteristic of human nature is to forget; but will youth ever forget?

Youth will come out of this war with deep wounds. How many, not yet thirty years old, have #ome out wounded, sick, physical ruins? From now until final victory, how many will emerge in the same physical conditions, unable or almost unable to earn their living, after giving in two years, even in one year, the maximum yield of their physical power? How many, who had built up a future at a period in life when ambition overcomes all obstacles to success, wqre compelled to drop everything when they were called to the colours and thus destroy with their own hands the projects their courage had built up? Broken careers, jeopardized futures, ruined lives, broken-up homes, lives wilting away before full bloom; these are the actual sights. Let them start over again, one might say. This is easy to say. Easy for those whose parents are wealthy, have established industries or financial influences: But what about the others who are more numerous? I know what it means to make a success of your life when you have no influence and when your way is strewn with obstacles which the ambitions of the powerful render it all the more difficult to surmount.

The Budget-Mr. Bertrand (Terrebonne)

I have known that personally. When it comes back from the war, our youth, after waging military battles, will have to wage social fights. Will it be able to regain the lost ground? Youth does not lack ideal; its ideal, propped, developed and fostered by its elders and its government, would become the faith which moves mountains. On the other hand, if we neglect youth, will it be capable, without help, of facing the hard struggles of the future? Will it be able to create a home and believe in happiness if, when it attempts to make its way through a mode of life more difficult than ever, this youth is not convinced that it still has retained its place under the sun? If the powers of the day disregard it altogether, will the youth that withstood the brunt of this war be able to come back to the homes it had temporarily left with the same bright hopes it had formerly nourished? Will it ever be able to dismiss from its mind the thought that in twenty or twenty-five years, through the stupid ambitions of men, the children it will bring forth in this world may again become the new victims of war and of all its miseries? Will youth be able to settle down to work if it lacks an ideal? Will it be able to create one if its soul remains downhearted? Discouragement leads to disgust; and disgust unavoidably opens the way to chaos.

Youth will also be angry when it comes out of this war. To a greater extent than any other class of society, laws will have affected it. It will have borne the weight of the mobilization act; the intricacies of selective service, rendered unrelenting throughout a series of sinister improvements, transformed the youth into an object to be handled, and this is a very serious error for democracy. When youth belonged to a category callable to the colours, it was automatically refused any position. After weeks of moral tossing around, it was compelled to enlist. For those who were too young to be called up, there were still no jobs. Instead of acquiring this happpy mentality resulting from work honestly secured, they are more or less compelled to earn their living through means which are not always commendable. Neglected, paralysed, baffled, turned down, dismissed, banned, hunted down, youth has become panic-stricken. Instead of breathing the pure atmosphere of the nation, it has absorbed, day after day, vexations-a poison which directly breeds dissatisfaction.

Will it be surprising if youth comes out of this war angry? Angry against what? Against everything. Angry against whom? Against everyone. First of all, against the authorities. Against the arrogance of its superior officers in the army. Against the insolence of the bureaucrats. Against capitalism-the shady kind.-which has been taking advantage of its sacrifices and sufferings. It is said that to-morrow will see the most considerable evolution of history. I believe it. But if this evolution does not give those who have suffered the benefits of their devotion, I may say this: add one letter to this magical word "evolution" and you have the worst of all human evils: "revolution".

Some will smile at my fears. I know I am not mistaken. Youth demands back, for to-morrow, its just and recognized place in society. It says: "You are preparing plans of social security; but, in those projects, have you thought of me who waged this war or who has suffered from this war?" Youth says: "You are planning wide material projects which will add to the assets of the nation and supply work for everyone; but did you think of reserving a place for me, the best asset of the country?" It says: "Progress would connect the world with airlines in which Canada will be an important link; did you think of me, the indispensable link to the continuation of life in this country?" It says: "You vote estimates to engrave in marble the heroic deeds and the known heroes of this war; did you think of me, the obscure hero of the war who, to-morrow, will still be the obscure labourer in the renovation of the country?" It says: "You are talking about peace; you are studying measures which will secure it; I want peace, because more than any other class of society, I hate and curse war. You want the Atlantic charter to be the foundation of a new order of justice and human intelligence; are you aware that peace throughout the world rests on the motion of peace which every nation cultivates within its own boundaries? Shall we have peace if the rights of everyone are not recognized in this country, if my own rights are ignored?

Youth says: "You are willing to assist other nations by throwing your doors open to immigration, by appealing to the great laws of humanity; have you the right to do so; have you the right to even think of doing it before I, who bore the brunt of the war, who suffered from the war, have found in this country, which is mv own, the work, security and happiness to which I am entitled?"

Youth says: "You have voted billions to help Great Britain and the united nations finance their war effort; you have voted fantastic amounts to create instruments of war which I have handled; you have voted very large sums of money to set up a series of commissions, a few of which were severely condemned after leading the unfair life of parasites; shall I not be entitled to the con-

4470 COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. Bertrand (Terrebonne)

sideration of my country when I shall be called upon to-morrow, to bear the crushing burden of these debts, to sacrifice myself and my own people in order to repay them?"

The youth of my country has the right to demand the right of being heard, and the right of being understood. Therefore, I wish to state that if every economic, financial, physical and agricultural domain is represented in this parliament by a department which animates, supports and develops it, why should youth, the very soul of all the domains of human activity, be not also represented by its own department? I demand tonight the setting up of a federal department of youth.

Various departments were set up to finance or prosecute the war; departments were created to solve post-war problems. At this momentous hour we are about to face, an hour which is rightly dreaded by economists, why should the government not institute the department which, in my opinion, is the most important for the salvation of the country: the department of youth. This department would render such important services that they would have results and repercussions in every cell of the social organism. If you do not create it, you are hampering the welfare of the country. If you create it, you will make the nation strong and solid. One may answer that such a step comes within the jurisdiction of the provinces and that the federal government does not wish to encroach upon the rights of the provinces. This is a very easy and convenient excuse. The Department of National War Services was set up, and it mobilized the youth. The Department of National Defence was given a larger strength, and youth filled it up. Selective service was instituted, and youth was the first to submit to its requirements. In selective service, a mobilization section was set up, and again youth was its first and perpetual victim. Therefore, if it has borne the stiffness of our laws to a greater extent than any other class of society, it has a vested right in requesting and demanding the introduction of legislation, acceptable both by itself and by the provinces, which legislation would be the official and national recognition of its devotion and of its social helpfulness.

How can we assist youth? Young men who have been to war deserve special attention. Indeed, when the war is over, numerous laws will be enacted to assist those who have contributed to victory. But those who will apply these laws should not neglect or deal unjustly with these young people merely because they are young; the youth who fought this war and who will be its victims, who entered in

it voluntarily or through the force of circumstances, will set forth its rightful requests, even if it has to resort to arbitrary means. Is it excessive to ask that youth that has fought this war be given an organism whose duty will be, when needs arise, to protect its rightful claims, or to facilitate its obtaining a just preference in employment.

There is also the youth under twenty, at eighteen already much older than its age, since it is by statute sent to the army before it is physically developed and ready to fight for its living. There are all those who are growing up, already restless at sixteen, and all those who have not yet reached sixteen, and who are acquiring deep in their hearts, when their elders relate their experiences, feelings of contempt and sour memories which they will undoubtedly retain, unless such feelings are dispelled.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
NAT

Karl Kenneth Homuth

National Government

Mr. HOMUTH:

I rise to a point of order. I dislike doing this very much, but hon. members have been warned against reading their speeches. The hon. member for Terrebonne is reading his speech, word for word. I object to it, and I do not think it should be allowed.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

James Layton Ralston (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. RALSTON:

The hon. member for

York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) read his speech.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
NAT

Karl Kenneth Homuth

National Government

Mr. HOMUTH:

You should have checked him up, then.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

James Layton Ralston (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. RALSTON:

Why did you not check him up?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
NAT

Karl Kenneth Homuth

National Government

Mr. HOMUTH:

Because it is your dfity to do it.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

James Layton Ralston (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. RALSTON:

I was not objecting to it.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
NAT

Karl Kenneth Homuth

National Government

Mr. HOMUTH:

I am.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

James Layton Ralston (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. RALSTON:

Why did you not object to the hon. member for York-Sunbury, then?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of Pensions and National Health)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) :

Charity begins at home.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
IND

Lionel Bertrand

Independent Liberal

Mr. BERTRAND (Terrebonne):

This coming youth, the government can assist it in many ways:

(a) By setting up, in every district where an unemployment insurance office is located, a section specially devoted to the placement of youth.

(b) By expanding without restrictions the professional training programme, which recently replaced the war-time emergency training programme; by giving substantial grants to provinces so that arts and crafts schools can be accessible, not only to students from towns and cities, but also to those from rural municipalities of the least importance.

The Budget-Mr. Bertrand (Terrebonne)

(c) By instituting in every county, with the cooperation of the provinces, scholarships which would be available to children in lower and industrial classes, and would help them reaching technical schools or other secondary or superior schools.

(d) By granting generous subsidies, through the medium of provinces, to associations interested in youth movements, like parish circles, for instance, in order to develop among young people a taste for reading by facilitating the use of public libraries, or in order to develop its physical health by means of sane and vigorous sports.

(e) By building in cities and towns, and even in municipalities of any importance, public parks where younger people could find playgrounds, swimming pools and amusements.

(f) Bjr enlarging the scope of the national film board so as to give, even in remote municipalities, numerous free movies on matters of national interest or of educational character.

(g) By giving grants to associations interested in promoting artistic tastes among youth -such as Les Amis de 1'Art, in Montreal-in order that these associations, with the cooperation of the provinces, may extend their activities, and that youth may follow for a nominal charge artistic lectures and teachings-the best sources of art and ideal.

(h) By erecting parish halls.

(i) By creating bureaux dealing with statistics and information with branches in every province, and available to students as well as to young labourers.

(j) By creating an organism entrusted with setting up a list and prohibiting the entrance into Canada of this abundance of United States magazines which glorify vice and praise robbery and murder. This literature is ridiculous, useless, immoral and against the welfare of the nation; it will turn a young man, even before he is twenty, into a loafer, if not into a thief or a murderer.

In a word, by setting up a body capable of securing young people their proper share of employment, and of applying measures calculated to maintain the physical standards of youth, its moral health, its sense of responsibility and its love of life.

Will this suggestion be received1 in this parliament? Will it be accepted in principle only, and gradually set aside by the stream of new problems which are constantly assailing public administration? Will it be heard by youth which will learn through newspapers and radio that some one spoke on their behalf before the whole nation? I do not know. Nevertheless, I am convinced that youth must

be consulted on the course of our reconstruction projects. We shall have to reconstruct, and reconstruct in every domain, and with the live powers of the nation. In these times when the most fantastic doctrines take shape and are spread abroad, when dealers in happiness offer at every cross-road elixirs of unlimited prosperity, when the most subversive ideas hide under disguise in order to win approval and sympathizers, measures of national defence become necessary. Only through this national1 defence will Canada be able to live in justice, progress and peace. Capitalism must acquire certain virtues and forego certain vices; in times undergoing scientific evolution due to the influence of war, governments must endeavour to observe the smallest details which make up democracy, and also attempt to promote every idea which will assure its-solidity and full development.

Social security applied in all domains; the glorification of labour; the improvement of the fate of lower and industrial classes, and ownership made accessible to everyone; assistance to families; the spreading of education;: the preaching of better understanding of public-health; repressing the abuses of capitalism; assistance to private enterprise; the expansion, of small industries; freeing trade and commerce from paralyzing restrictions; assistance to agriculture; a better and broader system of colonization; the safeguarding and development of national resources; the respect due to morals; doing away with social sores; in all domains of human activity, a betterment brought about by just, sane and happy laws inspired by love which Christ preached to mankind.

Mr. SPEAKER; I must ask the hon. member to observe the rule which I have endeavoured to enforce to-day. I thought the hon. gentleman was making a statement, but apparently he is reading his speech.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
IND

Lionel Bertrand

Independent Liberal

Mr. BERTRAND (Terrebonne):

It will take me only a minute to complete my speech.

Some hon. MEMBERS; Go on.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
IND

Lionel Bertrand

Independent Liberal

Mr. BERTRAND (Terrebonne) :

These are as many domains to which democracy may spread its numerous activities without falling into depressing and guilty socialism, as many domains which it may animate at a much' lower cost than what we will spend on this war.. General prosperity is the basis of the individual welfare. The individual welfare assures peace to a nation. Therefore, all classes of society should be invited to cooperate in the task of reconstruction and in balancing our economy upset by the war; youth especially,

The Budget-Mr. Kuhl

since no other class can better defend our social structure. Let us give ideal to youth. Le.t us help it and give it momentum. Youth is the foundation of the nation. Let us secure its welfare and consequently its happiness. I want the youth of my country to be happy and prosperous. If it is happy and prosperous the whole nation will also be happy and prosperous.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
ND

Walter Frederick Kuhl

New Democracy

Mr. W. F. KUHL (Jasper-Edson):

That is an appropriate remark. Hence I consider that I am not in the least presumptuous in attempting to discuss a matter of constitutional relationships in Canada. Certainly the elementary principles which govern these relationships should be familiar to everyone. There is not a citizen but should know by what authority we in Canada are governed.

In the few moments yet at my disposal I shall endeavour to present what I regard as a reasonable and logical argument, and to support the statements I make with such evidence from recognized authorities as it is possible to present on this occasion. To those who are inclined to disagree with the statements I make, I say, if they disagree let them counter my arguments with arguments which are reasoned and logical. In times past when I have presented this case I have been subjected to a good deal of scoffing and jeers ;and ridicule. Such conduct is usually the mark of defeat. Personal abuse and ridicule are not an answer to reason and logic.

In an endeavour to account for the anomalies to which I have referred, and in order to suggest what I think is the solution to remove these anomalies, I am going to endeavour to prove this proposition: that, since the enactment of the statute of Westminster, on December 11, 1931, all power to govern in Canada has resided with the provinces of Canada, and that all power legally remains there until such time as the provinces sign an agreement and ratify a constitution whereby they may delegate such powers as they wish to a central government of their own creation.

To support this proposition a few facts of history must, I think, be adduced. The first point I wish to make is that when the fathers of so-called confederation first thought of confederation they did actually conceive of a federal union proper; it was the aim and the ambition of the fathers of so-called confederation actually to consummate a federal union in Canada. That is the view I hold as a *consequence of the history I have been able to examine.

One of the things which indicates this to me is the preamble of the Quebec resolutions, which reads as follows:

The best interests and present and future prosperity of British North America will be promoted by a federal union under the crown.

The term "federal union" is used.

Then again, there is clause 70 of the Quebec resolutions, which indicates that whatever agreement was arrived at would be submitted

to the provinces and to the people. The clause reads as follows:

The sanction of the imperial and local parliaments shall be sought for the union of the provinces on the principles adopted by the conference.

In the draft British North America Act which was prepared by the fathers of confederation we find a repealing clause which certainly indicates that this draft bill provided for a proper federal union. It reads as follows:

From and after the union, all acts and parts of acts passed by the parliament of Great Britain, the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the legislature of Upper Canada, the legislature of Lower Canada, the legislature of Canada, the legislature of Nova Scotia, the legislature of New Brunswick, which are repugnant to or inconsistent with the provisions of this act shall be and the same are hereby repealed.

That certainly indicates, I believe, that what the fathers of confederation were actually aiming at was a federal union proper. I believe they were well aware of what was involved in creating a proper federal union, for at that time there was a civil war raging between the federal union and the confederacy in the United States.

I assert that, from the history which I have examined, neither the spirit nor the terms of the Quebec resolutions were carried out in the British North America Act. There is no evidence which I have been able to discover to indicate that the preamble which we find on the British North America Act in printed copies here to-day was ever mentioned either in the House of Lords or the House of Commons. The preamble which appears on the present British North America Act refers to Canada as nothing but a united colony, whereas the Canadian preamble intended that Canada should be a federal union. When the preamble was discussed in the House of Lords, Lordi Carnarvon, who introduced the bill on February 19, 1867, used these words, as reported at page 559 of the British Hansard:

The bill opens by reciting the desire of the several provinces to be federally united.

And again we find Lord Campbell, speaking on the bill, on February 26, making this statement, at page 1012-13 of the British Hansard:

The bill is founded, I believe, on what is termed the Quebec scheme of 1864. . . . Our

lights indeed may be imperfect upon this part of the subject, and I will not dwell upon it. But one thing is clear: The preamble of the resolution comes before us in full and perfect authenticity. *

I think it is quite evident from the quotations I have read that the preamble which was discussed was the preamble of the Quebec resolutions, but the preamble we find in the

The Budget-Mr. Kuhl

printed copies of the British North America Act to-day was not even mentioned. I spent some considerable time on one previous occasion indicating the consequences of such a position, but I have not the time to go into that to-night.

Another point of significance in the passing of the British North America Act at that time is the undue haste with which it was passed. The second reading was called for, but the bill was not even printed. It was given third reading on February 26 in the House of Lords, and the second reading was called for on February 28 in the House of Commons without the bill having been printed.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink

July 3, 1944