September 13, 1945


Douglas Charles Abbott (Minister of National Defence; Minister of National Defence for Naval Services)


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence):

The regulation allows students at university or equivalent educational institutions to be discharged. That is as far as it goes. In the case of students who are eligible for their senior matriculation, which is equivalent to first year at some universities, while no hard and fast rule is fixed. I think that sympathetic consideration is being given in all three services to applications made by these students. I believe that would cover the majority of the cases, because if a lad does not come into the service until he is eighteen years old or better he should be pretty nearly eligible for senior matriculation at that time.




On the orders of the day:


William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

Inquiries have been made from outside the house of the government with respect to the trial of war criminals, and particularly in relation to Canadian courts to be established for the purpose. I have thought that perhaps I should give the house a brief statement which would be of interest to hon. members as well as to the public generally.

In November, 1943, Mr. A. G. Slaght, K.C., then a member of the House of Commons, was named as honorary counsel to the government to advise with regard to the custody, trial and punishment of persons charged with war crimes. An interdepartmental committee was established at the same time, including representatives from the Departments of External Affairs, Justice and National Defence.

The Canadian government also participated in the work of the united nations war crimes commission which was set up in London and, at a later stage, Mr. Vincent Massey, the Canadian High Commissioner, was appointed as the Canadian representative on the commission.

The Address-Mr. Stewart

Since the surrender of Germany, rapid progress has been made in the plans for the apprehension, trial and punishment of war criminals. The political leaders of nazi Germany are being dealt with under arrangements agreed upon by the governments of the United Kingdom, the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and France. The others of the united nations are not participating.

War crimes arising out of conquest and occupation will :be dealt with by the countries concerned, for example, the Norwegian authorities will deal with atrocities committed during the occupation of Norway. The remaining war crimes include atrocities committed in the course of battle and crimes against prisoners of war and civilian internees. It is recognized that jurisdiction to deal with such offences should depend upon the nationality of the victim rather than the national character of the place where the offence has been committed. Accordingly, arrangements are being made to establish military courts to deal with these offences. Canadian military courts will deal with offences against Canadians, including members of the Canadian armed forces regardless of their individual national status, British military courts with offences against British, United States and Soviet courts will deal with offences against United States citizens and soldiers and Russian citizens and soldiers, respectively.

In order to carry out this general plan, a recent order in council authorized regulations to govern the custody, trial and punishment of persons charged with violation of the laws and usages of war. The regulations are similar and, in matters of substance, are identical with the regulations which have been established for British military courts. Further, the nature of the courts and the character of the procedure will be substantially the same as in the case of those which are being established by the United States authorities.

A war crimes section has been set up in Canadian military headquarters in London headed by Lieutenant-Colonel B. J. S. Macdonald, who had formerly occupied a similar position in the war crimes section established by General Eisenhower at his supreme headquarters. When the section at supreme headquarters was disbanded early in the year, a number of the Canadian officers who had been associated with Colonel Macdonald were transferred to the Canadian section and they have since been engaged in the preparation of Canadian cases and in submitting them to the united nations war crimes commission for approval.

The commission will deal with cases submitted in this way in the same manner and in accordance with the same procedure as in cases submitted by other governments. If the commission, considers that there is a case which should be tried, it will remit it to the Canadian war crimes section for action. Colonel Macdonald and his associates will then undertake the prosecution of the accused. The courts will be established in accordance with military law, the procedure will be in accordance with the principles of justice, the accused will have full opportunity for defence, and the arrangements for constitution of the court and execution of sentence will follow recognized military practice. In view of the impossibility of assembling all of the witnesses, some of whom may have been demobilized and many of whom will have been repatriated, there are some modifications of the rigid rules of evidence applicable under our ordinary criminal procedure. There are, however, sufficient safeguards for the accused to make it certain that they will receive fair trials, and that they will be convicted only if convictions are justified by the laws and usages of war and supported by evidence.

Under the arrangements which have now been established, the Canadian courts will be concerned with war crimes involving death or grievous bodily harm to Canadian civilians or to members of the Canadian armed forces. Prosecution will be undertaken by the war crimes section of Canadian military headquarters and the judge advocate general's office will be responsible for examining cases and for authorizing prosecution. The courts wall be constituted from military personnel experienced in the- laws and usages of war; and the proceedings will be conducted with dignity, fairness, and justice.




The house resumed from Wednesday, September 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. M. Benidickson for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Bracken, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.


Alistair McLeod Stewart

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

Mr. ALISTAIR STEWART (Winnipeg North):

Mr. Speaker, we have read in the speech from the throne about the intention of the government to bring the legislation respecting national status, naturalization and immigration into conformity with the definition of

The Address-Mr. Stewart

citizenship. Now I know as yet of no definition of citizenship, so I can say nothing about that ; but this I can and must say, that many of the administrative orders and regulations in the department of immigration are iniquitous in principle and vicious in their effect.

The other day the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) suggested that when we spoke we should have facts to support our arguments. I have these facts. He also suggested and implied that captious criticism would not be welcomed, especially criticism regarding the last six years. He forgot about the years prior to that when also he was Prime Minister of this country. He forgot, I think, about those years when thousands were out of work and hundreds of thousands were on relief. He forgot about those years when the young men of Canada were an unwanted generation, when neither industry, commerce nor the government had time for them, but who-these men who were the rejected and the despised in Canada-when war was declared, suddenly became its saviours. He may have forgotten that. I can assure him that these men and their families have not forgotten.

I should like to draw to the Prime Minister's attention another statement which he made. He made it in Winnipeg on the 24th of May of this year during the heat of the campaign-and I am firmly convinced that he said it in all sincerity, and that anything he does to implement the spirit of the statement will receive not only our applause but our complete cooperation. On that occasion the Prime Minister said:

Any man who lends his voice or pen to stir up racial or religious strife is an enemy of mankind.

I commend these words to certain of his followers. I suggest that they should treat them as a text, read them, mark them and inwardly digest them, and then act on them.

Even the blindest observer in Canada to-day surely sees the danger there is in the growing racial animosity which prevails; and there are many reasons for it. In the first place there is the stupid myth of race, which has no basis at all in science or in fact. I cannot concede the theory of a French race, an English race, a Jewish race, a Ukrainian race, because there is no fact at all behind that belief. This theory of race is a myth, and I say quite as definitely that those who spread racial animosity are enemies of mankind. They are essentially bigoted men and cowardly men at heart; the very essence of fascism when it started was to oppress the weak, and it is always the coward who is the first to do that very thing.

I suppose that if any member of this house were asked whether he had at any time stirred up racial animosity he would deny it immediately because humanity has a tendency to rationalize its most stupid emotions by regarding them as conclusions arrived at as the result of experience.

There is one small group in this country, a defenceless and economically very weak group, to whom I should like to call the attention of the house. I refer to the coloured people, Canadians who are of negro origin Many of the members of this house must know members of this group. When we pass across Canada in a train we see them occupying humble positions as porters; yet I submit that they occupy honourable positions, because any man who by his toil enhances our welfare or adds to our comfort, is occupying an honourable place in our society. Yet I know one of these men, a graduate of a university, cultured, kindly, essentially civilized, who is condemned apparently forever to one job only in life and that is to act as porter on a train. That man can contribute great things to Canada, but he is given no opportunity. I know of children of coloured people who are told not to go to university because they will get no economic benefit in after life from their education. They are condemned to one sphere. I know of coloured people, friends of mine, who have the greatest difficulty in getting housing accommodation. That is true of many people, but ten times more true of men or women who are coloured. I think I have the right to ask the protection of this house for these minorities.

I have the right on the basis of the following which is contained in the compendium of parliamentary rules and forms prepared by Doctor Beauchesne, at page 4, of which, there appears a quotation from Bourinot. It is the high privilege of ours-

-to protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority.

That is a sacred obligation of this house, but we find this discrimination in the highest places in the country, and in it are the seeds of tremendous danger to Canada.

Just a little over a year ago in Manitoba a group of us, Canadians, accused the board of governors of the university of permitting racial discrimination of the vilest type to exist in the faculty of medicine of the university. The charge was denied, at first loudly, and as time went on with lessening vehemence, because the facts were undeniable. Here is what happened. When the applicant for admission to the medical college sent in his name he was placed in one of four lists- the preferred list, the Anglo-Saxon, the

The Address-Mr. Stewart

French and the Icelandic. Then followed central Europeans, and these central Europeans came from northern Norway down to the southernmost boundaries of Europe. Then, as one would expect, there was a separate list for Jewish people, and then, as one would not expect, a separate list for women. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there is as much discrimination against women in this country, in many ways, as there is against men because of ethnic origin or religious belief. Because we publicized this discrimination and challenged the board of governors with it the situation has been corrected. There is no statute yet on the books of the province of Manitoba to make sure it will stay corrected, but we have the vigilance of the people to ensure that.

Lest the members of this house think that this shame rests only upon Manitoba, I would say something to members who come from Montreal and Toronto, because in these two institutions of learning, McGill university and the university of Toronto, they *will find that this discrimination exists against people because of race, which is a scandal in a democratic country. I hope that as part of their responsibilities and duties they will realize that it is their task to try to eradicate the discrimination that exists. In the university of McGill, I am informed, Jewish students have to have an appreciably higher percentage of marks than other students before they can expect to pass. Here is one of the examples of anti-semitism in high places in this country.

But not only do we find it in institutions of learning where we should never expect to find it; we find it in certain of the orders of the government. The Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) is not here, but I am going to tell him this. A minister of the crown is responsible to this parliament for everything which happens within his jurisdiction. He may perhaps have no knowledge of what has happened and therefore we will temper our criticism, but in the application form for wartime housing there are many questions, two of which are: What is your religion? What is your nationality? What have these things to do with the right of -man who has fought for Canada to get a home in this country? I suggest to the Minister of Reconstruction that he take steps immediately to strike out these two vicious questions.

I should like now to deal with the department of immigration, and first of all I want to establish the policy which has been carried on in the past. We find it in the report for 1941:

Canada, in accordance with the generally accepted practice, places greater emphasis upon race than upon citizenship.

That is as regards people who come into the country-"greater emphasis upon race." In 1941 when these words were being written and read in this house we were encouraging Canadians to enlist in the services to go abroad and die in order to wipe out that stupid s-upersitition. Yet here we practise it. Immigration into Canada has been on the basis of race, and I am going to suggest to the minister if he makes any changes in the immigration law he will be well advised to start by first of all tearing up these orders and rules and starting anew. I suggest further that he has a great responsibility because he is dealing with the lives and happiness of people, and I think it is wrong that a responsibility such as this should come to the attention of the House of Commons only when we learn of the orders. I suggest that all legislation vitally affecting any principle of immigration should come before this House of Commons.

What are the facts? Again we come to the preferred and non-preferred groups. The most preferred obviously are British and those from the United States, and in the group called preferred are included French, Belgians, people of the Netherlands, Germans, Swiss, those from Scandinavian countries, Iceland and Finland. So we have established a category of citizens. Then we have the non-prefeTred. We have established two categories of citizens in Canada, the non-tpreferred being those who come from Poland, from the Ukraine, from Austria, from Czechoslovakia and from similar countries. But we have categories even below that, those who are lower than the non-preferred, who can get into this country only by special permit; those who come from Turkey, Romania, Greece, Italy; and the Jews. I think it is a matter of statistical record that immigrants from the countries I have named have been few in number, and therefore it appears to me as though the intent of this order were anti-semitic, designed to exclude Jewish people from Canada. That feeling is still further strengthened when it is remembered that under the second category a certain discretion was given the railway companies as to who were to be brought into Canada, but no discretion was given them in this matter. For instance, a Polish citizen could migrate to Canada if the railway company brought him here, but a Polish citizen who was of the Jewish faith could not come into this country without a specific order from the minister. There is discrimination again, Mr. Speaker, at its very worst.

The Address-Mr. Stewart

While I am speaking about the Jewish people I should like to say that a few years ago there were 17,000,000 of them in the world. In the last few years due to the barbaric devilment of fascism, 7,000,000 have died, and there have been few Christian voices raised in protest. In certain areas in Europe there are between 800,000 and 1,000,000 Jews left alive, but they are friendless, homeless and landless; no Christian nation in its charity will stretch out a hand to help them. Instead we have done our best to keep them out and to keep them down. For these people I ask some pity. I should like to see the Prime Minister translate that pity into action by making representations to the government at Westminster that the Balfour Declaration be lived up to in all its provisions; that Palestine be opened as a home for the Jewish people, because only there will they be free from the , persecution they have suffered at Christian hands; only there will they escape these wretched perversions of human nature.

It is not only the Jewish people who suffer in Canada. There is wicked discrimination against those of Ukrainian descent. We have several hundred thousand Canadians descended from men and women who came to this country from the Ukraine to establish homes and bring up families, who contributed great wealth to Canada, who have given their sons and daughter in Canada's wars, and who deserve well of Canada. Yet because of their name, because of their ethnology, they find it difficult indeed to compete with Anglo-Saxons, let us say. Just the other day a young boy whose parents are Ukrainian, and who had served five years in our air force, came to me. He wanted to pursue a certain line of work and asked if I could help him. I did what I could, but I am afraid I was unsuccessful, because the first question I was asked was as to his nationality. If I said he was a Canadian, the reply came, "\ou know what we mean. Where did his parents come from?" So I failed, I am afraid; but if so, the social consequences may be bitter indeed for that boy and his family, because already he has been asked by his friends, Why do you aspire to this vocation? Don't you realize that you have no chance? Don't you realize that you had better go to the railway shops at Weston or Transcona and work there as a labourer?"

There again are the seeds of disunity. Why talk about national unity when people have in their hearts the bitterness of knowing they are discriminated against? It is impossible to have unity on that basis. You find the same thing in connection with citizens of Polish descent. They are discriminated against

IMr. Stewart.]

because of their religion, perhaps, or again because of their name. We have in Canada people with Polish names that rank high in honour in the country of their origin; yet we in our insolence tell them that before they get work they must anglicize their names. These people need the protection of this parliament. We have Canadians of German descent, loyal, sound democrats who have fought for Canada. I know one boy who made thirty-two operational trips over Germany, who received an honourable discharge, yet again, because of his name, he is discriminated against.

We need in Canada, Mr. Speaker, a bill of rights to protect the minorities in this country, and I am going to suggest to the government that it give us such a bill. Within a few weeks we are going to debate in this house the charter of the united nations, and in the preamble we shall read these words:

We, the peoples of the united nations, determined to . . . reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women . . . and for these ends to practise

tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours . . . have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims.

Here we make our declaration of faith to the world. I ask that this parliament make the same affirmation of faith to Canada. I ask that the government introduce a bill of rights and that this house place it upon the statute books of Canada, so that our children may grow together in dignity and in grace, with equality and justice, and above all in brotherhood.


James MacKerras Macdonnell

Progressive Conservative

Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):

Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few brief remarks on the motion may I begin, as others have begun, by expressing my pleasure that the mover (Mr. Benidickson) and the seconder (Mr. Langlois) should have been veterans, not in years but in military service, in this war. Speaking as one whose military service is further behind him than he quite likes to think, may I say how fitting that seemed to me to be. .

May I also take just a moment to refer to the chief impressions made upon the mind of a new member at the beginning of this session. First of all it was a great interest and pleasure to watch the ancient observances that we follow here and to reflect that in countries all over the world which share our traditions and beliefs these same practices are being followed, operating, I would think, as a tie linking together in common purposes all those who believe in these institutions. The other thing that struck me and which I should

The Address-Mr. Macdonnell

like to mention was the feeling that in this house, regardless of parties, tongues or anything else, there was a friendliness such as I suppose Mr. Churchill had in mind when, not long ago, he spoke of an underlying comradeship. I suppose some people thought Mr. Churchill forgot that occasionally during the last election campaign; nevertheless I am sure he is one of the people who feel it basically, and of course basically it is there.

And I should like to say that as one who for years lived in the province of Quebec and had good friends in that province, one of the things that gave me pleasure in coming down here was to believe that I could again make good friends coming from Quebec though speaking their language so badly that I must learn to speak it better before I can talk to them except in English.

In saying that, I would add that I hope it will be a beginning of my answer to the comment made yesterday in the house, one which deeply distressed me, that the party to which I belong was a party seeking to create dissension in this country.

Now, Mr. Speaker, for a few moments I should like to speak about my constituency. I think very highly of my constituents for electing me. I represent a double-barrelled constituency, that of Muskoka-Ontario. Not so long ago it was two constituencies, until some ten years ago when they were united. It was a marriage of convenience rather than a love match, and I think the people in the constituency doubted whether the convenience was entirely theirs. However, they have lived together in amity

although I think it is probably true that if opportunity were afforded they would like again to resume single blessedness. Speaking for myself, I would regret that, because I have received kindness from both consorts, and would dislike to lose association with either of them.

I should like to say a word about the people in my constituency. For the most part, indeed almost altogether, they are descended from the immigrants who came from the British isles. However, on the western part, overlooking Georgian bay-which, by the way, I recommend all of you to visit, because we are a great tourist constituency-there is a group of French Canadians living within sight of the route followed over three hundred years ago by Champlain. In those early days he came down through the Georgian Bay district. Sometimes we are apt to forget just how long ago it was that those early voyagers travelled through our country, and just how very much we owe to them. If it will not appear simply as an advertisement for my constituency, may I say that in the midst of 47696-10J

his other occupations that great traveller and pioneer found time to refer to the excellent black bass, and to the no less excellent blueberries which abound in that area.

Now a word about geography; geography has most definitely separated the two sections of my constituency. The southerly part is as beautiful and fertile a fanning land as will be found anywhere in Ontario. I believe it was one of the premiers of Ontario who with Scottish modesty referred to his province as the banner province. At any rate, that section of my constituency is remarkably fertile. Then, going north one steps almost at one bound across to Muskoka, and there finds himself in the area of the pre-Cambrian shield, that formation we know so well composed of rock, river, lake and forest.

About the industries I should1 like to say one word, because what I shall say will lead to a point I wish to make. As I have already indicated, the industry in the southern part of the constituency is that of farming, while in the northern part are the industries connected with the woods, which have been developed to some considerable extent; and also the tourist industry. The tourist industry has, of course, the tremendous advantage, first of all, of being one of the greatest providers of American exchange-and at no cost whatsoever to Canadian resources. The only thing we send out in return for that exchange is good-will which, so far, has not been rationed.

Just one further word about the industries in that constituency. I suppose it is true that in pioneer countries there has always been the danger of being wasteful. One industry rushes ahead, with the result that it gets ahead of the others. In the northern part of Muskoka, by its development, the woods industry has tended to militate against the tourist industry. Woods have been gradually been taken off, streams have shrunk, and, in spite of the present prosperity we are in danger of finding that various activities which have been carried on d'o not jibe.

The result has been that only a few days ago in the district of Muskoka there took place a meeting which, I suggest might well be duplicated up and down this country. This was a meeting by the people for the purpose of helping themselves. They are prosperous enough now. but they are looking forward to the time when possibly they may not be so prosperous. It was because of that they held the meeting of representatives from all the townships in the district of Muskoka, for the purpose of considering ard taking stock of their situation, finding out what needed to be

The Address-Mr. Macdonnell

done, where forestation might be best carried on, and the like. That meeting has been held, and the hope is that through the collaboration of the province and the dominion, assistance will be forthcoming when needed, so that those people who have set to work to help themselves will find the necessary help from others as a means of post-war planning, and various other activities of which we hear so much. Naturally they look with anxiety toward the dominion-provincial conference, and it is their hope that in God's good time it will be completed and the results available for the benefit of all of us.

The ancients, I believe, Mr. Speaker, held the view that a democracy should be small enough so that all the citizens could gather together for the discussion of their common problems. We have got a long way from that. But we who sit in the House of Commons are merely representatives, and are here only because our constituents themselves cannot be here. I thought that to-day, for the few remaining minutes I propose to detain you, I should like to imagine that my constituents, of whose intelligence I have already spoken so highly, were, here. With lhat in mind I shall venture to put before you some of the questions I believe they would be asking if they were here.

In the first place I think they would ask a question which is so much in the minds of all of us, a most perplexing question, that of controls. Perhaps they hold rather dark views of controls, because the controls which affect them seem, in some cases, peculiarly trivial, peculiarly nagging, and from their point of view so entirely unnecessary. I am not saying they are unnecessary, but am only expressing what would seem to be their views.

I was in a very small shop one day located in my riding. Like most country stores it was really a small departmental store. In it was a dry goodls section, a grocery section, a boots and shoes section, and' so on. I should think one could have taken any of those departments and put it in a good-sized wheelbarrow. The owner of that shop was somewhat annoyed on the day of my visit. It seems there had been two government inspectors who came to the shop during the afternoon. They travelled in very fine cars supplied with plenty of gasoline-and this was during the rationing period. One of them examined, let us say, his dry goods; the other examined, let us say, his boots and shoes, to see that all was in order. From my own point of view it was perhaps a good thing, because I think the owner of the store was a faithful

member of the Liberal party, and I left that shop with some feeling that perhaps he might change his allegiance.

However that may be, the fact is that in my constituency they take a dark view of controls. On this subject I should like to speak as I believe they would speak if they were here to say a word or two for themselves. Those of us who believe in individual private enterprise earnestly wish to get rid of controls as fast as we can. But to say that is not to get rid of them, because there are great difficulties in the way. In my view the question is one of vast importance, because I believe that to ask individual enterprise, which we so much desire, to serve us at the present time and to do its job is like tying a man hand and foot and then asking him to run a race. I do not think I underestimate the difficulties. But who is to get rid of these controls? Are we to leave it entirely to the cabinet ministers? Cabinet ministers are very busy men. No one will doubt that they are carrying tremendous burdens. I submit that it will be extremely difficult for them to attain the necessary mental detachment. They are doing a full-time job and it would be extremely difficult for them to stand off and look at it in a detached way and try to consider how it shall be changed, to decide then the time has come to get rid of these controls.

Are we then to leave it to the permanent officials, whom I greatly respect, to decide when these controls are to be done away with? One might facetiously say that would be like getting a lot of admirals together and asking them to reduce the navy. That is what they used to do, and they did not get very far. But I am not making any such cheap suggestion as that. I believe that the senior men in charge of the main controls are not men who would cling to a job. I believe that they could have better jobs to-morrow if they wanted them. They are there because they believe in their work. Again I submit, how are they to have the detachment as well as the wisdom or the courage to do this? I submit that it is extremely difficult for them. They believe that they are doing a good job, and let us admit for the moment that they are. How are they to decide when the time has come to change?

It is not an easy question to answer. The other day I read an article in the London Economist which interested me. I think we shall all agree that the London Economist is that good mixture of left and right which we would all like to be. I wish to read

The Address-Mr. Macdonnell

just one short sentence from this article which struck me quite forcibly because it contains a suggestion which surprised me. I have no doubt it will surprise a great many people who are now acting in the position of controller. In this article the Economist was urging on the present British government, with which it is extremely sympathetic, that in order to make a success of that small area of economic life which they have taken under their control they will have to make the rest of it succeed; they will have to ensure the success of all that area which is still under private enterprise. The Economist was urging them to do away with controls and, speaking of what had gone on during the war, they say this:

By what right can a government department maintain in peace time that it has more right to the use of a building than its owners?

That rather struck me and I suggest that it would strike a great many people who are operating controls with the same force. Let me read it again:

By what right can a government department maintain in peace time that it has more right to the use of a building than its owners?

It then goes on to ask this rather pertinent question. Perhaps it is more of a statement than a question:

The traditional and very healthy British view puts upon the official the onus of proof of his own right to existence... The time has come to restore this.

Let me read that one sentence again:

. _ . . puts on the official the onus of proof of his own right to existence.

How is he going to discharge that onus? Is he to decide it wholly with his minister? I suggest that that is leaving it in too small a compass. I suggest that he and his minister are too fully engaged in the job, too fully seized with the work they are doing. They will find it almost impossible to stand off and look at it with a critical mind. Therefore I suggest that there is only one body- as a new member it is not for me to suggest how it should be done-that should be asked to do this, namely this high court of parliament.

In that connection I should like to draw the attention of the house to another statement that was made. I realize that it is not easy for hard-working ministers and hard-working officials to be submitting everything to parliament and I have no such foolish idea as that in my mind. I know business has to be done ; I know decisions have to be made, but there will be questions which I believe will be of vital importance in connection with these controls and I do not think they should be

decided in camera by a small group of men. Thank heavens the need for secrecy is gone and I see no reason why we should not give consideration to these things that matter.

There was a time during the war when it would have been almost impossible to do this. A member of this house who is by no means unfriendly to the government wrote in a Canadian magazine in 1943:

To-day the state is in business. In Canada it is conducting more than half of all the business of the nation with devices like those in the Department of Munitions and Supply and the wartime prices and trade board.

Listen to this:

Over these parliament has about as much control as it has over the movement of the stars.

I am not criticizing that statement in 1943. It was extremely difficult when security was such a prevalent consideration, though perhaps the plea of security was sometimes over-used a little. Perhaps they were only human. But if that is true to-day in peace time then all I can say is that the sneers against parliament which have been so common up and down the land for the last two or three years and which I personally have greatly deprecated-if I had believed them I would not be here to-day-are perfectly correct. If they are correct, then all I can say is that I tremble for the situation in our country. If respect for this body in which we are sitting this afternoon is not to be maintained. I wonder where the moral authority is to come from to make the people like the things they must have to put up with before reconversion is over.

If my constituents were here-this is not an original idea-they would have a word to say about taxation as everybody else would, and I would suggest that their word might have a special validity. They are nearly all workers-on-their-own; very few of them are on any payroll. They get only the money they earn themselves. If they pay out more than they take in they go broke. There is a [DOT]lot of realism about people like that; you cannot fool them.

They have been patriotic citizens. When the war was on they did not complain about their taxes. They paid them like everybody else, but now that the war is over, like other people they are perplexed and troubled. They had hoped that taxation would go down, though perhaps their hopes were exaggerated.

Now what do they find? They fear that there are signs of taxation being kept up and up. They fear that perhaps the state has turned itself into a Santa Claus. Let me say quickly that there is not one of us who is more ready to support proper social

The Address-Mr. Macdonnell

services than they are; there is no one more ready to see that those who are unfortunate, those who are disabled, those who are old, those who have suffered unemployment, those who have suffered through no fault of their own, and those in distress should be taken care of. They do not want any withholding from those people. But they are people like ourselves who believe in private enterprise and who sometimes feel that there is a danger that too little stress is laid on the virtues and qualities which have brought us the distance we have come.

They begin to ask if it is really true that the state has discovered some secret store of money when the fact is that the state has no resources apart from that which is produced by its citizens. They say, "Is it still true that the goods that we have, the services that we have, the resources that we have to help those people come only from the thrift, and energy, and providence, and readiness to take a risk, of the people who have initiative and energy?" Let me say just in passing that when we talk about the profit system we are using a misnomer; we should talk about the profit and loss system. When a man asks to . have his wages raised he is seeking a profit; the only difference is that he is not taking any risk.

What do these people say about taxation?

I think all that they would say, all that anyone can say at the moment, is that we are now coming to a time when as rapidly as possible we are going to remove the controls from private enterprise. That is, those of us who believe that private enterprise has to carry on are ready to remove the controls. Remember that every day they continue is not only a day lost but is one day more of tampering, of retarding and discouragement for the people who are waiting and hoping for the day when they can get busy and again provide labour and wages; and taxes for the state. Do not let us forget that it is only from private enterprise and profits that the state gets its taxes, and incidentally I would point out that the Economist put that up to the British government when they urged that in all that area of economic life not yet taken over by the state they must see to it that private enterprise resumed its activities and that profits are made for it. Who has more desire to see profits than the state, because that is where the state gets its taxes from?

We shall soon be considering a question which I suppose is the most difficult one that any minister of finance has ever had placed before him. (How much of the great burdens that we are to have shall we carry by taxation, and how much by borrowing? There

is a sixty-four dollar question which it will require our joint wisdom to answer. It would be easy to make generalizations. Two can be made right away. If we raise too much by taxation we just grind still further into the dust all those who are seeking through their individual initiative to make the contribution which under our system they have primarily to make. On the other hand, if we raise too little by taxation and too much by borrowing, we meet the other lion in the path-inflation. I shall not. detain the house one moment to discuss that. But it is a question we should all be considering, a question on he proper determination of which our happiness may very likely depend.

There is one other thing my constitutents would say if they were here. It was said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt) the other night. They would like a *lead. They would like someone whom they regard as having moral authority to tell them what the score is, to tell them where we are, to tell them what can be done and what cannot be done, and to tell them as honestly as possible, as persuasively as possible, what their sacrifices are to be. Still more they would like someone to tell them honestly that the sacrifices are being shared, to tell them that there will be a square deal all round, that no one is to be left with the short end of the stick. That is what they are afraid of. They want to be assured that everyone will share in the sacrifices.

That is particularly true, I suppose, of labour. I myself have had some very modest dealings with labour. I have a good many labour friends. I believe that if things are put to them, cards on the table face up, if they are given full information, it is astonishing how quickly suspicion disappears. If labour is dealt with fairly and persuasively, there is nobody in the world that can be more reasonable or more understanding than they are. But it has to be done in time. And nobody must try to drive them. What is needed now is to try to get their cooperation, to work with them.

Finally, if my constituents were here, they would say this-or perhaps they would only feel it, so that I will say it for them: now that they are welcoming back their sons and daughters from the armed forces and mourning those who will never come back and as they are condoling with the relatives of others who have not come back, they would feel like reminding us here of the quality which these young people have shown during war time, and I think they would like to say to us that we need to have, not a double portion, for that we could never have, but some small por-

The Address-Mr. Raymond

tion of their spirit. I know it has never been fashionable to serve the state in peace time. It is astonishing the number of people who will do their utmost in war time, who will do nothing in peace time. Some who will do most in war time never think of doing it in peace time. It is a foreign idea to them. But it should not be a foreign idea to anybody here, and I conclude by saying to you, sir, and to this house, that I do not think the great affairs, the tremendous problems, such as we are going to have to face, can ever be dealt with by little minds and in a little way. And I would say that these young people who have served in our armed forces in the war and their relatives have a right to expect that we shall show at least some portion of the spirit that they have shown.


Maxime Raymond

Bloc populaire canadien

Mr. MAXIME RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie) (Translation):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few brief remarks in order to define the attitude of members of the Bloc Populaire regarding the speech from the throne as well as the two amendments which have been moved.

The present government has been entrusted with the mandate of administering the affairs of the country during the next five years, with the responsibilities arising therefrom. It is therefore bound to introduce measures necessary to bake care of the grave situation in which Canada finds herself to-day, after six years of war which have completely upset its economy.

What are those measures? We do not know them yet. The speech from the throne, drawn up as usual in vague and general terms, does not set them forth in detail, but it informs us that they are meant to meet present-day needs. But how can we deal effectively with measures that we do not know? It seems to me that, logically, we should wait until those measures have been submitted to us so that we may be able to deal efficiently with them. I therefore consider that, for the present, long debates would serve only in delaying the presentation of these measures, some of which are of an urgent character, as, for example, those concerning the housing problem, and the placement of our demobilized service men and our war plant employees.

We shall therefore facilitate the adoption of the address, thus helping the government in bringing down these measures which we are anxiously awaiting; and I can assure the administration that we shall judge them on their merits with no other object than to serve the true interests of Canada. Such is our stand regarding the speech from the throne.

We are told of the formation of a committee to prepare the design of a Canadian flag. We have sponsored such a measure for a long time and I am gratified to note that the government have finally realized the importance of giving our country a distinct national emblem.

As for the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) and the subamendment of the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell), they are drafted in general terms and I really fail to see that they add anything whatever to the speech from the throne. I consider them, at this stage of the session, as useless and designed to delay the business of the house. We refuse to be party to any delay in our work, and, for this reason, we shall refrain from expressing our views on the amendment and the sub-amendment. Mr. Speaker, such are the few remarks I deemed it my duty to make in order to do away with any doubt as to the stand we intend to take in this house.

Mr. PATRICK H. ASHBY (Edmonton East): Mr. Speaker, I was sorry to see the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) leave this chamber, because I happen to have discovered the solution of all our problems: in fact, sir, utopia is just around the corner. I do not know which corner, because I am a stranger here in Ottawa; but I am not the only stranger. It is, sir, an honour and a great privilege to come to this house to represent a section of the people of Canada. I consider it an honour to have been chosen by the people of Edmonton East to represent them and their will. I think I should repeat those last words, "to represent their will." I told the people of my constituency that if they wanted someone to come here to represent liberalism, socialism, communism, fascism, or any other "ism," not to vote for me; I would not accept the position under those circumstances; but if they wanted a man who would come to this house to represent them and their will, to vote for me and I would do so to the best of my ability. That, sir, is why I am here.

The people of Edmonton East, like the majority of the people of Canada, are honest, hardworking people, trying to make a living. Let me repeat-and I shall repeat quite a lot of things-they are trying to make a living; but ninety per cent of them never do make a living. They exist while trying, but they exist only. The object of work and toil is to obtain a living, and :by a "liv-

The Address-Mr. Ashby

ing" I mean a full and abundant life. There are mighty few people in this great dominion, this wonderful country, with all the marvellous resources and advantages which God has bestowed upon it, who obtain a living. Ninety per cent never obtain a full and abundant life no matter how hard they struggle.

We are slaves indeed, slaves to these ''isms", to systems, to methods such as those which this government has practised and supported ever since it has been in office. There is, however, one difference between the people of Edmonton East-in fact, the people of Alberta generally-and the rest of the people of Canada. Albertans are becoming enlightened; they are no longer voting for methods and means but are voting for and demanding ends or results. That is why I was elected to represent them and their will, and I am here on instructions from the people of my constituency to demand certain results. They are going to get those results, I tell you, before I am through. When all the people of Canada-and in the east, too they are becoming enlightened-realize that they can have democracy, by which I mean a form of government that makes it easiest for the greatest number of people to enjoy the largest amount of individual freedom and security, and when they realize the full meaning of democracy and elect individuals to represent them, and not some other form of government or some "ism" or some method, we shall begin to make real progress.

The reputation which has been built up by party politicians in the past is not an enviable one. I have yet to hear an adult speak with respect of party politicians. The name "politician", if you will pardon my saying so, stinks to high heaven. The names of many politicians are being associated with such criminals and scoundrels as Dillinger and Hitler; and when the people of Canada begin to lose faith and trust in the riien they elect to represent them, it is time we turned over a new leaf and began to represent the people.

In Alberta we have a government which is respected by the people because they have tried to the best of their ability to serve the people instead of ruling them. That is our duty here as members of this parliament -to serve our fellow men, not to rule them.

We in Alberta are not hampered in this progressive movement by any natural laws or any laws that God has made, but only by man-made rules and regulations. I must say that we have been hampered only by the actions of political bosses in Ottawa and in this parliament; for had we been given the freedom to go ahead as we desired, without any interference with the rights of other prov-

inces or any other part of the great empire we call the British commonwealth of nations, to-day we would have seen in Alberta, and possibly in the rest of Canada-for the rest of Canada would soon have followed-a majority of the people enjoying, for the first time in their lives and the first time in modem history, a full and abundant life.

We have just passed1 through in this war a period in human history that will forever remain a blot, and a bloody blot, upon the records of party politics. Eor this war w-as not fought between peoples, because the majority of the people everywhere are too busy trying to make a living to be bothered with making wars. The people, I know, were used by the various dictators, whether hidden or open, who wished to gain for themselves advantages over one another. On the one hand we have dictators hiding behind the scenes centralizing control, trying to gain control over the whole earth. Whether you believe it or not does not alter these facts. On the other hand there was that notorious dictator named Hitler who also coveted that position. They are insane; there is no doubt about it in my mind. It is a peculiar mania from which they have suffered, the mania to rule.

It is our duty in this house not to rule but to serve, and yet I find that the majority of members desire not to serve their people so much as to serve the party to which they belong. Before this war the federal government of Canada, who were supposed to represent the people, did not represent the people of Canada. The people of Canada wanted food and could not buy it even though -the stores offered it for sale. They could not buy it because they had no money and this government- said, "We have no money. We cannot build highways, we cannot build schools, we cannot reforest our burnt-out areas, we cannot build public works or carry on other activities because we have not the money." And so the people starved, living in- misery, suffering and privation which was unbelievable, and must be unbelievable to many members here who have not seen the conditions under which the people lived.

Thousands of our people died as a result of the actions or inaction of this government, who were then supposed to be representing the people of Canada. Thousands of our boys who went overseas in this war rode freight trains seeking means to get a living, and failing to do so. We all know this if we stop to think. But the moment war was declared the money

The Address-Mr. Ashby

began to flow forth in billions upon billions of dollars. We then found money enough to produce great highways, airports, tanks, guns, ships, planes, bombs, bullets by the millions. We erected great factories and equipped them with all the most modern machinery, and we trained men and women and paid them well while training them to operate these machines. And with all this production we took the most able-bodied of our boys and sent them over to deliver these goods to people who did not want them. Those people said "We will not take them and we will blast you out of the sky and sink your ships if you try to deliver them." Our boys said, "We will deliver them and you will get them just the same." Well, we delivered them without charge to the enemy. We delivered them absolutely free, and we were all far more prosperous during the war than we ever were before.

Now the government are going to continue to let the money flow forth just as they did during the war, and if they do not do so then they will be dishonourably discharged from office as traitors to the people of Canada. I have instructions from the people of my constituency and from hundreds of thousands of returned men to demand in their name certain wants which I am going to outline to you in a few moments. And they are going to get them this time. I told them before leaving Edmonton; I said to these men, thousands of them: "I shall give you the name and address of every member of parliament who does not vigorously stand in this house and demand that these wants be satisfied." I know that these men mean business this time, and I think that they will want to call on such members and pat them on their hands, or maybe they will spank another part of their anatomy, and they will not use a hairbrush. But of this I am sure, that if any returned man is caught serving any member who does not get up in the house and vigorously demand these things he will never again be served by any returned soldier unless that soldier becomes a traitor to his fellowmen. That means that the member of parliament in this house who does not demand these things will never get a shave possibly, or a haircut, nor will he be able to buy food nor a railway ticket. That is true, for these men this time are determined that they shall not suffer as did the old soldiers of the last war. I am joining with them and will stand up for them in this house on every possible occasion. I will represent them and fight for them with all the power I can muster, because I had to make a slave of my wife and slaves of my children. For years and years we toiled and

sweated and slaved under the soldier settlement board, and we suffered. I will never ask any human being to suffer as I did. I tell you, sir, that I would be willing to take up arms in defence of Canada and of the democratic rights of Canadians and die; I would much rather do that than go through what I had to go through then.

Out of twelve returned soldiers that joined with me in my community two only are left, myself and a white haired, stoop shouldered old soldier whose wife taught school to help pay that notorious soldier settlement board the shekels it demanded.

One of the first things that the people demand of me is that all taxation on all incomes of 35,000 a year and less shall be immediately abolished. I hope you have that down. The second is that the old age pensions be increased and the age limit reduced. Our national leader, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), yesterday suggested $50 a month at the age of sixty years. I always like to turn things around. I think it looks a great deal better if we say $60 a month at the age of fifty; and if the people desire it I can assure them they can have $100 a month at the age of forty. It all depends on what the people want. We are their servants, and that is what we must be if we are loyal, and if we are not traitors to them. We are here either to serve them or to rule them, and I am sure I am not here to rule the people of my constituency. I am here to accept from them instructions as to what they want; and when the people of this great British empire realize the situation and compel their members of parliament to serve them, then God's gifts will open up before us as though we saw the light of day for the first time in our lives. Then we will begin to live, for that is all human beings work and toil for-to live.

I have some horses on my farm. I know very well I could not possibly work a horse eight, ten or fifteen hours a day for twenty, thirty or forty years. The animal would die. I know a number of poor old farm women right in my own constituency who have toiled and sweated and outlived and outworked seventy-five or a hundred horses. Are we animals? Well, certainly we are beasts of burden when we have to toil all our lives. I have a letter here from the Canadian Legion, which I am not going to read, telling me of men over sixty years of age, old soldiers of the last war, who are still toiling on, though crippled with arthritis and rheumatism; poor beasts of burden. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that unless we see that human beings can live, we must resign from

The Address-Mr. Ashby


Harry Grenfell Archibald

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

Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):

Mr. Speaker, I am starting out definitely behind the eight ball, because I cannot hope to duplicate the efforts of my hon. friend to my left. However, I shall do my best.

As a new member of the House of Commons, and an industrial worker-when there is work-I should like to give my impressions of this parliament for the short time I have been here. It seems to me so divorced from reality, from the everyday struggle on the job, that I sometimes wonder if our efforts are not in vain. Many similar institutions were found wanting in the last war. I hope this one will survive, and will manage to bring about conditions in the country which will warrant its continuance.

I listened with a great deal of attention to the speech from the throne. That speech is of key significance because it outlines the official programme of the administration.

The Address-Mr. Archibald .

The Address-Mr. Archibald

It was, ''Have you the guts to go active?" Well, the veterans and the war workers have the right now to demand of the government: Have you the guts to give us a job and guarantee it? The men responded to these appeals, to this demand in the final analysis, and finally, through the befuddled attitude of the government on demobilization the situation at Aldershot was brought about. It was the natural result. One may well ask why it was that men had to take part in a form of riot in order to make their demands known to the general public. The sentences meted out, running up to seven years, are a disgrace for a democratic country, especially when they are measured in terms of the government's attitude toward notorius elements such as Adrien Arcand.

A staggering burden of taxation Has been placed upon the backs of the workers. Salaries as low as $660 a year are taxed, and there is no sign of relief. It is notable that the first country in the British empire to lower taxes on incomes is Australia, where a Labour government is in power, which is the duplicate of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in Canada. The Australian government has already lowered taxation to the extent of 12i per cent. Those responsible for the enormous national debt that we now have in Canada point to its astronomical figures as necessitating the continuation of our heavy taxation. There is no necessity in our economy for the curtailment of production or the shutting down of the factories, which can only result in our returning war veterans facing lack of employment. The taxes should be lifted off so that full employment could be brought in, and when you have full employment the national debt, even at its present astronomical figures, could be wiped off in no time if the full productive forces of this nation were turned loose.

Housing conditions have gone progressively from bad to worse during the past twenty years. During the period before the war, when the administration had all the time in the world to build homes, they did not do a thing. Compare that with the action of the New Zealand Labour government prior to the war, when they were building houses for the workers and are continuing to do so. But in this country, oh, no. Under our Liberal administration, that would be interfering with private enterprise. There must be no interference with private enterprise in the face of this most acute housing crisis. Seemingly the financial institutions in this country do not believe that the workers have in their hands that tremendous back-log of savings that would enable them to pay the high rents which have been

demanded over a long period of time. Therefore they are bogging down on the job. The government could go ahead and have 'low-priced housing schemes which would be within the range of the lowest paid workers; it just requires the will.

I should like to propose another important measure, if we rule out (profits and run the economy on use. I should like to see them continue the operation of the government-financed and government-built plants. I should like to see them come in with a programme of public works to cover irrigation, the building of hydro-electric power projects, and so on. In Prince Rupert, for example, we have a government-owned dry dock. Prior to the war this dry dock was used partly as a cow pasture; yet it was recognized at the same time as a key installation. During the war that dry dock built corvettes and 10,000-ton freighters, as well as repaired many an ocean-going boat. Why does the government not modernize that plant and continue the building programme, even a minimum building programme, so as to keep that trained crew and personnel in that key installation? Capitalism is a system of war; therefore the system itself will likely produce another one. Far be it from me to advise capitalism how to protect itself, but it would be a good idea that that plant and equipment should be kept up instead of having a mad rush every time a war breaks out.

Under the government programme as outlined in the speech from the throne, Prince Rupert, like many another city throughout Canada, faces stagnation. Yet Prince Rupert has magnificent possibilities under proper planning. Let me quote the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who, in a speech delivered at Prince' Rupert in 1920, when he was leader of the opposition, said:

Was the Grand Trunk Pacific policy a -wise one? What was Sir Wilfrid's vision when the transcontinental railway was being planned, and his vision of this particular city? I know, it was of ships plying from this very harbour, crossing the Pacific with the products of this country, bringing back other commodities here, making this community one of the greatest marts of the world; of a railway running through a country as fertile as any in the world, with feeders running north and south, tapping the resources of the province, mineral and timber, and great national wealth; a great community, with ocean wharves, docks, repair yards, dry docks, round houses, hotels, railway stations, and all of the sights and signs of a great world metropolis. And what have you got to-day?

A side line and not a main artery! The difference between the Liberal and Conservative parties.

We in Prince Rupert are wondering if the Prime Minister has shortened his horizon to that of a cow pasture.

The Address-Mr. Sinnott

It is with such experiences in mind that the members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation have come to the conclusion that only through the socialization of industry and the financial institutions will living standards rise and there be a continuous expansion of industry. During the war the federal government considered the building of the Prince Rupert highway an urgent national necessity. It wasted no time in putting men and materials on that road. It poured them on. It set an example for similar public works in peace time. But as soon as the necessity or the "squeeze" ceased up in the Aleutians the government forgot all about that road and allowed it to slip into a sad state of disrepair. One small slide was allowed to remain on that road blocking people from driving over it, with the government machinery all tied up and doing nothing. Speaking for British Columbia-and I speak for British Columbia-


Thomas Reid



Oh, no, you don't.


Harry Grenfell Archibald

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


I should like, Mr. Speaker, to have a chat with the hon. member on the other side after October 25.

May I now bring to the attention of the government the dire need of a railroad outlet from the Peace River. The people of Peace River and Skeena riding have been waiting for years for that to be completed. As I understand it, the settlers went to the Peace because of the promise that such a railroad would be built, but they are still waiting. They are still isolated in that area, and they want that outlet to the Pacific. It would increase the national wealth by building up that northwestern corner of British Columbia which has proved so vital in time of war. This would provide jobs for thousands. It would bring industry into the country; and, as the Prime Minister stated, this territory has the mineral resources, the power, and the timber. Industry will follow transportation. Thousands of jobs could be made available on such a project.

I should also like to mention another one, the building of a highway from Hazelton north through the Atlin country up to White Horse, known as the "A" route. It should be built on that route because, it would drain all that northwest corner of British Columbia on to a Canadian highway, much as those who built the Canadian Pacific railroad just north of the 49th parallel of latitude so that the Canadian economy would drain into it. The necessity is apparent in that corner, so that we shall not be at the mercy of international financiers working through the Alaska panhandle. It is tragic that only the threat of war forced the government to take action. A threat to private property forces the government to bring in

work with wages. I should like to see them take a lead in developing this country and making it a -worth-while place in which to live.

The completely inadequate character of the government's proposals to meet unemployment in the post-war period will lead only to a devastating social crisis. If the Liberal government continues its present course it seems to me inevitable that large masses of workers will be unable to find jobs. I would think they would take a different attitude if only to maintain the respect of the people of Canada.

I have a different philosophy. I claim that a new system has to be brought into being, a system of socialism which is both national and international in outlook because it includes all those who need things in this world. Therefore, though I will support every measure that is introduced which will benefit the country, I maintain that only socialism will bring about real freedom and social justice.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott


Mr. J. S. SINNOTT (Springfield):

Mr. Speaker, as I am a new member of this house this will be my maiden speech. I am the new member for Springfield, formerly represented by my late good friend Mr. John M. Turner, who had many friends in this house.

I wish at the outset to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, upon your elevation to the office of first commoner and I also wish you much pleasure in the position you now hold.

I speak here to-night for the first time and I do not intend to speak very long. I am a man of few words; I believe more in action. May I first of all congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address upon their admirable speeches, also their maiden speeches, in parliament, because they represent a large section of the armed forces. I am considerably moved and interested in the large number of members of the army, the navy and the air force who have been watching proceedings in this house from day to day, many of whom I presume left families and jobs to go over to the other side to protect dear ones at home. I am sure that this house will see to it that nothing we can do will be too good for those who have done such a magnificent job.

I believe it is my duty to say a few words about the constituency I have the honour to represent, which is considered to be one of the largest in Canada, containing one of

The Address-Mr. Sinnott

the most varied cross-sections of our population. In that constituency there are people from practically every part of the world and we all get along very well. At the western end we take in the suburbs of Winnipeg and a large part of the Red river valley market gardeners and small farmers. To the north there are large and small lakes where there is a large fishing industry, and centrally there are farm lands which are regarded as one of the surest crop districts in western Canada. Coming to the eastern portion adjoining Ontario, we have a large lumber industry, pulpwood and paper mills. The mines and natural resources of that part of the country have hardly yet been touched.

I join with other speakers in regard to the expansion of industry in the west. In war time we have shown our ability to produce munitions and supplies with as small an overhead as any other plant in Canada. We have the Winnipeg river which supplies an abundance of power to all Manitoba, and its capacity is only partly developed a.t the present time.

We have in Canada the means and the people to produce far more than we can consume, which will enable us to share a large portion of our surpluses with some countries that are not quite so fortunate. It was mentioned here a day or two ago that Canada should have a large immigration. In my opinion, we can take up the slack for a while, but we have in Canada to-day the ability to produce far more than we can consume, so that the only way in which we can make it work is to have a good deal of immigration.

I am one of the many to-day who know that the horse and buggy days are gone and gone forever. I believe in the Liberal party and in the members of this house who are here at this session and I believe that by working together we can bring about the necessary reform. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King)-and I have every reason to believe him-has said that we can make laws only in accordance with the desires of the members the people send to parliament. There is no reason why we should have such criticism as we have had to listen to from the other side of the house, since the war is hardly over yet. God has given man brains and man has produced science and invention, and in this machine age we have seen what science and invention have caused in this world in the way of destruction. Let us hope that the same science and invention will do as much for sound construction in peace time.

As the representatives of the people of Canada, we shall be called' upon to perform tremendous tasks, unheard of and umthought of in the past, and described as nonsense by

some. We are told occasionally that we are up against a stone wall when we come up against the British North America Act. How* ever, I believe, as many other Canadians do, that if the British North America Act does not measure up to the requirements of the Canadian people to-day, the Liberal party and the members of this house have the ability to redraft it in order that the people may have the benefits they should enjoy.

There has been a good deal of talk about full employment, and there has been much criticism. Let us not forget that to-day we are in the. machinery age. At the time of confederation it took many days to get from the east coast to the Pacific coast. To-day you can have your breakfast in Halifax and be in Vancouver for supper. The machines of to-day have been so built that they will make life much easier for the working man if they are used properly. We know that at the end of hostilities, with our soldiers, sailors and airmen coming back, it will be hard to find positions for all. It will be necessary for the opposition in this house, including all groups opposite, to cooperate or we shall find ourselves in difficulties. I regret to say that in this machine age it will be impossible to find jobs for all our people. The only way we can serve the people properly is to put our machines to work and give those people who have no jobs a decent living. Let the machines do the work; that is what machines are for.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that it will be my endeavour to help the government in any possible manner, and to cooperate with all hon. members of this house to build a better, peaceful Canada.

Mr. PARK A. MANROSS (London): Mr. Speaker, I, too, am a new member of this house, although I do not know whether or not this will qualify as my maiden speech. Since the house opened a good many maiden speeches have been made, and some have been of such high quality that I think I shall require a little practice before I can qualify. I am a new member representing the- constituency of London, Ontario. I am not going to tell you that London is the greatest city in Canada, although that word has been used, or that it is the fairest city, or the gayest city. We are quite content to call it the best city.

The Address-Mr. Manross

In the first place, Mr. Speaker, let me compliment you upon being elected the chief commoner of this house. I think that was a wise choice, and as a new member I hope I may further my education in parliamentary matters by carefully watching your decisions and judgments. Then, as a veteran of the last war, I take great pleasure in congratulating the mover and seconder of the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne. It gave me a great deal of satisfaction to see that they were two young men, new members, from the armed services of this country.

One or two of the first speakers in this debate spent some little time in eulogizing their respective leaders. In advertising we sometimes call that "blowing up" our leaders. There are two interpretations of that phrase, and I am not going to deal with either one. The riding of London is an urban constituency. We have 175 subdivisions entirely within the city itself, so that it is a concentrated riding with a large population. We have a great deal of varied industry there, and it is the centre of a large agricultural district. Sometimes it is called the garden spot of Canada, but I am not going to emphasize that tonight, for I might get into an argument. I was interested yesterday to receive a London newspaper, in which I saw the picture of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Abbott), who I am sorry is absent from his seat tonight. According to the newspaper he is going bo pay a visit to our city on Friday and Saturday. I do not know whether the minister is adopting the suggestion offered by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt) that he visit the military districts and check up on the demobilization programme. Perhaps that is the purpose of his visit, because London is the headquarters of military district No. 1. Incidentally, on the same days there is a meeting in London of the western Ontario Liberal association, but probably that is just a coincidence. However, if the minister wishes to check up as to their demobilization I would say they are thoroughly demobilized, and very well rehabilitated, because our party made a gain of ten seats in that particular district.

The speech from the throne, which we are supposed to debate, cannot include everything the government is going to do, or that it is going to be advised to do, or that we can sell it into doing. It contains a general outline, which is purposely made broad in order that it may be varied. T think the speech from the throne has been pretty well covered by various members of our group, at least, but there are a few special points I should like to emphasize. The first point I wish to

bring up is not peculiar to my riding; it is of interest to the whole country. It has to do with the nurses who are serving in a Canadian military hospital at Sogel, Germany. These nurses enlisted in the army medical corps to take care of war casualties, but now that the war is over they have been sent to Sogel to look after people, mainly Polish and Russian, who are suffering from tuberculosis. These nurses do not object to this, and we do not object to it. It is a humanitarian act. But I wish the government would look into the situation and the conditions under which these nurses are working. The patients are under canvas, and the nurses are in huts, so-called, without any conveniences. The place is muddy. They perform their duties many hours of the day in rubber boots. Nothing has been done to control the fly or mosquito nuisances, with the result that the nurses work under considerable handicaps. Up until the end of August they did not get any butter, milk or eggs, such as the patients were getting. In the final analysis, while these nurses volunteered for service to our troops, they are doing this job quite nobly for the devastated people in Europe. I would ask the government to see to it that the nurses in question have better living or working conditions. I make this plea on behalf of the Canadian nurses some of whom are from my riding. However, what I have said covers all nurses who have gone overseas from Canada. Surely we should take steps to correct this situation.

Taxation was ably discussed this afternoon by my colleague the hon. member for Mus-koka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) in a wonderful address. This is a big subject, and it will be discussed at greater length when the budget is before the house. However, it is well to give it some thought before the budget comes down, because it is often difficult to change a budget, once it has been presented to the house. While this is my first experience in the house as a member, it is not my first experience in dealing with budgets, having been on tariff committees on various occasions. To my knowledge, the only change any committee ever saw fit to make to a budget was to make an addition of the three words "and parts thereof'-and we thought that when we accomplished that we had done something. As outlined by my hon. friend, under a system of taxation one can take only so much from the people, and raise only so much by borrowing.

I certainly would be in favour of the plan advanced by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Ashby) which, boiled down to simple terms, means old age pensions for


The Address-Mr. Manross

young people. Well, I am content to settle for $100 a month at forty years of age; that is, if they will make it retroactive.

There are some nuisance taxes which do not amount to much and which I think the government would be well advised to abolish. This evening I shall refer to only one of them, a thing called a radio licence fee, or a radio tax at $2.50 a year. When the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was set up it patterned somewhat after the British Broadcasting Corporation. The committee which investigated the matter went to England, looked over the situation, and decided that the same set-up would be satisfactory in Canada. But they overlooked one thing, namely our geography.

England, as we know, is a country surrounded by water for many miles on each side. Beyond that water, before short-wave reception, the only stations they could get were foreign language stations, to which they did not listen. In Canada, however, the situation was entirely different. By the simple turning of a dial we could bring in all stations in the United States and get the big chain programmes. At that time the government decided to set up the corporation and to charge us $2.50 per set, so that we might enjoy the entertainment offered by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, without any advertising in it.

Well, most of us were willing to listen to a few soap operas, if we could get better comedians, with the result that we tuned in to United States stations. Later on, however, it was decided that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would take advertising over its stations to help pay expenses. This made the broadcasting corporation in Canada a commercial venture. Now, I say it is either a commercial venture and as such should be on its own feet, or it should get out of the commercial picture, and let us pay for our entertainment.

This $2.50 is not a large amount to any individual who owns a radio set. The objection to it is the nuisance feature. You do not remember when your tax was last paid, with the result that some fellow in a uniform comes hammering on your door, and says to you, "Let me see your radio licence", and you are really sunk. Yes, you had forgotten about it. Of course you may have, it but you do not know where it is. I say this fee should be abolished.

There is another tax I should like to talk about because I am vitally interested in it, in fact, all the people in my riding and in all other ridings, the people in every city and town in Canada are interested, because these

plants are widely distributed. Against the industry I have in mind there has been discriminatory taxation for the past number of years. I refer to beverage plants-and hon. members need not start smiling, because it is not the kind of beverage they have in mind. I refer to the carbonated beverages, commonly known as soft drinks.

I think all hon. members have received briefs from their associations. I have investigated those briefs with considerable care, because I am in a position to know something about that industry, and I make the suggestion that some attention should be paid to their appeal for relief.

As it will be recalled, and as set out in the brief, when taxes were first brought down to raise money for the conduct of the war a twenty-five per cent tax was put on this industry, an industry which was built up on the five-cent piece, the same as those other industries offering chocolate bars, and all other commodities selling at a nickel. It was the only industry so taxed. The result was that the product had to sell at1 six cents while the others sold at five cents.

After considerable contact with the department and with the wartime prices and trade board, and also after communication with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), it was considered-probably through double talk-that this would be corrected in the next budget. But when the next budget was brought down it put a one-cent tax on everything else, including this industry. The result is that they are still discriminated against, and still have to sell their product at a price higher than is asked by their competitors.

I bring this matter to the attention of the house because they are in a precarious position, since sugar has been rationed to fifty per cent of the 1941 quota. The result has been that the volume of these factories has been cut in half, and they are left out on a limb. I am not contending that sugar should not be cut to fifty per cent. I believe, from the figures we saw in the hands of the wartime prices and trade board and the sugar administrator of Montreal that there is a scarcity of sugar. Whether or not this industry should be at the lowest point in the distribution of the amount available is a matter of opinion. We do not think it should. It is our view that this industry should have as much sugar as is allowed other sweet goods, wines and other lines which receive twenty per cent more.

In other words, the basic period for the rationing of food was 1941, and the wartime prices and trade board say that everything

The Address-Mr. Manross

shall be based on the basic period. Now they come along and give some industries more than others. In other words, they are telling the Canadian public that they did not live right in 1941, that they consumed the wrong goods, and that now they should eat more sweet cakes. Well, I do not think the wartime prices and trade board is well enough versed in nutrition to issue such an order.

The sugar shortage is a world condition, and is tied up with IINRiRA. Let us look at our own situation in western Ontario. Speaking for the city of London, let me point out that we have a large sugar beet producing area at our back door. In that area are two sugar refineries, one aA Wallaceburg and one at Chatham, Ontario. The one at Chatham has a capacity of 80.000.000 pounds a year. For three years it has been closed down for lack of sugar beets. That lack of sugar beets arose because of a lack of labour. Selective service has been appealed to, and labour was promised, but that labour did not come. Permission was asked to advertise for the labour over a period of months, and finally that permission was granted-but too late.

The Ontario government subsidized the growers to an extent of $1.55 a ton last year, up to $225,000, which helped considerably on the beet price situation. But the growers must know a year ahead how many beets they are going to put in. One cannot tell in the spring just what the situation will be. You cannot make arrangements in the spring for, let us say, 50 acres of beets, because you have to prepare more than a year ahead, and continue to rotate the crops. You cannot go out and produce sugar beets on such short notice, any more than you can go out and get a dozen pigs when you do not plan to raise any.

In connection with this sugar situation let me tell the house that at the present time three South American countries have over

800.000 tons of sugar, or about 1.600,000,000 pounds. We cannot get our hands on that sugar because of a pool or cartel, whatever you wish to call it. These three countries in South America will not knuckle down to this cartel policy. In a way we have sort of piously condemned this cartel, but then we have our external relations department with its good neighbour policy. Because of the cartel we say, "We will not buy your sugar," and then under the good neighbour policy we say, "We would like to buy it, but we cannot get it." It is just the same sort of double talk. So much for the sugar situation. The sugar beet growers need labour. They need a plan. They need action from the government. They should know how much help they should hire, how many acres they

should plant, what the price of beets is to be. They should be given a plan and then there will be relief for the sugar situation in Canada.

Quite a bit has been said about housing in this debate. I am not an authority on housing and I am not going to tell the government what to do. However, those who are trying to do that are not authorities either, and they cannot do it. When the Minister of Finance wanted to raise money during the war by means of victory loans he did not call in a bunch of carpenters to sell bonds. He went out and got bond

dealers and insurance salesmen and they organized probably the best bond selling or investment selling organization that ever existed in any country. He got the men who knew how. I know that all hon. members worked on the victory loans in whatever capacities they possessed, whether it was in a desk or outside job, speaking or ringing doorbells.

In the building of houses the same thing should apply. The government should get the people with the know-how. Get the contractors and the builders; provide them with the necessary materials; make it possible for them to get the necessary finances and they will build the required houses. I am not condemning the bureaucrats or controllers, whatever name you want to call them-you cannot call them as bad a name sometimes as you would like-because I think we collected the best group of men that we could get quickly who were out of work-I beg your pardon, I mean men who were out of essential war work. We put them on these jobs as controllers.

However, the emergency is over. Let us look at some of these miracle men who are still on the job. In my district we have a tailor who is conttroller of honey. I was a member of an association of those using small steel parts in connection with domestic production during the war. A controller of steel closures was appointed. Steel closures are made by a multiple production stamping process. After a couple of meetings with this controller I began to wonder what knowledge he had of this business and I asked him, "What did you do before you took this job?" He said, "I was secretary of a horticultural society." I think the only idea of closures that existed in his mind was the fact that a morning glory closes in the night.

As further evidence of the fact that men are being used who are not fitted for their job, may I say that I noticed in a western Ontario paper this week that a production manager of a company who had been receiving a large

The Address-Mr. Manross

salary had toppled over about two months ago with a heart spell and had had to retire. It was a candy business with which he was connected but he has now been made shelter administrator for the emergency. The only thing he ever made that looked like anything connected with a house was candy which looks like a door-knob.

If we continue with this policy of not putting men with the know-how in the right jobs I am afraid that what will come about will be what was perhaps inadvertently stated by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-CIare (Mr. Baker) who said, as reported at page 97 of Hansard, that our men will eventually be properly rehabilitated. Eventually is not good enough; we have to have it now. These men have been overseas; they have married; they have come back and they have no place to go. They are living in barracks, old sheds; they are living three and four families in a hovel. Eventually is not good enough. Unless the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) does not take better action than he has indicated he is taking we shall not have the houses to take care of these families and with the cold weather we shall be facing a serious situation. So much for controls, although I could give the house more examples.

There is one other thing I would point out to the Minister of Reconstruction and probably the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Abbott). I have not been here long enough to be sufficiently conversant with just what each minister has under his control. Some of the ministers have been here much longer, but I noticed this afternoon that the Minister of Finance looked over to another minister and said, "Is that mine or is that yours?" As a new member, who am I to say anything?

But there is one thing I should like to point out in connection with which every minister has a responsibility. This has probably been mentioned before in this debate. There are a lot of government buildings around the country which were rented by the Department of National Defence. I have a long wire, which I am not going to read, about one in London in my riding. This building was rented by the Department of National Defence and justly so because they needed the space. The firm moved out to smaller quarters because their business had been cut down by virtue of war curtailments. But they want to get back to their building. Considerable alterations will have to be made because the Department of National Defence changed it to suit their needs. At the present time it is filled with goods in dead storage, things that are not being used and that will probably be turned over to the War Assets Corporation.

(Mr. Manross.]

There are many buildings in western Ontario which have been rented on that basis and the people want to get them back. It seems almost impossible for them to get a straight yes or no. This company states that they now employ thirty men but that as soon as they get their building they will employ eighty men. They state that they want to help rehabilitate the boys coming back. That is the situation and I think the departments concerned could well look into it to see that these civilian buildings are turned back to the owners. This should be done even if the leases have not run out. They need not pay for them, although I am not concerned about the rent. I am concerned simply with getting these buildings back into production so that we can employ our veterans who are getting out of the armed services.

There has been some talk or rumour of a national registration. I hope that is not so because that is simply another control. If it were so I would be ready to wax eloquent for a long time about it. In case it is in the government's mind I should like to say something about it. A national registration was taken in 1940. The plausible story told us at that time was that it was to get track of our man-power in order to see what they could do and what they could not do. The government wanted a sort of identification system. It started out very well; it cost a lot of money, but I do not think the cost was too great if it had done the job it was intended to do. We found out afterwards that it did not work. It was found that it would take a lot of courage to make it work and the government did not have the courage. They lost their courage and they also lost their director of selective service.

While national registration had that purpose in mind it really did not work. When the national selective service came to your factory and said, "We want some men for Central Aircraft," or some other war plant, no attention was paid to the registration cards. The employer made a list of the men and what work they were doing and that is what was used. They did not use the registration cards any more than to know that when you sent Bill Jones over to selective service it was really Bill Jones and not Sam Miller. I think the purpose of the registration card is over, although, of course, various governments still use the backs of them, and I will soon have to have a new one myself. I do not think it is the function of the federal government to supply a system of identification cards or kind of human dog-tag to help provincial governments set up their liquor business or to be used in connection with ration cards. I do not think we should take the taxpayers' money to carry on this national registration.

The Address-Mr. Herridge

There is another fact I should like to mention before I sit down. Practically two hundred seats in this house are represented by hon. gentlemen, whether sitting on this side of the house or the other, who were elected on various platforms, but there was one thing common to them that stood out, and that was that all of them were against mass regimentation. The way to count the votes is not to count just the votes your party got but also the votes for the party apposing you that was also against mass regimentation. In my riding there were about 34,000 votes, and about 30,000 of them were against regimentation; that is, they were split between the government side and our side. So I would say that the public have given the government a mandate, and given this group a mandate, on the basis of no regimentation, and we should always bear in mind that having this mandate we cannot represent our people and regiment them.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge

Independent C.C.F.

Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):

Mr. Speaker, as the new member for Kootenay West I succeed a gentleman who served that constituency in this house for a period of over twenty years, and I am certain that all those who knew Mr. Esling will join with me in wishing him a happy and lengthy retirement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge

Independent C.C.F.


Mr. Esling received the esteem and affection of all people in Kootenay West regardless of party affiliations. On that account possibly may I say that my advent to this house was delayed for about ten years.

I enter this house under somewhat unusual political circumstances, and I think a few words of explanation are necessary. I was nominated for the last federal election as the candidate of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation organization in Kootenay West, actively supported by large numbers of members of trades unions, farmers' organizations, veterans' organizations and cooperatives. I was elected to this house in support of the principles of the Regina manifesto and the present national programme of the C.C.F. Owing to the difference that has occurred within the fold of those who support the philosophy and the principles of the Regina manifesto, I sit in this house as a member of the people's C.C.F. group in Kootenay West. That difference, which was the result of sincere convictions on both sides, does not lessen in any degree my determination to work for the building up of society as enunciated in the principles of the Regina manifesto.

I have just mentioned that I entered this house under somewhat unusual political circumstances, and if hon. members will forgive

a reference to my domestic affairs, I may say that I enter this house under rather unusual domestic circumstances. I come on the one side from a long line of Liberals. My father is a great admirer of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and has been a long-time supporter of his, and he will be reading the papers to see exactly what I say to-night.


An hon. MEMBER:

Be a goodi boy!


Herbert Wilfred Herridge

Independent C.C.F.


My mother comes from a long line of Conservatives and is a great admirer of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken). She will be reading the papers to see what I say to-night. My wife is a supporter of the Cooperative Commonwealth principles and philosophy and also an admirer of the political sagacity of the leader of the C.C.F. group in this house, and she also will be reading the papers and hoping that I give both the other parties hell.

One of my daughters-I have four daughters, Mr. Speaker-is a great admirer of. the good work that she considers the Social Credit party has done in Alberta. I have another daughter who thinks that possibly the Labour-Progressive party is the party for youth, and I have two other daughters who are inclined to think that we are all wrong and that what we require in this country is a popular front of all progressive parties. They will all be reading the papers to see what I have to say in this debate. But regardless of our domestic political differences we carry on quite harmoniously so far as our family is concerned and form and have formed a family popular front against the vicissitudes of this life.

I have the honour to represent a particularly choice section of this dominion inhabitated by a progressive and energetic people. During my forty years of residence in the Kootenay West constituency I have seen it make a great development. I have seen there the development o;f a great mining and smelting industry. I have seen the development of a substantial lumbering industry, and I have seen the development- of a considerable agricultural economy. My intention, while I sit in this house is to do my best to represent Canadian thought as a whole and to represent the people of my constituency who have placed their confidence in me. My intention is to do what I can to have a constructive approach to the questions that will come before this assembly, and I shall endeavour to be fair in my criticisms and in my suggestions.

So far I have enjoyed the deliberations in this debate. I listened with interest to the leader of the opposition and I must say I

The Address-Mr. Herridge

listened also with sympathy to his attempt, obviously with good1 intentions, to reconcile a Conservative philosophy with the necessities of this time. Unfortunately, when the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party (Mr. Coldwell) was speaking I was called out to meet an old-time resident of my home village whom I have not had occasion to see for thirty-five years. Therefore I heard only my hon. friend's concluding remarks; but I have read his speech and I congratulate him upon the logical presentation of the case he gave to this house.

I must congratulate the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low) upon his able exposition of what are, in my opinion, economic fallacies unless they are combined with social ownership. I also enjoyed the-shall I say?- vigorous remarks this afternoon of the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Ashby). I thought he made a virile and excellent address but I should just like to say this. When he was drawing that parallel between the freedom which he enjoyed and that which he allowed his pigs, one extra freedom above the freedoms allowed by the Atlantic charter, he painted a rosy picture but failed to include a full statement of the facts. Those gentlemen who drew the Atlantic charter and made recommendations for certain freedoms to become the rights of mankind did not recommend those freedoms looking forward to the future to cut our throats.

My remarks regarding the speech from the throne will be quite brief so far as detail is concerned. I am very glad to know that this government seeks the promotion of peace, work, and health in domestic and international relations. That is a fine statement. We are told that the charter of the united nations is to be submitted to this parliament; that the government is endeavouring to secure dominion-provincial agreement in matters essential to the satisfactory progress of this dominion; that the government is considering the maintenance of long-term markets for primary industry.. That is a thing which must be considered; the farmers of this country are thinking anxiously about it at this time. We are also told that the government intends to make plans for the stabilization of international exchanges.

I think the recommendation made by the leader of the C.C.F. party was a good one. These plans should be brought before a special committee of this house to be studied and considered: plans for the extension of home construction, very necessary and urgently needed; plans for a national minimum of security, very much needed and coming very late; plans for national health

insurance, which the people of Canada have been waiting for for years; plans for more generous treatment of ' old age pensioners. These are excellent plans so far as they read in the speech from the throne. Apparently planning is becoming fashionable, because I remember that only a few years ago, when anybody suggested planning he was accused of regimentation, bureaucracy, national socialism, and so on. But regardless of the government's basic philosophy, any government to-day, owing to the realities of the situation, the economic and social conditions, is forced-actually forced-into planning. The issue is, for whom will that planning be; will it be for the many or the few?

The speech from the throne does not deal in detail with any legislation to be brought down by this government. On reading it I was reminded of going into my orchard on a spring day when the orchard is covered with bloom; everything looks fair and beautiful. But you cannot estimate the crop by looking at the bloom; you cannot estimate a crop of fruit until the fruit is set. I approach the speech from the throne in that state of mind. I trust the blossom in the government's programme will be so fertilized by the demands of the people and the activities of this house that a crop of highly necessary and urgent legislation will result.

I was elected on the basis of rendering strong support for the urgent necessity for continued united nations' cooperation; for the principles of the Regina manifesto; in support of the general programme of the C.C.F.; and of one other major plan, the necessity of democratic mobilization far beyond the confines of partisan politics. I am sure that the principles of the Regina manifesto are known to most hon. members. It is not my intention to deal with it this evening; if any hon. member is ignorant of the principles of the manifesto I shall be only too glad to supply him with a copy. The general or national programme of the C.C.F. will no doubt receive attention at a later date.

I wish to deal specifically with the urgent necessity for continued united nations' cooperation and the necessity for a mobilization of the Canadian people far beyond the confines of partisan politics. We believe that our economic structure must be based on the foundations of continued united nations' cooperation and mutual aid. I wish to express just a few ideas in that connection.

Upon the right relationships of the British commonwealth of nations, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the United States depends the future welfare of the world. Without mutual understanding and resolute action

The Address-Mr. Herridge *

a horrible future faces us. What a contribution those three great nations have made toward a common victory: the British commonwealth of nations, with a thousand years of struggle for peace; the Soviet Union, with its immense and recent experience in the building of a new civilization, the greatest social experiment in history; the United States, with its vast industrial machine, its magnificent organizing ability, and the vitality of its people. If we can only keep that combination together, what possibilities we have to win the peace in the days that are ahead! We have all much to learn. Unity will develop only through understanding; but with understanding I am certain we can distil from the joint contributions and necessities of the united nations an international order of justice and of peace.

I wish to deal briefly with a few possibilities of the future. Let me emphasize that at the conclusion of this war the world is different from what it was at the conclusion of the last war. We now have over one-sixth of the world's area a great socialist nation, a nation which has gone through great trials and tribulations and has come through this war successfully as an ally of ours. That produces an entirely different set of circumstances from what existed at the conclusion of the last war. From this time on the eyes of the world will be focused on the public economy of the Soviet Union. We are going to see a form of socialist-capitalist state emulation. Not all those who support the capitalist system in this country are unprogressive; but we have a core of reactionaries in all the western democrats. There are some people who support and endorse the capitalist system who are progressive in their outlook and so realize that the world of to-day is entering a new stage. The western capitalist, democracies from this point on must keep their eyes open and watch the public economy of the Soviet Union. That will produce an entirely different psychological approach to current questions on the part of the people in the capitalist democracies. There will be a good deal of watching of future developments in the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union will watch our trends in production. I believe that we can learn a great deal from one another; they will learn from us and we shall learn from them.

As I said before, we are willing to seek mutual understanding, and I am sure that out of this will come a better world order. I do not look to the future from a pessimistic or negative point of view. I realize the great dangers that face us in the days ahead, the most dangerous days the Canadian nation has ever faced. At the same time I realize the great opportunities that lie ahead, and I believe that if we approach the present situation from a pessimistic or a negative point of view we are unwise, because if we do so we may undermine the morale of the people. I say that, because, without confidence, without courage and without faith in the future, we shall not succeed. If we approach our problems from the pessimistic or negative point of view we shall undermine that confidence, that courage and that faith in ourselves which are necessary if we are to remain united.

We have these two great economies, the socialist economy and the capitalist economy. This world is growing smaller every day owing to the rapidity of transportation, and we have several factors working in our favour, factors which I would wish that more members would consider when viewing the question as a whole. Owing to the rapidity of transportation we shall have a tremendous increase in the exchange of ideas as between the western democracies and the Soviet Union and other countries in the world. In the post-war period we shall have great exchanges of literature and art and science and an enormous increase in travel os soon as that becomes possible.

In regard to the world situation, not only have governments to seek to cooperate, but we have great hope in the possibility of cooperation among peoples, the direct representatives of the peoples meeting together to discuss world problems. We have the illustration afforded by the world federation of trade unions. In London in February representatives from thirty-six allied countries and seven neutral countries representing sixty million workers met to discuss questions common to all the workers of all countries. That is a good sign; it indicates the great possibilities for the future from the use which the peoples of the world can make of available machinery to meet and discuss problems with a view to promoting understanding and ordered peace.

Organized labour can play a great part in the international field for the building up of world unity. The unity which is being forged by the world trade union federation and other organizations will anchor the united nations and keep them together. Victory on the battlefield won, organized workers are better able, in my opinion, than people in many other walks of life to realize that unity in the post-war world will be essential, a unity that will be strong enough to overcome some misunderstandings and possibly many disappointments.

Then we shall have world agricultural councils. We shall have the farmers of the world meeting together to discuss the distribution of the primary products produced by the

The Address-Mr. Herridge

farmers of the world, not planning scarcity but planning that the undernourished people of the world shall receive surpluses from countries such as ours.

We must not forget that so long as there are understandard and undernourished people living in any country their condition is a constant challenge and a constant threat to our standard of living. I congratulate the Canadian federation of agriculture upon the work it has done to promote the coming world agricultural conference which I think will be held early next year. Our Canadian federation of agriculture is doing a great work for the farmers of Canada, and in this connection I should like to quote briefly from a booklet issued by them recently. I recommend it to hon. members. I think they should get it if they have not already done so. It is entitled "Farmers to Take a Hand in World Affairs/' and I would quote the following from page 16, from the federation statement with regard to the world agricultural council.

More and more, from different angles, it is being brought home to us these days that world affairs are our affairs. Unquestionably the primary producer of our country-and similarly of other agricultural countries-can no longer think in terms of domestic policy without finding himself drawn into a consideration of international policy. There is widespread acknowledgment that in this interdependent world no nation can stand alone and no nation can any longer intelligently plan and direct its food and agriculture programme without first ensuring that its domestic plan harmonizes with the collective plan of other food exporting, as well as the food importing countries.

Canadian farmers are fundamentally in agreement with the declaration of the Hot Springs conference. They believe that the goal of freedom from want of food suitable and adequate for the health and strength of all people can be achieved; that v7e must start dealing with international problems in an organized international way; that we must replace international anarchy by international order in the field of agricultural production, distribution and consumption.

Our farmers have always believed in an economy of abundance, but they are no longer interested in a laissez-faire programme of unorganized abundance. They are convinced that the almost unlimited possibilities of an expanding world economy should be organized and coordinated on a world scale. Accordingly they believe in promoting and expanding international trade on a planned and orderly basis.

Looking to the post-war period, we believe that security for agriculture and for the farm family must be the keynote of a forwardlooking programme. While we seek this as a goal for our own^ primary producers, we naturally acknowledge it as a legitimate and desirable goal in all other countries. Moreover, we do not believe that a substantial measure of security is possible or likely to be permanent in any one country unless it is based upon a solid foundation of international collaboration which will provide a comparable measure of security for fellow farmers in other countries.

* i

There, in the spirit of our Canadian farmers, the spirit which is being exhibited also by farmers in other lands, lies a great opportunity for the primary producers to get together and do something in the way of working for the future benefit of the nations as a whole.

I think we shall also have a great getting together of veterans of the united nations. These men fought in this war a common enemy and they will meet together in the not very distant future on an international basis. There will be a united nations' veterans' federation embracing representatives from all countries to continue the friendships and the comradeship commenced in the war. They will continue for many years to come, and these men can play a great part in promoting world peace and world improvement.

I would suggest to the federal and provincial governments that instead of erecting memorials in cold stone throughout the country to those who have not returned from this second world war, nothing better could be done as a tribute and as a permanent memorial to the sacrifices of these men than to provide funds to see that some representatives, some of the teen-age children from every county in Canada, have an opportunity annually to visit other countries in order to attend meetings of international youth organizations. Youth can play a great part in the development and improvement of international relations.

Then again we have the coming development of world cooperative organizations, in connection with which there is great cause for hope and, I think for confidence. Also without question there will be international organizations of women in the future on a considerable scale. Through these great groups of the peoples of all countries meeting together I see a great opportunity, with the assistance of governments, for the building of a peace that will be permanent and secure.

I see my time is going very rapidly, but I should like to deal briefly with national affairs. The capitalist system is very hard to assess. Its fall has been anticipated by some people for many years. I suppose inflation might hasten it., but inflation is one of the great dangers of the days immediately ahead of us. Whatever the immediate future holds, however, I do not see the collapse of capitalism at once. As I try to study the situation as it exists in this country to-day, I believe we are in for a period of state capitalism, in which many of the chief industries of this country will be financed by state loans bearing interest. I believe we are now

The Address-Mr. Nicholson

just entering that stage. My point is that this will be the most dangerous period in our history. Time alone will show whether we shall move toward a totalitarian economy or toward a general cooperative commonwealth. I see that great danger. The question is whether state capitalism will become a rigid means of maintaining the system for the benefit of the few, or whether it will evolve democratically into a cooperative commonwealth. If we are to have an orderly, planned evolution to a cooperative commonwealth, I believe we must have the people of this country organized in groups far exceeding the bounds of parties and politics, to defend and improve democracy and work together to meet concrete situations and specific conditions. We have men of varying political beliefs. We have them in the labour unions, the veterans' organizations, the farmers' organizations, the women's organizations, and the cooperatives. Here are great bodies of public opinion; and if we are to preserve democracy and evolve in the right direction we must have a mass mobilization of the people, without regard to partisan politics, to meet situations which may change from day to day.

I am hurrying to complete my remarks before my time is up. The one great enemy we have is reaction, and the one great weapon that they can use is disunity. As I see it, the only way the Canadian people can be prevented from evolving a democrative cooperative commonwealth is by the spreading of disunity. That was the method used in European countries; it has always been the method of those who try to destroy the efforts of the working class. In this country they will try to arouse the enmity of race against race, religion against religion, veteran against labour, unorganized labour against organized labour, farmer against worker, east against west. That is the thing we have to watch, the thing we have to fight and defeat. The greatest danger of the future is the possibility of disunity among the Canadian people.

We have some factors in our favour. We have the hope of cooperation between the peoples of the united nations. We have a mass desire for change. We have our democratic traditions which have come to us through the centuries of struggle. We have our great natural resources, and our great capacity for adjusting ourselves to changing conditions. Einally, we have the vitality and intelligence of the Canadian people. Because the C.C.F. Regina manifesto approaches the problem with an understanding of Canadian requirements, Canadian psychology and Canadian conditions, I support it. The next step will be the control 47696-11

and finally the ownership of the banks and great monopolies of this country, to be followed by a great extension of social ownership in provincial and municipal fields. That will be the beginning of a wide basis for cooperative ownership throughout this country.

I see my time is nearly up, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to relate what some of my constituents in Kootenay West expect from this government. Organized labour in my constituency expect legislation to protect and advance the interests of the working class, and they expect it soon. The organized farmers expect security, and therefor endorse the proposed national natural products marketing act, a draft of which was recently presented to this government. The farmers of West Kootenay are also very much concerned about the government taking immediate action to investigate the Little Cherry disease, which may bring about the ruin of the cherry crop in Kootenay and Okanagan and possibly throughout Canada. The organized veterans expect more action in the development of the reestablishment programme. All the people of my constituency expect this government to implement its promises.

In conclusion, I should like to say that I am certain members of this house are divided not so much by the matter of aims as by the matter of methods. Therefore I urge that this thought may be with us in our deliberations in this chamber. If we strive for national unity of purpose; if we persevere to that end, we shall wrest from the hand of privilege and monopoly in this country its power to defeat the desires of the people, and will build in Canada a civilization that will justify to the Hull the. sacrifices of the boys who will not return.


September 13, 1945