Mr. R. R. KNIGHT (Saskatoon City):

Mr. Speaker, I feel that I should first thank hon. members of this house for extending to me the courtesy which they did on Friday night, a courtesy which was a greater one than I realized at the time. I know now that hon. members were willing to give me an opportunity as a new member to speak without having to make a break in my remarks to an audience which is if anything even more distinguished than the one I was to address on Friday night.

I take it to be a great honour to speak for the first time in this place. I know that hon. members will not have the faintest idea who I am, but I speak here with the consent of the constituents of Saskatoon City. I hold this privilege not, I believe, through any ability or virtue inherent in myself, or because of any failure on the part of the former representative, who was a very popular member of the Progressive-Conservative party, one who was universally esteemed by his constituency, and one who I am sure had won the favour of all those in this house who knew him.

I would say that the C.C.F. candidate was elected in Saskatoon City on a basis of principle rather than personality, because the constituents of that place, like those of many other places in the commonwealth of British nations, realize that progress is on the march to-day, and we cannot stand still in a changing scene or, as the great master of English himself expressed it;

. . . God fulfils himself in many ways,

Lest one good custom should corrupt the world.

The Address

Mr. Knight

I was astonished to hear my hon. friend the member for Regina (Mr. Probe) describe Britain as old Tory Britain. I wonder if I might be allowed to digress for a moment to bring before the house a matter about which I feel deeply, and that is with the respect to the participation of school teachers in the public life of this country. May I offer to my hon. friend my sincere sympathy in that the collegiate institute board of the city of Regina has refused to grant him leave of absence while he serves his country in this house. This captain, who for four years, three of them overseas, served his country in His Majesty's uniform, is thus subjected to petty persecution by what are often little men. Hon. members will understand that I can sympathize more readily with my colleague because I myself have suffered to all intents and purposes the same treatment from the high school board of the city of Saskatoon. I say that without any personal animosity, because I say in tribute to that board that its relations with its teachers have always been extremely cordial, and that includes myself. But I am fighting for a principle, for teachers across this land, and I would ask the members of the high school board of the city of Regina whether that is their idea of cooperation with this government or any government in the matter of rehabilitation of our returned men. I wish to go on record as protesting most strongly against this tradition which I am afraid is fostered by school boards across this country, that teachers should be denied the right to take part in public affairs. I protest against this idea that teachers should be regarded as intellectual sissies or mental milque-toasts, in whose: veins runs skim milk instead of red blood.

That gallant battalion, the Saskatoon Light Infantry, for all I know is returning to its native city to-day, though it may still be on the water. I do know that the man at the head of that gallant battalion, which fought its way through Sicily, Italy and Holland, Lieutenant-Colonel Walker, was decorated at Buckingham Palace by the king the other day. He is a man beside whom I had the honour to teach; for he is history teacher in the institution from which I come.

I crave the indulgence of the house in speaking of this matter; for I know that it may not be of particular interest to many members, but I wish to get on record the naive statement of the high school board of the city of Saskatoon in regard to myself, in a clipping which was sent to me. I shall read a part of it. The heading in this newspaper clipping is; "Knight granted leave of absence." It goes on to say:

However, it is stressed by the board that this did not imply he would be reengaged, which matter would depend upon the recommendation of the school principals and the approval of the board and-

Note this:

-competition with other school teachers at such time as the request for reengagement is made.

Hon. gentlemen can judge for themselves whether that comprises leave of absence.

I noticed in the Winnipeg Free Press a few days ago that Doctor Carlyle King, a professor at the University of Saskatchewan, was attacked by a gentleman by the name of Mr. Paul Prince for participation in political activity. It does turn out, although I do not think this has any political significance, that Mr. Paul Prince happens to be chairman of the Liberal Association in the province of Saskatchewan. I say I do not think that has any political significance, because I would not accuse gentlemen on the other side of the house of condoning any such action. I am pleased to say that the Winnipeg Free Press, which could hardly be considered a non-partisan paper, roundly takes Mr. Prince to task for his attack on Doctor Carlyle King.

As I look round me here I see in this house many ex-schoolteachers, some of them distinguished members of this house. I shall name three. First, my leader, the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). He himself has had some experience with Regina school boards. Second, the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken), and third, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), sitting on the government benches.

But a nos moutons. I was saying that the hon. member for Regina City had described Britain as old Tory Britain. Well, Tory Britain she has been, but many members of this house, particularly those of the French race, will remember that little incident in "Le Medecin Malgre Lui" de Moliere-and en passant, Monsieur le President, je regrette depuis longtemps que je ne puisse pas parler tres bien cette belle langue

the incident you will remember where the quack doctor, on being taken to task, and that by a lady, for saying that her heart lay on her right side instead of her left, said, "Ah, madame, nous avons change tout cela!"-and so Britain, too, has had a change of heart.

May I say how much I have enjoyed listening to the speeches in this house? I think the speech with which I was most delighted, that is to say from the point of view of oratory, was delivered the other day by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Lalonde). His speech, of course, was one with the subject matter of which I am not able altogether to agree.

The Address-Mr. Knight

That, I suppose, would be natural, seeing that we sit on opposite sides of this aisle. May I suggest to him that there is much to be said for tradition, of which he spoke a good deal; so long as it does not stand four-square in the path of progress. His viewpoint, I hope, is not betrayed by an expression which he used, perhaps a little loosely, as reported in Hansard of September 11, page 76:

. . . from the highest rank to the humblest labourer. . . .

That a labourer, sir, should necessarily be humble is not a part of the philosophy of this group to which I have the honour to belong. I suppose that the remark was merely a trick of vocabulary; I have no idea that the hon. gentleman intended to put any significance in it. But it shows a tendency to which we are all subject. Another expression which he used, and to which I can heartily agree, particularly in its application to our day, was his remark in French, at page 80, that "il faut enfin, ou-vrir les yeux." We must indeed open our eyes, particularly to the inevitability of the social advance of which I have spoken.

I had intended to draw to-day three things to the intention of this government. I do not. know whether I have time to cover them, but I shall begin with the subject of housing, which seems to be a particularly popular subject in this house-naturally enough, because it reflects the importance of the subject in the minds of the people. I doubt whether badgering further the minister responsible for this matter will serve any useful purpose. The government seems to be powerless to do much about housing. I say, sir, that it is again a matter of "too late." I would suggest that the housing of the heroes who fought in this war is, or should be, a war measure and should have been acted upon contemporaneously with the war itself. Now we find ourselves in short supply of lumber, plumbing materials and- other necessary articles. I do not know the figures, but I do know that you cannot dry lumber overnight; and I will venture a guess-you may correct me if I am wrong- that in 1944, forty per cent of the lumber cut was exported for sale outside this country. To my mind, sir, a part of that-yes, all of it, if necessary-should have been stored and dried for our present-day use.

What about helping Britain?

Mr. KNIGHT:

I doubt, sir, if it all went to Britain.

Mr. COLD WELL:

It went to the United States.

Mr. KNIGHT:

a rickety and undernourished baby. Let me warn the government that while I am making no accusation at the present time, there is a distinct and vocal opinion in the western prairies that there is a nigger somewhere in the Hudson Bay railway woodpile.

The latest information I have on the matter with regard to shipping wheat overseas this fall is found mostly in communications from ministers of various departments of the government to officials and private people in the west. I gather that the Park ships with which the government might come to the aid of the project are not equipped with gyro compasses, or are engaged in essential services elsewhere, and I understand that the season is now too far advanced to do anything about it. The absolute limit of sailing is October 10, and, in the next place, any British ships that might have been available have either been sunk or are not properly equipped with gyro compasses. Again it is a question of being too late. Whether the latest in compass equipment is necessary for sailing into this port is open to debate, but if the old pioneers of the country had waited until they could get the latest gadgets there would have been no pioneering and no discoveries.

The question has been asked whether the N. B. MacLean could not be used to lead in sister ships equipped with ordinaiy compasses through the area of magnetic disturbance, and some people wonder why one mile of slob ice cannot be kept open later than October 10, say to October 31. Whatever the answers to these questions may be, I know that if one hundredth part of the energy and research was put into this matter that was put into certain matters in connection with the war, that route would be in full operation and a solution to most of these difficulties would already have been found. I think it is a case of where there's a will there's a way. We cannot say too much about it now. I realize the season is getting on, but we will look for the government to do something definite about that situation in the year to come. It will be coming up on the floor of the house and in discussions throughout the whole western country.

We should link this matter of the Hudson Bay route with the matter of cooperative trade. Cooperative enterprise is increasing by leaps and bounds in the province from which I come, and I have the honour to have had some connection with it. Cooperative enterprise in Great Britain, Scotland and England, is particularly anxious to promote reciprocal trade. Hon. members scarcely need to be reminded that after this war Britain finds herself in a particularly difficult situation. Be-

fore the war years she was greatly dependent upon two things, one being export trade and the other, interest upon her foreign investments. In the great cause in which we have all been engaged, Britain has freely sacrificed her foreign investments, and it is more and more important that she be dependent upon a good export trade. In that, sir, I think we should be very ungrateful if we were not prepared to assist her.

With a view to promoting such reciprocal trade a delegation of cooperatives came to this country some time ago. They were very anxious to ship to us some of their fine goods in exchange for our primary products. And these goods could very readily be shipped- and perhaps this is the nigger in the woodpile to which I alluded before-to them through the Hudson Bay route in the ship which took over to them these primary products. We could all do with some of those fine British textiles at this time. I do not know how other hon. members of this house are equipped for certain items of their wardrobes, but I could do with a couple of shirts myself. I have not had time since the session opened, but for four days before it opened I walked the streets of Ottawa in an attempt to buy two shirts, and was unsuccessful. I think it is about time we had some good British textiles on the Canadian market.

Mr. HANSELL:

We cannot afford to lose our shirts.

Mr. KNIGHT:

I hope you do not take mine; you cannot, because I haven't any.

I appeal to the government to do something about this matter of reciprocal trade to encourage cooperative trade through Hudson bay. If they are not prepared to do it-and even if they are prepared to do it-I suggest that the better plan would be to accede to the wishes of the Hudson Bay Route Association, to allow a western board to be set up to control the railway and the port, in conjunction with the governments of the western provinces.

Now, sir, being a tyro in the matter of speaking, I have no idea when I started or how many minutes I have left. If I have time enough left I shall go on to another subject which lies very close to my heart, namely, the matter which was introduced here the other day by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) when he said that there should be some federal aid to provincial education. We have in late years revised many of our ideas in regard to the responsibility of the state to supply this education. To my mind, sir,

The Address-Mr. Knight

equality of educational opportunities is the greatest single factor in the promotion of a true democracy. For instance, I believe that the implementation of the new education bill in Great Britain will result to a degree in the lessening of the class idea, in a destruction of the class system which has been for generations the bane of old country life. The solution for the problem of the old school tie, sir, is to make the old school tie available to everybody.

Hon. members are aware that the average per capita taxable wealth of the people of the provinces of this country varies very greatly. This means that in some provinces they have less money to spend on education of the children than in others, and therefore there is inequality of opportunity. The result of the difference is, of course that some children do not get a very good education. I find, for example, a statement in 1944 that one of our Canadian provinces spent $31.70 per child on its education, while another province spent $83.38, a ratio of two and a half to one. We who come from Saskatchewan have had some idea of how that operated during the last depression. To my mind education should not be altogether a provincial matter in so far as finances are concerned. I would not interfere with the study or with the curriculum in the different provinces, nor would I interfere in the administration; but in the the ultimate manner of providing finances for equality of opportunity in the provinces, the dominion government should be standing squarely at the back of the departments of education in the provinces.

In the report of the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations we find this statement:

The quality of education and welfare services is no longer a matter of purely provincial and local concern. In Canada to-day freedom of movement and equality of opportunity are more important than ever before. These depend in part on the maintenance of at least minimum standards for national education.

Will hon. members note these two words: "freedom" and "equality"?-because education can bring freedom in more ways than one. To us in this little but increasingly larger group, freedom means more than the negative thing of freedom from domination by other people. To us it means the freedom to have the opportunity to live a full, free and happy life. Only by that method can equalitj' be brought about. We believe that all men are equal in the sight of God, not in physical stature, not in intellectual ability, but in the same inherent right 'to the enjoyment of life.

Equalization of educational opportunity has been achieved in a smaller way in our own

province of Saskatchewan with the larger school unit. There, a child who is unfortunate enough to be living on a farm that is infertile or on a farm which is temporarily dried out, has the same advantages provided for him as the child of the wealthier farmer in the same district. He has the same opportunities. That, of course, I shall mention with bated breath, because it is an example of the awful thing which the hon. members in this house so dread. I shall now read a clipping about education; it is as follows:

Rural Students Get Aid to go to High School

Fifty cents a day living allowance, payment of fees and free text books and exercise books for pupils in rural areas who attend town or city high school is what the . . . school unit does to aid country youngsters in getting a high school education.

I shall give hon. members one guess as to what province is referred to in this clipping.

Mr. GILLIS:

Quebec.

Mr. KNIGHT:

The idea that we are responsible for the education of other people's children is still new to some people. I remember just before the war, in the city of Belfast in Northern Ireland, talking to a cabinet minister in the Ulster parliament. We were discussing free secondary education, and I, of course, was advocating it. His position was this. He said: "Why should I educate the children of those people?" Hon. members know the implication contained in "those people." He said: "I have paid for the education of my own children. Why should I give to those people anything more than a mere public school education?" There are more implications there than appear upon the surface. His children went to a different type of school. They received a different and better class of education, and they grew up to belong to a class much better equipped in life than the children who went to the other schools or who did not go to any.

We in this group believe that the answer to the age old question: "Am I my brother's keeper?" is a resounding "yes". We believe in equal state financed education-note, I said, "financed"-both primary and secondary for all the young people in this land.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me add my voice to that of those who have expressed the view that this government is not unwilling but is actually unable, in spite of its good intentions, to bring in the new social order it has promised. It is not prepared to make the economic changes which alone can support the

The Address-Mr. Boucher

social services which are essential and reasonable. This government represent the wrong party to bring about any vital social changes. They will only bring in halting and grudging reform, compelled to do so by the public will. The task will have to be entrusted to those who have long had the new social order as a vision and a dream, a thing for which they have long striven and prepared.

If you were employing a gardener-and that is spelled g-a-r-d-e-n-e-r

to beautify a piece of ground, would you employ a man who did not like being out of doors, a man who was allergic to the pollen of a daisy, who shuddered before the beat of the wind and the rain in his face, or would you entrust the task to one who loves and cherishes the growing things, who sees in the face of a little flower the very hand of God?

If we wish to write into the book of history the poem of economic freedom and social justice we shall have to choose as its authors those who have long wooed that muse, who have given of their devotion and their toil, like the one of whom Longfellow wrote:

Who, through long days of labour,

And nights devoid of ease,

Still heard in his soul the music Of wonderful melodies.

Mr. G. RUSSELL BOUCHER (Carleton):

Mr. Speaker, may I join with other members of this house in congratulating you upon your election as first commoner of the country by being chosen as Speaker of this honourable house. Then I think it would be but proper for me, as the member for Carleton county, to make some reference to the passing of a very esteemed colleague who sat in this house for a number of years. I refer to Hon. Norman McLarty, whose untimely death occurred over the week-end. In common with some other members of the house, during sessions of parliament and at other times Mr. McLarty was a resident of Carleton county, and I think perhaps that fact was in part responsible for his good judgment, popularity and pleasant personality, because I think we will all agree that he was an extremely popular member of this house.

I am pleased to see two of my old university and law school colleagues on the treasury benches, in the persons of the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier). I well remember, during law school days, taking my good friend the Secretary of State aside and urging him to mix political judgment with legal learning and become a member of the Progressive Conservative party. I was not very successful. My friend, I believe, chose the easier way,

the way in which there was less competition to reach high rank, the insecure way, and, I feel, the unsound way. He chose the Liberal party. Another colleague of the class of '28, Osgoode Hall, the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), chose the wiser way, the sounder way, with the Progressive Conservative party. Then we are all pleased to see in the press gallery a fourth member of that class in the person of Mr. Frank Flaherty, who has distinguished himself with the Canadian Press.

The war is over now, Mr. Speaker, and we owTe our first tribute to our fighting men and women and our war workers. They have won the war; our task is to win the peace. The men who fought our battles overseas and our war workers at home did not choose the easy or secure way. Let us in this house decide now to choose opportunity rather than security and ease. I believe that in the past we have done altogether too much holding out of security, without paying sufficient attention to the opening up of opportunities. We live in a country with vast resources and a comparatively small population, a country where security may not be the greatest thing but opportunity certainly is. Given wise leadership and progressive government, with our energetic people we can have opportunity, and security will follow.

In the speech from the throne mention is made of dominion-provincial relations. We all realize that Canada has become a vast nation and has outgrown the situation that prevailed in 1867, when dominion and provincial rights, duties and responsibilities were dealt with. Reconstruction is needed in our political institutions as well as in the social and economic spheres. I believe a new alignment of powers, responsibilities and duties is long past due. As the premier of Ontario said in his opening remarks at the dominion-provincial conference last month. It is not a question of whether or not this conference will succeed; it is a certainty that it must succeed.

As a member of this house may I first express my hope that the adjustment, modernization and reconstruction of dominion-provincial affairs will be carried out at the earliest possible moment. In that reconstruction I believe we should take it as a first principle that a government should itself raise the money it spends. To me it seems a sound principle of good judgment and common sense, as well as of political economy, that the institution spending the money of the people should raise it from the people and accept responsibility for its expenditures. We have gone through five years of very extensive

The Address-Mr. Boucher

expenditures, during which both our budget and our taxation have mounted higher and higher and more and more of the income of the people has been taken from them by sources beyond their control, to such an extent that individual enterprise has been stifled and impeded and individual ambition has been impaired. Therefore I believe our first responsibility should be to see that not only in this house but in all the other institutions throughout the country we proceed in the spirit, of economy and thrift, instead of keeping in mind the great expenditures we have made in the past.

In connection with dominion-provincial relations I believe we should take careful note of the great work our municipal councils are doing, and should leave them to carry on within their own spheres. I do not believe there is any other elected body in the Canadian or British economy so close to and so well acquainted with the people they represent as our municipal councils. In matters of administration, social reform and economic activities our councils can do a great work, from the humanitarian, the economic and the social viewpoint. Therefore I say that in reframing or rearranging the powers under the British North America Act the municipal councils should play a prominent role.

As a result of the war, and particularly as a result of war production, we in Canada have seen a great centralization of power and authority, not only in the dominion government but also in some of the financial, industrial and economic institutions of the country. Small business men, those seeking to establish themselves in new businesses, undertakings and professions, have found the way difficult. I believe one of our first responsibilities should be to discourage any tendency to greater centralization or to over-centralization, to see that authority, power and opportunity are spread over the lower financial brackets of our people rather than the higher. I believe individual enterprise should be given precedence over corporation control and that the small business man should get much more consideration from the parliament of Canada than he has been given in the past.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker; it is my view that one of the first tasks to which we should proceed in our post-war reconstruction is the cutting down of the heavy taxation enactments which impose such great burdens upon our people, and at the same time we should give greater opportunities in the sphere of individual enterprise than we have given during the war. Production for other than war purposes has been greatly curtailed and, as the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. 47696-I4J

Knight) said a short time ago, many of our people desire to have a little more and a little better clothing and other commodities. There are many things our people would like to have, and I believe the time has come when we should see to it that they have those commodities. Production in Canada should be increased as it has never been increased before, as long as we can couple with that increased production a proper distribution of the commodities produced. Distribution has been a problem for the last fifteen or twenty years. During war time we were able to achieve a much more equitable distribution than might otherwise have occurred, and I think we should continue to give our attention, our energy and our efforts to providing a more e'quitable distribution of these world goods than we have had before.

Research has done a wonderful job in connection with war production. Canadian research is deserving of our highest praise. In increasing intensity the research energies and achievements of the past few years will gradually permeate to the good of the Canadian people. We did not realize the lack of these advantages, but I believe we have now won a name for ourselves in connection with our research enterprises. We know now how lacking we were in proper research endeavours prior to the war. In my opinion this work should be extended very considerably at the earliest possible day. Experimental areas should be set up throughout the countryside. Small experimental plots should be established where the training airports used to be, and there trades, professions and different techniques could be taught to the people in the area.

One of the greatest difficulties in Canada for a good many years has been seasonal unemployment. We should endeavour to cure this difficulty by providing seasonal employment rather than unemployment insurance. I believe a great deal could be achieved if this and other governments within Canada embarked upon the development within the country of little trades, little handicrafts and little endeavours that could be undertaken by these people when their main occupation is not being practised.

This afternoon I should like to dwell upon the idea of a federal area. I regard the proposal as one having to do with a federal area rather than a federal district. I trust that this will not be looked upon as just a city of Canada; it should be looked upon as an area containing the national capital of Canada and demonstrating Canadian aims, Canadian endeavours and Canadian achievements, not only

The Address-Mr. Boucher

to Canadians but to those who visit our country either as tourists or businessmen or as members of the staffs of the many embassies situated in Ottawa.

I trust that this national area will be considered as an exemplification of the national pride of Canada, as a stimulant to national consciousness of Canadians. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has announced the setting aside of something like nine hundred square miles in the Ottawa valley for a federal area. When we are setting up a federal area I hope that we go cautiously as far the the franchise of the people in concerned. I hope that the franchise will be kept for all the people within the federal area. The franchise is one of the fundamentals of a democracy, and as the government of Canada we should encourage the greater exercise of that franchise and a greater appreciation of its value. In any scheme of federal district or federal area the franchise should be retained for the Canadian people within that area.

The Prime Minister has announced that Jacques Greber is coming to Canada at an early date. This town planner who resides in Paris is to be asked to make a further report on a federal area. As a Canadian I submit that this federal area should be typically Canadian. It should demonstrate Canadian planning to the Canadian people. I believe we have within Canada many outstanding town planning experts and landscaping experts who could give valuable assistance to any person seeking to set up a federal area, possibly even greater than that which could be given by Mr. Greber himself.

In any federal area that is set up, the dominion, provincial and municipal governments should be working hand in hand with the utmost harmony and cooperation. If this parliament sets up a federal area, particular attention should be paid to the exemplification of Canadian art, Canadian ability, Canadian aims and Canadian achievements.

I do not think it would be wise for me to dwell upon the advantages of the Ottawa valley, the Gatineau valley and the Rideau valley as a federal area. The wise judgment of our predecessors who chose Ottawa as the national capital shows that they appreciated the economic, social and scenic advantages of this area. In the Rideau valley, some ten or fifteen miles south of here, there is a fine farm, beautifully landscaped, called I believe Rideau Bend. It is the home of the distinguished leader of the official opposition (Mr. Bracken). I could also take you across the river and show you at Kingsmere the summer home of the Prime Minister, which is not quite so important.

This proposed area of nine hundred square miles will take in portions of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. In setting up this federal area I urge that consideration be given to the differences that exist in the two provinces in connection with property rights, educational administration, customs, and so on. We should retain to each province all its provincial authority and rights and use only its cooperation in the development of this federal area. We should not look upon the federal area just as a city; it should be an exemplification of Canadian life. If we go through the valley, you will find that it is one of the greatest cheese producing and dairying sections in our country. That should play a prominent role in any scheme for a federal area. This area should be segregated into three classifications according to the territory. There should be a park area, retaining the natural beauty which has been bestowed upon this country. There should be an urban area, representing man's moulding of nature to his requirement for homes and habitation. There should be a rural area representing man's moulding of nature to the production of the necessities of life.

It will be noticed that I have not mentioned an industrial area. The Ottawa valley has abundant resources in power and raw materials; it has great transportation facilities, and with its nearness to larger centres it could become a great industrial community. But whoever chose Ottawa-as the capital of Canada did not contemplate the development of an industrial area. Ottawa and the Ottawa valley have willingly forgone industrial development so that they might fit properly into the sphere of a national capital, and they wish to continue so. I shall not dwell at greater length on the industrial advantages or disadvantages of this area.

The beauty of the Gatineau park area can best be appreciated, as well as the beauties of the Gatineau and Rideau rivers, by taking a drive in any direction from Ottawa when the leaves are turning in the fall. Hon. members will be astonished by the gorgeous beauty of the landscape, the beautiful foothills of the Laurentians and the scenic beauties of the three streams. I think that the park area, in these days at least, should remain in the background until more important developments are undertaken in our federal district.

I do not intend to dwell on the urban area. Suffice it to say that all members of the house realize the congested condition within Ottawa. The city has outgrown its present boundaries. It is confined within altogether

The Address-Mr. Boucher

too narrow a space. It badly needs expansion. The housing situation is acute. Our transportation and water services should be extended into the suburban areas. Then take the railways. It is a disgrace to any nation to permit railways to cut across a city as they do across the capital of Canada, dividing it, interfering with its traffic, interfering with its planning, interfering with its development.

In Ottawa the government have built numerous temporary war buildings on some of the finest sites in. the city. But we have not improved the old buildings. If any hon. member will go. through the west block or the east block or the Langevin block or the Daly building he will notice that there is great room for improvement in the conditions under which employees, yes, of the government of Canada, have to work. I shall not elaborate on that.

We in Ottawa are proud of our war memorial. But if you walk down to the war memorial at almost any hour of the day you will observe a scene of traffic confusion and congestion where one would expect to find a scene of peaceful, reverent memories and reflection. I believe that right now something should be done to improve conditions around the war memorial, built as it is of stone and brass and bronze, so that we could commemorate our heroes of the last war in a more fitting atmosphere. Let us take a lesson from that, and in future build a memorial to the achievements of our heroes of this war and our war workers and their contribution to the cause of individual liberty and of peace by demonstrating within the federal area what Canada as a growing nation is and aspires to be. We have a great community here. We have ambassadors from nearly all the countries of the world. We have trade commissioners, industrialists, distinguished visitors in all walks of life who come to Ottawa for a little while and then go back, taking to the various countries of the world their impressions of Canada and Canadians. Let us think of that in the planning and developing of our capital city.

I should like to discuss for a few moments the development of the rural sections of the federal area. The dairy industry is one of the greatest industries in our rural sections. But we have found that with the- development of mechanized farming, the one-hundred acre farm,the efficient unit of bygone days, is now being replaced by larger farms. In our suburban areas we find also small holdings of from one to five or twenty-five acres. I think we could do a great deal to develop small holdings around our Canadian cities, and

particularly around our national capital. With the increased knowledge of soil productivity that we have to-day, and the increased use of commercial fertilizer, and improved farming methods, I am confident that many families in our suburban areas could earn a substantial livelihood close to our cities, where labour is convenient, and there could successfully grow various fruits and vegetables and raise pigs, poultry, eggs and other farm products.

We could also do a great deal to counteract the present tendency of people in the agricultural areas moving into the congested cities, leaving the farms vacant and adding to the housing shortage and labour surplus in the cities.

I believe that trade schools should be established in the federal area. Many of our returned soldiers-and this part of the country has contributed generously to the armed forces-could be settled on experimental stations or on small holdings or established in trade schools, teaching and receiving instruction. That would be a good example of what Canadians can do in post-war reconstruction. We have in Ottawa, the seat of the national capital, many skilled technicians and many members of the learned professions, arts and sciences working for the dominion government who could assist in building up this federal area and developing it along truly Canadian lines.

Our reward would be great. There is no question about it that tourists would compensate us adequately for any expenditures made, and there need not be any great expenditure. The tourist trade could be attracted to Canada and be much developed. Canada needs a national consciousness, a national pride. But something is required to develop a national spirit within Canada. How can we do it better than by properly planned development within the federal area? I believe that the development of a federal area is a matter to be considered and planned for now. The actual development would be spread over the years to come. We cannot have it all now; we would not want it all now, but I do believe that with the location we have here and with the national capital here we should plan wisely, plan now and plan well. I believe that we could establish a fitting memorial to our wai heroes and our war workers much better by demonstrating and promoting a new Canadian nation at peace and in prosperity than we could by commemorating their achievements in any monument of stone and mortar, brass or bronze.

The Address-Mr. Mutch

Mr. L. A. MUTCH (Winnipeg South):

Mr. Speaker, as this is the first opportunity I have had to address the house since the conclusion of hostilities, it is perhaps most natural and certainly most fitting that my first remarks should express the pride of the community from which I come in the achievements of her sons and daughters during the long period of the war, and in particular to express the chought which I feel sure is in the hearts of everyone from Winnipeg and Manitoba particularly, and that is the gratitude that we all felt in the realization that the survivors of the Hong Kong expedition, the Winnipeg Grenadiers, are for the most part once more in the hands of friends and in the process of being restored to their families at home. 1 could easily elaborate on the theme of the contribution of the community from which I come, but that story, the story of four gallant regiments serving in different fields and in all the ancillary services, is one which is written in the hearts of everyone who comes from Manitoba and the west, and is one which through history will be made known to generations yet to come. It so happened that in the early stages of the war regiments from that city were early engaged-at Dieppe, at Hong Kong, and then with the first division in Italy, and the impact of casualties came quickly and fell heavily on that area, more so perhaps in proportion to the population than elsewhere. However, the war is over and the problems which confront us today, while they are connected with and complicated by our experiences in the war, are separate and distinct.

Before proceeding, however, I think it is a good practice, and one which has been honoured during my time in the house, at the beginning of a session to say something about the constituency from which one comes. There are those who think of their constituency in terms of its scenic beauties, of its manufacturing capabilities, of the raw materials it produces. But during my period in public life my interest has been chiefly concerning persons rather than things material; and when I think of the constituency which I have the honour to represent I confess I think of it in terms of the people who inhabit that constituency. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that in the last election no less than eight of my own constituents were candidates for membership in this house. I am glad that some of them were elected-not, of course, the ones who opposed me; I could not have welcomed that with the same enthusiasm. I might even say quite frankly that I am glad some of them who contested other ridings were not elected. But I think it is indicative

of the type of citizenship in that community that so many were found suitable as candidates in the province of Manitoba.

The constituency has been indirectly honoured in at least two other ways. I think it most fitting that I should mention a former constituent of mine who has been signally honoured by the people of Canada since he left that constituency, and I take the first opportunity I have had in this house to tender my personal congratulations to the leader of the opposition for his election to a seat in this house. I have never in my political experience, so far, indulged in personalities, and very seldom in pleasantries at the expense of individuals; but I see no reason why one should not pay tribute and acknowledge anything he may owe to anyone. For that reason I think I should say to the hon. gentleman who now leads the Ontario party in this house that I am under a sense of personal obligation to him, perhaps in two ways. When he accepted the leadership of the Progressive Conservative party, and left the city he relieved the housing situation to such an extent that I am now comfortably esconced in the house in which he formerly lived. In the second place, I think his contribution to the leadership of that party materially assisted me in my return to this house.

I should like to refer also for a moment or two to one other former constituent of the constituency of Winnipeg South, the brilliant young gentleman who moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Back in 1935, when first I was a candidate for the House of Commons, the gentleman who now represents Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Beni-dickson) was one of the exceedingly bright young men *who interested themselves in that campaign for the return of the Liberal party.

I was the fortunate beneficiary of his enthusiasm; and perhaps-I do not say this too solemnly-when he decided to move to Kenora-Rainy River and help to spread the leaven of western liberalism in the province of Ontario, it may have been-I do not say it was-a fortunate circumstance for me, because even at that time he was obviously one who was ticketed for a career in politics and eventually membership in this house.

I have in the constituency of Winnipeg South an organization which from time to time has been prominent in the news and for a long period of years has been prominent in the economic life of the west. I refer to the Winnipeg grain exchange. Some days ago, when the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair), in seeking leave to introduce a bill, spoke of his enthusiasm for doing away per-

The Address-Mr. Mutch

manently with that institution, I resolved to do something which I have not done during the period I have been here-to refer to an institution specifically and say something on its behalf.

The Winnipeg grain exchange has been investigated by royal and other commissions more than a score of times within my own memory, and without exception it has been held to be making an important and worthwhile contribution in the marketing of the products of the prairies. During the whole of that period it has been a simple matter in some sections, and in some areas it still is, to get an audience and a sympathetic hearing by detracting from that institution. It is made up of business men who know their business and perform a useful service. Whether the method under which they operate is one which commends itself to all citizens of Canada is a matter of opinion; but certainly I for one am serving notice that, while I do not appoint myself a defender of the institution, I get a little tired of the suggestion that there is something reprehensible about a type of organization which has performed a useful task, which has taken its share of the community load in every enterprise for community welfare, whose members have been doing a legitimate business and have endured without undue complaint very considerable sacrifices not only in this war but in one other war; who have gone on and made a contribution and have kept their contracts. I suggest that we might do well, with respect to any organization, to attribute to those who are doing a business which they believe in, conscientiously and honestly, at least the same sense of public service and the same sense of morality which we attribute to ourselves.

It is only a short time since the election, and I do not propose to repeat here for the benefit of hon. members who were not able to take part in my campaign, or to hear it, my campaign speeches. I know it is a time-honoured practice at the opening of a new session, and there are a large number of questions in which other hon. members, my constituents and theirs, are particularly interested. I might conceivably use all the time at my disposal to speak to the house on housing, on old age pensions, on reduction of taxation, on rehabilitation, on reconstruction, but at this time I feel that the constituents of Winnipeg South are well aware of my views with respect to each of these admittedly important questions.

During the campaign I argued for, expounded, defended and upheld the policies of the present administration with respect to each of these

questions adding from time to time those qualifications or extensions which I myself felt should be added to or subtracted from that programme. I am not prepared, two or three weeks after the house has met, before we have had an opportunity to assess the problem in the light of the sudden termination of hostilities, and before the legislative programme of the government has had an opportunity to be tested, to elaborate on each on any of these at the present time. I mention them simply because, before I pass on to the one subject which I do wish to discuss for a few moments, I do not wish to be reminded that I rose in my place in the house without giving any indication that I was aware that these problems did exist. I gave plenty of indication of that during the campaign. I think perhaps I have given ample notice to ministers concerned both of my own interest and of the interest of my constituency in these matters. I shall be here continually and I shall be reminding them continually both of the needs and of the aspirations of that constituency and of the province from which I come.

I was and am primarily concerned in the problem of the highest possible degree of employment in the dominion and the maintenance of the highest possible standard of living. I was struck, when the member for Carleton was speaking a few minutes ago, by his relationship of two words, because I wrote down three or four words to guide me when I speak to you to-day, two of them in the same relationship in which he used them. Those words are opportunity and security.

I have been concerned throughout the whole period of the war, during my association with thousands of young men, with the degree to which particularly the younger people of our country had become what I dislike to call security minded. I had always thought of Canada in much the same way that my father thought of it when seventy-four years ago he left Scotland as a boy to come to Canada-that is, as a land of opportunity. I know it is the policy in some quarters, with some types of politicians and with some parties, to ridicule the idea of the country as a land of opportunity and to magnify the pitfalls that lie ahead of us, and to exaggerate, if that bei possible, those dark days behind us and to capitalize continually upon the natural fear which such conditions have engendered in the public mind. I wish it were possible for those earnest, hardworking souls who do that, to be patriotic enough and unselfish enough to devote to the rebuilding of confidence, particularly in the

20S

The Address-Mr. Mutch

young people of the country, something like half the energy which they now devote to frightening people so- that the emphasis might once more be placed upon opportunity rather than security.

I was struck by the fact that this gover-ment, committeed to the highest possible employment and the highest possible standard of living, had omitted to mention in its first speech from the throne, a question which I think is inextricably interwoven with the possibility of carrying out that programme, namely, immigration. I am convinced, from my knowledge of the development of Canada as well as of the United States, that it is for ever impossible to maintain the standard of work and of living which we as Canadians demand for our people and ourselves under the condition of settlement which exists in the dominion to-day.

In 1937, standing in this house, I said, if I quote myself correctly, that ten million people could not forever hold half a continent in a land-hungry world. Since that time we have engaged in the most devastating war in all history. Since that time we have seen areas formerly prosperous and populated destroyed by war. We have millions on the march, incapable of easy reestablishment where they are. At the same time we have something which we did not have when I spoke in 1937, and that is the experience of the last five years in our relationship with the United States.

I can go to areas on the Red river in Manitoba where men engaged in various types of farming, small-holding farming, have always their best years when they have a poor crop, a short crop, which is easy to handle and when prices are high. The capabilities of developing small holdings have been considered and experimented with by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the possibilities which should be a real part of any high employment and higher standard of living have been explored; yet many areas which are suitable for the purpose are ruled out from the probability of successful large-scale development by virtue of the paucity of population.

I believe that we in Canada to-day have the opportunity to do in twenty or twenty-five years something which it took England seventy-five years to do, and which under the open-door policy, it took the United States fifty years to do, and that is to double our population and multiply many times our national income. I believe we should be thinking about it and should be doing something about it now, because I do not believe that if you separate from the present day pro-

gramme a very much broaded policy of immigration and a realistic attitude towards export trade, you are going to achieve the goal towards which we have set ourselves and which is demanded of us.

In Canada we are singularly fortunate in some respects from the point of view of the resumption of immigration into this country. We have an over-all labour shortage in Canada to-day, we are told. Certainly there is a labour shortage in the unskilled labour group, and if anyone thinks there is not a labour shortage in the highly skilled groups I suggest that he consider some of the trades which are currently operating in Canada and which have not been able, through the apprentice system in- the last ten or twelve years, to train any considerable number of men. If you go into the composing room of any publishing concern in Canada and count the number of men in that trade who are under fifty or even fifty-five and compare that number with -the group who are fifty-five or over, you will realize that that is one trade where there is a real shortage and where there will be a greater shortage of skilled men. If you want a cabinet maker, as sometimes one did when materials were available and adequate, a man capable of doing a finish job-I am not talking about someone who can wield a saw and call himself a carpenter but one who can do a finish job-I believe that if you found out how few men of that type there were under the age of fifty-five you would probably be shocked.

I suggest that there is plenty of room both at the lower level of unskilled labour and at the top level of those who are highly skilled. That being so, we can easily begin at an early day a much accentuated immigration which will not only not deter those at present living in the country from proper rehabilitation but will assist them very materially, because it is established in the experience of the world that immigration does not result in lower wages.

We are fortunate in another respect. Those of us who are old enough to remember the days of mass immigration and the policy of the open door know that there was a waste of natural resources, that there was failure to utilize to the fullest exten-t those very lands and those natural commodities which were sometimes uneconomically developed. In Canada to-day the natural resources of the country are in the hands, not of the dominion government sitting down in Ottawa far away from somewhere, but of the provincial governments who are on the spot and who know or should know the probabilities in their local provinces. In addition to that, we are not faced with, as were the earlier pioneers and

The Address-Mr. Mutch

the immigrants, the problems of transportation and supply which were great deterrents in those days. In Canada to-day we have multiple systems of transportation spanning the country east and west and in the air north and south, providing all the facilities which are required for greater development. We have government facilities, we have transportation facilities, we have our undeveloped natural resources, and we have those who are responsible for stewardship of them on the job on the spot.

In addition we have a condition in labour which is out of balance, because we have a superabundance of what one might call semiskilled labour. There are those who say when men walk out of an aircraft plant or some other place where they have been doing semi-skilled work at high rates of wages for a considerable time that they have to go back and take what they can get in some other place. That is not always possible. It is not always possible for this reason: during the period of that development-some of it mushroom-during the war, unskilled workers came because they were required. They found employment in the industries of war in which they worked. It is true they were paid higher rates of wages than they were able to obtain as unskilled labourers in other places; but these men have made commitments. In the city from which I come it was impossible during the last four years of the war for a man coming in there to do a job such as I mentioned to find adequate housing for himself anywhere within the limits of where he would be required to work, unless he bought a house. Many of these people bought houses at prices which were perhaps higher than the property was worth in terms of the type of money that that man might hope to make in the work he formerly did. It may be all right to say to a man who has been laid off in a plant that he will have to go to work for less money in another area, but it is no use saying it to him that he can sell his house. If he can sell his house he may recover what he has put into it. But does anybody know where he can get shelter for his family unless he purchases another house in the town to which he goes? Certainly that is true of the west, and where would he find it?

It must be realized that many of these men are not so much victims of the fact that they refuse to work for lower wages than they were getting during war time, as they are of the fact that it is economically impossible for them to maintain the existence of their families at the present time at that rate. Yet,

if we are to assume that it is the responsibility of governments-or even of society, to make it more general-to see to it that a man gets a job which will provide for his family-and it will be a contract whether society is represented by the municipal, provincial or federal government-then that man must accept the converse of the picture. A man who admits that society should provide him with a job must be prepared to go where he is sent and accept that which is given. If that is not done, then the contract falls down.

I do not think it would be possible to return immediately, or perhaps ever, to a policy of open door immigration; but I do believe a larger population is essential for the long-term success of that which is the ideal and hope of every decent Canadian in parliament and out of it, namely, the maintenance of a high standard of employment. A decent standard of living and high rate of employment will not be realizable until our population has increased to the point where we have a better balance between the home market and the foreign market. We live, and we may as well realize it, in an unsettled world. We have had to rely on conditions over which we had no control for too much of our prosperity which comes from outside markets through the medium of trade. Therefore I urge on the government and on those who understand the situation in Canada that we begin to think about it. I urge that we not only think about it but that we talk about it and that we do something about a policy and a programme of immigration. To-day Canada is recognized as something more than one of the small nations, although we are not yet in the secure economic position of a great nation. If we hope-and we do hope-to preserve our place, if we expect to be able to play the part which destiny seems to have cast for us among the nations of the world, then I think that to-morrow is not too soon to begin to think about that development.

I remember with pleasure and I recount with pride the record of thousands of sons of immigrants from all the different nations of the world who played a part the equal of that played by anyone else in the war which has just ended. One has only to look over the casualty lists or the roster of any unit going from that part of Canada which I know best, the west, to realize that in their thousands the sons of our immigrants of the last thirty years played an exceedingly important part in the war effort of Canada.

I was pleased when the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) delivered his maiden speech the other day, designed, and

The Address-Mr. Mutch

properly so, to bring a measure of comfort to representatives of minority groups, many of them the first generation children of immigrant parents, and to strike a blow, perhaps not as necessary as he. appeared to think, and to go on record for the strengthening of the position of all minority groups within the fabric of Canada as an individual nation. The speech was calculated, and commendably so, to please those who in large part sent him here. Despite the fact that we disagree on so many other things, I have no hesitation in associating myself with the sentiments of his remarks, namely, that it is important at this time that we develop a real Canadianism. It is more important at this time than it has ever been, because we have engendered in Canada during the war a sense of appreciation of each other, a sense of comradeship, a sense of citizenship, which was not possible before; and if it slips away from us now it may not be easily redeemable in the near future.

I dissociate myself from some of the criticism in the hon. member's remarks of specific institutions. I dissociate myself for the reason that I have not certain knowlege. 1 have, however, no hesitation in saying that as a Canadian I will be found associating with anyone, in whatever party he happens to be, who does anything he or she can do to make of Canadian citizenship a living, vital thing in the life of this country, perhaps because I had the opportunity to teach in days gone by; I escaped sooner than some of my hon. friends; perhaps because I have had some association in business and in politics with original immigrants themselves; perhaps because I am, as I have said, the son of an immigrant. I have knowledge of the contribution these people have made, and I have a profound belief in their possibilities for the future. I have the most devastating contempt for people who try to draw the line in any sense as between citizenship of one group of Canadians and that of another.

What has this to do with immigration? Simply this: that when we come to face that question, as we shall have to face it; when we come to the time when we want to make this a real, vital department which will contribute materially to the development of the Dominion of Canada, I hope we shall not resort to the subterfuges to which all parties have resorted in the past, in an effort to draw a line between races on the basis of occupation or for any reason other than their health, their ability, their readiness to work and their desire to become Canadians. I think of those people who stood at the borders of Mexico in years gone by, refugees if you like, seeking to escape into the United States and Canada. That is

the attitude of mind which I think we must cultivate toward this country.

I have spoken longer than I had intended, but there is nothing in which I am more interested than in this question.

I have noted with gratification the plans of the government with respect to a national flag and a national anthem. I do not have that gratification because I personally feel the need of either. As far as I know I have not in my veins any blood but Scots, and the present flag and national anthem have been adequate for me during my lifetime either as a soldier, or as a civilian. But I think there is something more important, whether or not I have been able to make it clear this afternoon, and that is, the welding together of the people of this country and the millions who I anticipate will come here. I believe a national flag and anthem can be a focal point for the drawing together of all our people, whether or not I like it or some of our confreres from other provinces like it. I believe the matter transcends personal feelings. I think it is something to which we can anchor the sentiment and feeling of the people who are here and those who are yet to come.

One final word and I am through. In spite of the better judgment of most Canadians there still exists in this country a racial prejudice and discrimination which I utterly despise. It has raised its ugly head in one particular manifestation against which I wish to protest at this moment, not to this house but through this house to the people of Canada. There is a tendency in some districts and some places, in some firms and, I am sorry to say, in some professions-I am particularly sorry to include the professions because we expect a higher standard of humanity and understanding on the part of professional people than from ordinary mortals engaged in business-toward an exclusiveness which has never been understandable to me and which I do not believe is in keeping with British or Canadian traditions. It is being extended even to keep out those who have served this country on the field of battle, in the air and at sea. It has arisen and is still arising with men and women being excluded from certain professions and businesses because of their racial origin. I believe the people of Canada should take steps to end that sort of discrimination right now. We have an opportunity to do so in this parliament, not only because many of us are new and have nothing behind us to live down; not only because some of us have been here for a while and have seen these problems arise, but because throughout the country there is an awareness of the fact that things cannot

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank

be as they were and a desire that all may share in the building of a better Canada.

When I commenced my remarks, Mr. Speaker, you were not in the chair. Before I resume my seat I should like to extend to you my congratulations and to express my personal satisfaction on your elevation to the position of first commoner.

Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):

Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to offer you my congratulations on having assumed your high office; it is indeed a pleasure to me, having been a personal friend of yours for some time. Perhaps I am more interested than some other hon. members. Some two years ago, when you represented the constituency of St. Mary, I remember that you came to me, as representing a farm riding in British Columbia, and asked if I could find employment in my riding in far off British Columbia for your son during his school vacation. At that time I could scarcely understand why you should want to send your son at tremendous expense to a farm in the fertile Fraser valley, and asked for the reason. You explained to me that you wanted your boy to be among the finest Canadians and in the finest part of Canada. I wondered why the boy should be sent across Ontario and the vast prairies to the Fraser valley, and only the other day I discovered the reason. We in British Columbia are very fond of fruit. The other day I went down to the market here in Ottawa and bought a basket of peaches. Nq,w, having seen the peaches they grow in Ontario, I can understand anyone crossing this province to get to British Columbia, where we have the finest of standards not only for fruit but for all farm produce. That is why the best markets in the world are open to British Columbia. If any hon. members dispute that statement I want to show some of the peaches I bought in Ottawa for $1.25, marked "grade No. 1."

Pass them around.

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

I should be glad to pass them around to hon. members from Ontario. Here they are, covered with beautiful pink gauze. They look lovely; they look ripe and fresh. But let me take off the pink gauze and show hon. members from Ontario what you are selling as No. 1 peaches, and I think you will understand why anyone would want to move to British Columbia. These are not from the bottom of the basket; they are from the top. Fortunately for me this morning a friend of mine sent me a crate of peaches from Keremeos, British Columbia. There we do not sell them covered with pink camouflage, in an almost

fraudulent manner; we sell them by the crate. I want hon. members to look at them; these are the smallest ones in the box.

I should like to congratulate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) on the forceful way he read his address. I am glad we now have a leader of the opposition who at least can be heard in this chamber, and I hope the cabinet follow his good example. I want also to sympathize with the hon. gentleman on the poor material which he had to read. Bracken House must have had an off day that day.

Now I want to speak to the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) and to congratulate him on the very fine way he delivered his address. I am in a good humour to-day, congratulating everybody. He spoke in the manner we expect of him; always fair, always courteous and always interesting. I also extend my congratulations to the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low) on the forceful way he delivered his address. As usual, and after having listened to his predecessor for some years, I still have not the faintest idea what his platform is.

I will move on to the mover (Mr. Beni-dickson) and the seconder (Mr. Langlois) of the address in reply and congratulate them on the honourable positions they hold and the right they have to represent their particular forces in this house.

I should like to say a word to the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes). We in British Columbia are proud of the fact that so many winners of the Victoria Cross during the present war come from that province. Five out of the eleven winners in Canada come from British Columbia. It is an honour to this house, not merely to the opposition party, that two winners of the Victoria Cross share the same desk. I am sorry to add that this is the only parliament in which they will have that unique honour.

The hon. member for Nanaimo is a gallant soldier and I believe he will always fight for the rights of the soldier. I agree with what he said the other day that it was not fair, just or sporting for a soldier in Canada to be discharged so that he could shop around and secure a job while other men were still serving overseas. I agree entirely with him, and no one in this house is better qualified to speak about that than the hon. member for Nanaimo. That is exactly what he did.

Mr. GREEN:

Pretty cheap stuff.

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

With 245 seats to choose from he decided to contest the seat of a member of parliament who had distinguished himself in this war by winning a

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank

decoration for gallantry and who was still serving overseas. That was the position when the hon. member secured the nomination in that riding.

I should like to say something about demobilization. I have heard1 about demobilization all across the country. I believe and always will believe that the fairest way is to demobilize on the basis of first in, first out, except on extremely compassionate grounds. I presume it is the policy of the opposition, ais it was the policy of the leader of the opposition before, to want to have every one ini uniform and at the same time he was complaining bitterly because fishermen's sons and farmers' sons were being called up.

They also put up a fight for housing and housing immediately. I commend them for that and I am willing to support them in every way possible. However, I cannot understand their attitude in demanding housing and housing immediately and then attacking the government for discharging skilled tradesmen from the active army in Canada in order that they may go to work constructing these houses. That, in my opinion, is not consistent.

I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Abbott). When he starts demobilizing I think he should consider demobilizing all the brass hats we have parading around this country. They are really not parading because these admirals and generals and air commodores are generally being driven around by beautiful C.WA.C's. When they are discharged I know of an excellent place for them to retire to in British Columbia, one of the most beautiful spots in the country, a place called Duncan. There is wonderful scenery, wonderful fishing and the climate is magnificent. It is an ideal place for them to retire to, because as you drive along you will see that each and every mail-box has the name of an admiral or a general on it. There is no one beneath the rank of major. I remember after the last war a man from my company retired out there and he painted his mail box "Private Roy Brown" and immediately there was an investigation into what he was doing there. -

I should like to compliment the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon having brought so many outstanding young men into his cabinet. I am sure the other members of the cabinet will forgive me when I say that in my opinion the present Minister of National Defence is one of the most outstanding young men we have had in the public life of Canada for a long time.

I want to commend the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt) for making

one of the very few good suggestions we have had from the other side in connection with housing. I consider it is the only good1 suggestion we have had. He pointed out that there was a bottle-neck in connection with housing. We in British Columbia have heard about that bottle-neck. Whether or not it is true, the story is that certain mills have in storage large amounts of flooring and other lumber being held for higher prices. We are told that certain firms have plumbing fixtures and electrical equipment which they are holding. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard who suggests that some authority should be sent in there to go to these firms and, if it is found that they are holding back supplies, order them to release them at once.

There is another thing this authority could do. Many individual contractors who are building houses for soldiers find that they are unable to get priorities. I think a soldier's house should be given every priority, whether it is being built by private or government contractors.

I wish to say a word about labour, in which I am very much interested. In this connection I am speaking particularly for the benefit of my C.C.F. friends who seem to think they have a monopoly of the desire to work or cooperate with labour. There are in my riding some 2,000 members of a local union. I know every one of their leaders and organizers personally and I have always found them willing to cooperate. They have always been ready to sit down with me to work out any problem. I do not always agree with them and they do not always agree with me, *but we have always been able to get together to try to arrive at a solution. I cannot understand why firms and individuals cannot adopt the same attitude. I am proud of the fact that the labour political action committee in British Columbia endorsed George Cruickshank, the only member that was endorsed by organized labour in that province.

I should like to show the house how our employers are ready to cooperate. While mine is mainly a rural riding, I have one logging company that produces one million feet of logs a day. Any hon. member who is familiar with logging knows that is real logging, and that is just one concern. Every man in the employ of that company was hired at the union hall, and the member for the riding had something to do with that.

I should like to commend the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) for what he has accomplished, and in doing this I realize I may be antagonizing a little support

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank

in my own province. I think I speak for the benefit of hon. members and certainly for the benefit of the members of the legion in my own riding. When a member comes here he sometimes forgets that he is just one member out of 245; he feels that he is going to set the world on fire, that he is going to accomplish wonders. Even the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) thinks that, but he will be disillusioned before very long. I want the members of the legion to realize that the Minister of Veterans Affairs, or any other minister, is merely one minister out of twenty and sometimes he cannot accomplish all the things he wants to accomplish on behalf of-the veterans or anyone else. When you have been a minister of the cabinet for a short time you realize that there is another little select committee to be considered. I do not know who they are and I do not think they know who they are. It is called the treasury board. If you can overcome the treasury board you will get what you want. They have a committee over there called the Graham Towers Gordon committee, and that must be overcome.

I started out to commend the Minister of Veterans Affairs for consolidating all veterans' legislation into one act. This will assure that the orders in council will all be carried out so far as veterans are concerned. However, I should like to suggest to him that he has not gone far enough. During the election campaign he stated that a committee would be set up to study the Pension Act and other matters pertaining to veterans. I hope he will see to it that the War Veterans' Allowances Act is discussed and that the means test is abolished.

I should like to refer briefly to old age pensions. While there has been a move in the right direction, there is still a long way to go. I do not believe it is sensible, wise or economical for the country to wait until a man has one foot in the grave before he is given a pension. It has been suggested that the means test will be abolished in connection with old age pensions, and I repeat it should also be abolished in connection with veterans.

I wish to say on behalf of my riding a word in connection with meat rationing. I do not know whether it is necessary or not, and I should like to hear some explanation from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). I think I know as much about it as the Globe and Mail, and I am certain that I am looking at meat rationing from a different viewpoint from that of Mr. McLean of Canada Packers. I believe that this country is justified in asking for an explanation from the Minister of Finance as to the actual need or otherwise of meat rationing. The hon. member for London (Mr. Manross) commented the other day on the lack of ability or knowledge of many of the officials of the wartime prices and trade board.

I can agree entirely with him because I noticed that many of them offered themselves as Conservative candidates and were to become cabinet members if that party were elected to power.

I believe that we have a sufficient market for some time to come for all our farm produce, but I believe it is the duty of every member of parliament, whether he be a supporter of the government or of the opposition, to see to it that farm prices are maintained at a reasonable and stable level. I believe that it is the duty of every member of parliament, and I hope that members on the other side of the house will follow through on this, to see that co-operatives' development is not hindered by taxation or in any other way and that every effort at cooperation be encouraged and assisted in every way.

I believe that one of the things in which the government has fallen down is that too little attention has been paid to our greatest source of income, a source that can bring us in a tremendous amount of money with very little expenditure. I refer to the tourist trade. Probably I am prejudiced, coming from British Columbia, but I believe that there is nothing that we can sell so easily to our good friends to the south as our tourist attractions.

I do not think the federal government has yet done its duty by the various provincial governments in connection with the tourist trade. Let me mention one small way in which the federal government can help, and this affects my riding and probably every riding in British Columbia. That is by contributing, and contributing heavily, to any highway leading into British Columbia from the international boundary, to connect up with the transcanada highway, which must be completed as a postwar project:

I wish to say one word in connection with the party I support, and the principles for which it stands. I believe in free enterprise. I believe that free enterprise can and must succeed. I believe that if free enterprise fails, it will not be because the soap-box orators cause it to fail, but because of the abuses of free enterprise itself-the actions of such concerns as American Can, Canada Packers and other monopolies. It is the duty of the government to see that free enterprise is given a fair opportunity, and such monopolies as I have

The Address-Mr. White (Hastings)

mentioned should be treated as a contagious disease and be quarantained by government order.

In conclusion, I wish to commend the Prime Minister for having set such an excellent example in the brevity of his speech, and I hope it will be followed by all my fellow members from British Columbia.

Before I sit down I would remind the house and particularly my own party and the government that the people of British Columbia will not permit the return to the province of the Japanese.

Mr. G. S. WHITE (Hastings-Peterbor-ough):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to extend my congratulations to ,you on your elevation to the high office you now hold. I am sure you will fill this office with dignity, distinction and merit. I should also like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Benidickson) and the seconder (Mr. Langlois) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They are new members of the house, lately members of the armed forces, and it was only fitting and proper that they should be chosen for this signal honour. It was a fitting tribute to them, one which I hope will be followed in this country. There are many members of this house who have seen service in world war I or world war II. This is all to the good because it assures that the house will have many members who will see to it that the rights of the returned soldiers are fully protected.

Several speakers taking part in this debate have made reference to the supremacy of parliament. They have asked that the supremacy of parliament be restored to this parliament. It is a subject in which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has always been much interested. On many occasions during the last parliament he made reference to the supremacy of parliament. He said that parliament was supreme, that only the people themselves were supreme over parliament. Yet only a few days ago, in this very session, the Prime Minister rose in his place and tabled another large batch of orders in council, one of a succession of thousands of orders in council which have been tabled in the house on previous occasions. Many of these orders in council were passed while the house was in session. Many of them even changed the provisions of statutes which had been passed by the parliament of Canada. Hon. members who were in the last parliament will recall that on occasion after occasion this parliament was denied information on many subjects, and always there were standard excuses: first, it was not in the

public interest to give the information; second, it could not be given for reasons of security; third, the British government did not wish the information to be released. I will cite only one example.

The war expenditures committee sat behind closed doors for several years. The members were sworn to secrecy, so that nothing could be discussed in the house. I would ask the Prime Minister to state on an early occasion whether or not it is his intention again to set up a war expenditures committee. If so, let its meetings be open to the public and the press.

In the short session of last March we had another example. Everyone knew, it would be necessary to call parliament; yet the call was delayed and delayed and parliament was not finally summoned until March. Surely, after the retreat of General McNaughton from Grey North parliament could have been called. When parliament was finally called, no opportunity was given for any debate on the address. The session was very short. Absolutely no opportunity was given for any discussion or examination in detail of expenditures under the war appropriation bill or under the civil estimates. Despite that, huge sums were voted. But, Mr. Speaker, there was plenty of time to discuss whether or not Canada should accept the invitation to attend the San Francisco conference, an invitation which everyone here was most willing and anxious that Canada should accept.

Only a few days ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) asked the house for the appropriation of a very large sum, again without any examination of any of the expenditures. No doubt next month he will again ask for further appropriations, still without examination. Surely, now that the war is over, the time has come when all the rights and privileges of parliament should be restored to it, and government by order in council should cease. No longer should this eountiy or the Canadian people be regulated and controlled by boards and commissions not responsible to parliament.

We had an example during the last few days in this house. We read in the press that the wartime prices and trade board had passed an order whereby certain plumbing fixtures had been frozen. The Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) said on Friday in the house that there was no such order. That was repeated to-day by the Minister of Finance. But we have read in the press that there is such an order and that such an order is here to stay. Surely, Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister who has always paid so much lip-service to the supremacy of parliament, really believes that parliament should be

The Address-Mr. White (Hastings)

supreme, by his own actions he should restore these rights and privileges to this parliament.

Much has been said in this house with regard to housing. I concur in the remarks *made by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) who so well presented the facts in that regard. To-day we see in Canada the tragic result of government planning as far as housing is concerned. Thousands of veterans are returning daily, with no suitable housing available. We hear much of what is known as low rental housing and housing at moderate costs. Frankly, in my opinion there is no such type of housing; because when you consider the huge increase in the price of building materials, the high wages paid to members of the building trades and the great scarcity of building materials, it is simply impossible for the returning veteran or the average wage-earner to build a house for himself or to buy a house which can be referred to as under low housing. Many of the houses being constructed for veterans are too small, and lack many conveniences; yet the prices, which range from four to six thousand dollars, are certainly beyond the purses of a great many of our returning veterans.

Here I should like to say a word on behalf of that much-abused person known as the landlord. Apparently it is almost a crime for anyone in Canada to own and rent housing accommodation. Landlords have been held up as being almost monsters; and I would point out that the traditional rights o>f landlords both in equity and in law have in many cases been ignored, because they have lost all control over their property. They cannot deal with their property in any way without first obtaining permission from the rental board. The landlord cannot raise his rent because the rent is frozen; yet in many cases tenants will sublet part of the rented property. The poor landlord then can-only apply to the rental board, and any increase he receives is very small. The landlord is bound to keep his property in a proper state of repair, and yet no attention is paid to his pleas. Building materials are not only scarce; they have also greatly increased in value. Wages are high. If he repairs his property he is then in difficulty with his income tax return, as to whether the repairs will be classed as such or treated as a capital expenditure. To-day a man purchasing a house in Canada for his own use and that of his family cannot obtain possession; and I would point out that this is a typical example of the bureaucratic methods of this board.

This order applies to all Canada, even to small villages and hamlets. It may be necessary in some larger cities, but I say frankly that in many towns apd villages no such order is necessary. Under a former order, where the

tenant was given six months' notice during the summer months, he was amply protected. Apparently the board forgot that owners of realty and landlords are the pillars that support the municipalities with their taxes. I suggest to the minister that he give _ serious consideration to an amendment of this order whereby, in places with populations of less than ten thousand, any man who purchases a home for his own use shall be allowed to obtain possession of his property within at least a reasonable period. .

The speech from the throne refers to the beautification of the city of Ottawa as a "national" war memorial. Well, perhaps it is commendable to beautify the capital city, but to consider such a scheme as a national war memorial is entirely another matter. I point out that this is a typical example of the methods adopted by the Prime Minister. His announcement of the proposed plans to beautify the city of Ottawa as a national war memorial were made just on the eve of the opening of parliament. According to press reports the French architect who devised the plan started some years ago has already been communicated with and asked to come to Canada to further these plans. I might pause and say here, Mr. Speaker, that if a war memorial is to be erected in the name of Canadian soldiers, surely in this land of Canada there can be found an architect clever enough to devise and carry out such a plan.

I would ask the Prime Minister whether, before he made this decision, he consulted the legion or any other veterans' organization, or if he consulted any body of citizens whatever. Certainly he never consulted the members of this house. The citizens of Canada who have to provide the funds for this plan should have at least something to say as to what shall be the nature of the war memorial. No one will attempt to deny that at any rate the war veterans should have something to say in these all-important matters. After all, the city of Ottawa is a very small part of this great dominion. Millions of Canadians have never been to Ottawa and never will be here. And, frankly, what benefit will the beautification of Ottawa be to the veterans? They will never be here to see the beautiful scenic drives which will be planned around the city of Ottawa and the suburbs. Such a plan will not help to reestablish the veteran in civilian life; it will not help him to get a job, obtain proper housing, educate his children or earn a living. I am sure that if the voices of the Canadian boys who were left behind at Hong Kong, in Sicily, in Italy, and on the continent and other spots of the world could be heard in this chamber they would be raised in condemnation on any such war

216 COMMONS

The Address-Mr. White (Hastings)

memorial to be erected or carried out in their name.

Any national war memorial should be of such a nature that all the citizens of Canada will benefit from it; that the youth of our country, the children of veterans, will benefit and that generations yet unborn will receive some advantage.

No sum has been announced by the Prime Minister as the probable cost, but one may judge from pictures that have appeared in the press, the sum that will be expended will run into many millions. I would suggest to the Prime Minister that whatever sum he has in mind to be spent on a national war memorial for Canada, this money be placed in a trust fund and that the income from that fund be used annually for scholarships in every university in the dominion, these scholarships to be open to all Canadian boys and girls. From the modest sum of $5 million, which is probably only a fraction of what this memorial will cost, the annual income at three per cent would exceed $150,000, and even this small sum would be the means of assisting from 150 to 200 boys and girls each year in furthering their university education. This fund would continue in perpetuity, and in the years to come thousands upon thousands of young Canadians would benefit from Canada's national war memorial.

Who can say but that from among these young Canadians who would be benefited in this way there might emerge some young scientist, some medical man who might happen to find the magic key to unlock the secret to the cure of cancer and many others diseases which to-day baffle the medical profession? Who can say but from among these boys and girls in the future there might emerge a surgeon whose skilful hands would bring restored health to many? Such a plan might produce a composer who would write a symphony that -would outrival those of all the old masters, or an artist whose skilful fingers and whose brush might leave behind a legacy of beauty in colour for the whole world. Such a plan might produce a musician or a singer whose trained hand or voice would bring pleasure to millions.

The possibilities of such a plan are unlimited, and I am sure that the boys whose names this proposed memorial is to be erected to commemorate would approve it. I say to the Prime Minister, in all sincerity, I hope that before this plan is made final he will consult not only veterans organizations but all the Canadian people and the House of Commons as well; for, after all, Mr. Speaker, this is not

a pressing matter. Even as late as last week the daily press of Canada was still publishing casualty lists.

I wish to concur in the remarks made by other speakers in this debate as to the need for a reduction in the present income tax, and I would point out to the new Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) that under the system which has grown up in the district income tax offices they send to the taxpayer an assessment form in which they merely set out the amount of assessment, the amount of extra tax, the penalty, the interest and the date on which it must be paid. They give no explanation, nor do they show in any way how the assessment is arrived at. Furthermore, in many cases these assessments are not made for years, and when the poor taxpayer does receive the assessment he finds that the income tax people do not believe in three per cent; they charge five or eight per cent, and there are certain penalties.

I contend that in all cases where there has been undue delay on the part of the department in making assessments, the taxpayer should not be penalized either in interest or in penalties; for it is not enough for the department to say that it is the duty of the taxpayer to make out his income tax form correctly before it is filed. To-day, with the continual changes in income tax and the complicated form and the various regulations, who can say when he makes out his form that it is correct? I have found in my experience that in many cases I have had chartered accountants make out income tax returns which have come back as incorrect.

I suggest that the exemption for single men should be raised to $1,200 and the exemption for married men to $2,000, with increased exemptions for dependents.

The speech from the throne mentions a charter for veterans. As my leader well pointed out, the mere amalgamation of the acts and regulations affecting veterans will not improve or change in the slightest degree the operation or the benefits of these acts. If there is to be a veterans' charter of even the slightest benefit to the soldiers I would be all for it, but I say to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) that if we are to have a veterans' charter, that charter must mean something. I suggest to him that the very first clause in the charter should provide that every returned veteran shall be given a decent job at a scale of wages that will enable him to support himself and his family with a good standard of living. Let the second clause of the veterans' charter provide that the veteran shall be furnished with proper housing at a

The Address-Mr. White (Hastings)

cost within his means. If we are to have this charter for veterans, let the charter amend and rectify the many inequalities that exist in matters relating to veterans' affairs. Let the so-called preference in the civil service for veterans really mean something, and let it apply to veterans who have actually seen service in the field of battle. Let there be an adjustment in the matter of clothing allowance whereby veterans shall receive $100 clothing allowance irrespective of the date of discharge. Let there be provided an adjustment in the difference of the amounts paid officers to purchase outfits. Let the scale of pensions, which has not been revised in years, be brought up to a proper level to measure up to 1945 conditions. This grateful country still pays a veteran with 100 per cent disability $75 a month, and anyone who has had dealings with the pension board will bear me out when I say that when the Canadian pension board rules that a veteran has 100 per cent disability he certainly has 100 per cent. Let this charter provide that the pension board shall accept the category of the soldier on enlistment as his true and correct category and that any lower category on discharge, or any disability, be taken as due to war service. Let the charter provide for a speeding up in the handling of pension claims, and let it provide for an end to the continual fight by the private soldier against the pension board to establish his right. Let the charter provide that in all cases of doubt the benefit should be given to the returned soldier. I know the minister is probably thinking there is such a provision now, but let it be actually put into operation. Let the charter provide that the insurance principle will be reinserted in the act. Let the veterans' charter provide that the Pension Act will cover all men in the armed forces who receive injury, that such men be entitled to the full benefits of the act, and that no one should receive a pension at the discretion of some official of the board or subject to any regulations. Let all the charitable provisions be struck out of the act, and in particular I refer to section 11. Most important of all, let the veterans' charter proclaim that the veteran is entitled to these provisions and benefits as a matter of right and by statute.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, if we are to have a veterans' charter, let us have something more than a mere amalgamation of the various acts. I would point out, as I mentioned before, that it is the duty of all hon. members who have served in either war to see that the rights of all veterans are fully protected.

The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) stated, as reported at page 39 of Hansard:

. . . only one government remains in power which dares to admit that it is Conservative, and that government can be found in the province of Ontario.

Well, I hardly need to remind the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar what happened in the Ontario election of June 4 to the party that he leads. That demonstrated plainly that it had no place or room for socialism.

Good old Trestraill

Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):

The methods adopted by the socialist party, along with their communist friends, in the provincial legislature was just too much for the province of Ontario to swallow.

On the same page the hon. member made reference to his pleasure in referring to the vote that his party received in the dominion election of June 11. Speaking for myself and my own riding, I can tell the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that my riding did not vote for his candidate nor did the soldiers vote for his candidate. When the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was making those remarks I wondered if there did not run through his mind the speech that he made on the floor of this house in September, 1939, the day that war was declared, when he advocated that there be no participation by Canadian troops overseas; that our efforts be confined to economic aid. I wondered if he recalled the day that the vote was taken in this house on bill No. 80, the bill which would provide that our troops overseas would have proper reinforcements. On that occasion the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and every other hon. member of his party voted against the bill. I wondered if the same hon. member recalled that in the short session of November of last year when the reinforcement crisis was at its height that he and his party supported the half-hearted measure of the government. Was he more interested then in the fact of seeing that the troops overseas were adequately supplied with reinforcements, or was he and his party seeking and trying to obtain votes in the coming election from members of the N.R.M.A., the pacifists and other isolationists?

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer briefly to the amendment moved by my leader. I would point out to hon. members, and especially to soldier members who conscientiously have the interest and welfare of their former comrades at heart, that they cannot vote against this amendment because, if they do, they will clearly show by their

The Address-Mr. Shaw

vote that they are content, that they approve and uphold the method and manner in which the government is demobilizing the men and women of the armed forces; that they approve the lack of planning by the government to provide jobs at fair wages for service personnel and war workers, and, further, that they are content with the housing situation which confronts Canada to-day. If you, soldier members, vote against this amendment, how can you then face or attempt to explain to the service personnel in your own riding your absolute disregard for their interests? I intend to support the amendment.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

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

Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to the discussion of certain issues which I consider to be of vital and immediate concern, I should like to make brief reference to a statement or observation made by the hon. member for Hastings-Peter-borough (Mr. White) during the course of his address this afternoon. In referring to the proposed beautification of our national capital as a fitting memorial to those who sacrificed and died during this war, the hon. member declared that in his opinion we should give some consideration to utilizing the services of a Canadian architect. That suggestion brought to my mind the thought that the memorial we have in this city to those who gave their all in the last war was designed by Englishmen, the March brothers. Possibly I should say first that the site for the memorial was selected, as we know, by a French town planner, Greber by name. The stamp commemorating the unveiling of the memorial was engraved in New York by an American. It is said that Canada's part was the pouring of the cement and the paying for the memorial, with interest. Since the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has frequently indicated his interest in the advancement of Canadian art, I would suggest that we might give consideration to the suggestion advanced by the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough.

This parliament, Mr. Speaker, now faces that world for which the toil, the sweat and the tears of six savage war years were expended. This twentieth parliament is assembled at a time when the thoughts of Canadian men and women are turning away from *war and being centred upon that new freedom and that new security so often referred to

both within and without this house. It has been said, and I concur in the view, that it is a time of new life and new hope for which millions fought and died. I realize that no man can properly foretell what the future may hold, but those of us in this group believe one thing is self-evident, namely, that within the hands of those here assembled rests the power, or better still the means whereby most if not all the hopes and aspirations of our people can be translated into realities. Once that translation is complete, we can truly say to those who have sacrificed, suffered and died, "It has not been in vain." Those lads who went forward from our constituencies did not go to preserve that way of life -which all too many of them knew. In my estimation they went to do battle that we might have one more opportunity to build for peace, for security and fbr real happiness. Each member who sits in this house does so by virtue of the acceptance of a certain challenge, and I say that challenge is to assist in making this country a nation worthy of their magnificent courage and heroic sacrifice. This is a collective responsibility, and I believe we should all appreciate that fact no matter where we may sit in this house. The task will not be an easy one, but certainly there is no one here who would say it is insuperable. Time alone will answer the question whether we are worthy of the confidence placed in us.

Before proceeding to the main subject I propose to deal with, namely certain policies of the War Assets Corporation in the disposal of what is sometimes regarded as surplus, obsolete or valueless equipment, I desire to devote a moment or so to another matter which arose at the time of the election and which, by virtue of the circumstances surrounding it, we found ourselves unable to answer at the time. I have no particular desire to endeavour to exhume certain- things from the past, but where those things have a direct bearing upon the future I feel quite justified in bringing them forward. I have in my hand a clipping from an Alberta newspaper dated May 19, and headed, "Social Crediters assailed by King." I am informed that this is the report of a closed meeting, a meeting attended by invitation only. I would ask if the applause at that meeting was rehearsed, as I am told it was on another occasion. According to this report, in connection with our so-called opposition -to government financial policy the Prime Minister said:

I do not hesitate to say that the policies of the Social Credit group, if followed by any government would, in no time whatever, lead to a worse depression than we had in the 1930's.

The Address-Mr. Shaw

In that connection I have before me a statement made by the Prime Minister just ten years ago, relating to those so-called proposals which we have advocated in the field of finance. We agree with the correctness of the statement made at that time, when he said:

Once a nat'ion parts with the control of its currency and credit it matters not who makes the nation's laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to the government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and democracy is idle and futile.

Nothing much more than that is required in defence of social credit monetary policies. Sometimes we are obliged to wonder what has happened to the Prime Minister during the last ten years. Who have been responsible for changing his mind and his views, because we feel that he was quite sincere in his beliefs in the observation he made at that time.

Another statement included in this press report is as follows:

In the years they have been in parliament, the Social Credit members have consistently ignored-I might go so far as to say they have denied-the vital necessity of external trade to the prosperity and welfare of Canada and particularly of Alberta.

In a world that is steadily shrinking and where the interests of nations are becoming increasingly one, they continue to preach national self-sufficiency and economic isolation.

May I say with all the vehemence at my command that we have never in this house or out of it preached national self-sufficiency or economic isolation. It is true that during the early years of the war we protested most vehemently about the shipments of scrap metal and wheat to Japan. Surely the Prime Minister would not regard that as a denial of legitimate trade. We also protested about the shipment to Germany of planes, plane parts, air engines, automatic pilots, compasses and so forth by certain countries which were called our allies, such materials being used to bomb Chinese women and children at a time when governments were patting the Chinese upon the back and commending them for their magnificent struggle. We condemned such shipments. Surely that is not regarded as a denial of legitimate trade. I could give other instances.

At the same time we condemned the fact that the financiers within Britain, within the United States and undoubtedly within our own country were advancing the financial means that made it possible for Japan, and for Germany, to produce many of those commodities which were used against us, against the

Chinese and against others. That cannot be regarded as any denial of legitimate trade. When this report in which this accusation was made appeared our leader, who is now a member of this house, issued a statement to the press. That, statement contained the stand which we have taken, do take and will continue to take with respect to this matter of trade. May I be pardoned while I read this report, which is as follows:

"It is not true, as the Prime Minister said, that Social Credit members have consistently ignored and denied the vital necessity of external trade to the prosperity and welfare of Canada and particularly of Alberta," Mr. Low asserted. "The Prime Minister is well aware of the many times Social Credit members have put themselves on record in straightforward, single barrelled language-a thing he never does-as favouring the development of Canada's ti ade with other nations to the utmost of our possibilities and that with an eye to the peace and welfare of Canadians as a whole. Social Credit members have always advocated making it possible for every nation to have access to a fair share of the world's trade and have consistently supported any fair and honourable attempt to extend Canada's cooperation into the shrinking world community of nations that this access might be made possible.

"It is quite understandable, of course, that a training in the psychology of scarcity has made it impossible for the Prime Minister to understand that what Social Crediters have always fought for is the proper evaluation of foreign trade. We are determined to see to it that the standard of living of the Canadian people is not kept down to a poverty line level -as it has been in much of the time under Mr. King's ministry-by gearing our whole economy to the needs of foreign trade. We will continue to fight for keeping production high, for the release of the abundance we do produce, so that our own Canadian people can enjoy as much of it as they want; and for trading the real surpluses of our production to other nations for their surpluses on a mutually satisfactory basis. We are quite -well aware that trading as freely as possible with other nations will add to the variety of things Canadians can enjoy and will make possible more steady employment for our people, provided exports are matched by imports. But in our cooperation with other nations, Social Crediters hold that Canada must not part with her sovereign integrity to any centralized, 'supra-national' government, such as the Prime Minister seems to wish to do.

"Thinking Canadians are becoming more and more convinced," Mr. Low continued, "that the volume of international trade for Canada which Mr. King talks about so much can never be maintained for any length of time at all unless Social Credit monetary reform is applied in our dominion by a thoroughly democratic government. Further, the Prime Minister is not the only person in Canada desirous of peaceful cooperation among the nations. We are all heartily sick of war and the terrible carnage it has wrought throughout the world. But Mr. King somehow overlooks this fact-peace cannot be built by force. It must be induced. Its foundation must rest in the well-being and happiness of every human family. No form of

The Address-Mr. Shaw

internationalism, power politics or dollar imperialism can possibly compel human satisfaction and therefore peace among human beings."

I regret taking the time to read all that, but it certainly denies the accusations made at a time and in a place where we could not answer them. There is only one other reference I wish to make to this press report. It states:

He did not believe Social Creditors had spoken the true voice of Alberta in parliament.

I wonder if he realizes, now that he has lost five out of the seven members he had in the province, that we are quite justified in saying that we do voice the views of the people of our province?

A matter to which I wish to give some attention is the disposal of certain crown assets. During the past year or eighteen months there have emanated from different sources a number of reports having to do with the wanton destruction of useful and valuable crown assets purchased during the course of the war and disposed of later. We had complaints with respect to the Alaska highway. The people out west are still not satisfied that they got the facts as the facts should be presented with respect to what happened there. Certain reports came out with respect to the destruction of air frames and other parts of aircraft in Calgary. I cannot say that I am completely satisfied with the nature of the so-called investigation that may have been conducted, or with the statements that the government issued from time to time from certain of its offices. The Alaska highway was some distance from my constituency; Calgary was a matter of eighty-five or ninety miles away, but I woke up one morning to find that there was a complaint with respect to this same thing happening in my own constituency, namely, at Penhold No. 2 technical signals unit. I received delegations of civilian employees from the Penhold air school and I received reports from service personnel at the airport. Not desiring to seek publicity with respect to the matter, not desiring to embarrass any department of government or the government itself, I did not run to the press to have this thing carried across Canada. I worked very carefully and conducted a personal investigation. When I was satisfied that all was not well I wired the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). Three days later, on August 28, I received the following wire:

As no report of surplus involving radio equipment at Penhold has been made am referring your telegram to the Department of National Defence for Air.

That made me wonder because I recollected that War Assets Corporation was set up under the guidance of the Minister of Munitions and Supply, who piloted the measure through the house, bringing the corporation into legal existence.

On August 31, I received a wire from Royal Canadian Air Force headquarters in Ottawa, advising me that a senior officer from headquarters in Ottawa had proceeded to Penhold to make a thorough investigation-I emphasize those two words "thorough investigation"-and report back to headquarters here. I considered it strange that an officer of the Royal Canadian Air Force should be sent out to investigate the Royal Canadian Air Force. It does not seem to me completely correct.

On August 28, I was advised by one of the service personnel at Penhold that an order had been issued to halt the destruction. After all, that was the thing I was concerned about, plus what I hoped would be a proper type of investigation.

Quite unknown to me the M.L.A. for Banff-Cochrane was also conducting an investigation into certain reports which he had received respecting Penhold. I did not meet him until after I had wired the Minister of Munitions and Supply. Mr. Wray advised me that he had wired almost everywhere but had become entangled in what appeared to be the spider-web of government red tape. No one seemed to know who enjoyed, if I may use that word, the responsibility of dealing with this matter. The local office of War Assets Corporation at Calgary disclaimed any knowledge of there being surplus goods or that destruction was going on at Penhold. Mr. Wray gave his statement to the press because he did not seem to be able to get to the bottom of this after endeavouring to communicate with responsible officials in the east. He was anxious to have destruction halted.

Mr. Wray in his statement to the press charged that the destruction of materials having a value, let us say, in educational and other fields was going on at Penhold. He charged that J. H. Ross, who had been appointed liaison officer between War Assets Corporation and the provincial departments of education had not been consulted. He charged, moreover, that the local officer of War Assets Corporation was not aware of what was going on.

The Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Gibson) gave out a public statement in answer to the charges contained in the paper, and his answer in actual words, was:

Perfect nonsense. The air force destroys nothing of value.

The Address

Mr. Shaw

Possibly others would have given a similar answer. But the answer was not correct, as was subsequently shown.

On August 28, Mr. Wray received the following telegram from Northwest Air Command, in Edmonton:

Air Commodore Tackaberry proceeding from this headquarters to Calgary by air to-night. Will contact you within few days.

Air Commodore Tackaberry, I understand, was on the special duties list at Ottawa. On two occasions Air Commodore Tackaberry himself stated in Calgary that he was not out there to make an investigation at all, that he was there merely to visit the station, look around and report back to his minister, and then an investigation might or might not be ordered.

Air Commodore Tackaberry proceeded to Penhold and stayed there a very short time, surprisingly short, as a matter of fact. I should like to know the exact nature of the investigation that he made at that point.

Later, on September 5, the Minister of National Defence for Air issued this statement, which was carried by the Canadian Press:

Air Minister Gibson announced he had received a report from Air Commodore Tackaberry concerning peace-time destruction of certain air-borne equipment at No. 2 Technical Signals Unit of the R.C.A.F., Penhold, Alberta, and said that though the original value was approximately $000,000 the actual serviceable parts would not exceed a few hundred dollars. Mr. Gibson said surplus was turned over to War Assets Corporation, and War Assets Corporation gave the order to destroy.

I believe he also stated at the same time that the cost of extraction exceeded the recovery value. But this is the point. I am not concerned whether it was one hundred dollars worth, one hundred thousand dollars worth or one million dollars worth of equipment. It is the principle which I think is the extremely important factor. The Minister of National Defence for Air had stated previously that it was perfect nonsense to say that this material at Penhold was being destroyed. But his own statement later indicated that materials were being destroyed at Pen-hold. For that reason alone I believe that the general public demand which existed out there for a proper investigation into what was going on should certainly have been met.

I have a couple of editorials here one from the Red Deer Advocate. The city of Red Deer is very close to Penhold airport.