Mr. SPEAKER:

The question may be permitted only with the permission of the hon. member who has the floor.

Sit down.

Mr. NICHOLSON:

Would the hon. member enumerate the commodities on which we must cut down?

Mr. ABBOTT:

I am coming to that later.

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

Let him make his speech.

Mr. ABBOTT:

In the matter of distributing the burden, the government or the state can be only the directive agency. It is not a fairy godmother, as so many people seem to think. And, if I may paraphrase Mr. Lincoln's words, wars are fought by the people and for the people. Every person in this country must realize that he is receiving part of his wages and part of his salary in the form of armaments and national defence. The man who does not reduce his purchasing power,

or who increases it, is simply obtaining something for nothing at the expense of somebody else in the community.

The task confronting the Minister of Finance is that of transferring civilian resources and civilian production to war purposes, and to choose between the different methods of distributing the burden among the different classes of the community. As the minister pointed out in his admirable speech, there are three main methods of distributing that burden. The first is taxation, the second is borrowing from genuine savings, and the third is inflation. All three are means whereby the citizen who has purchasing power in his pocket or in his bank account is compelled or induced to part with a portion of it to the government for war purposes.

Taxation of course takes purchasing power once and for all. Borrowing takes away a certain amount of purchasing power, but it leaves the lender with the expectation that he will be able to exercise that purchasing porver at a later date, perhaps at the expense of some other group in the community which has not saved during the war.

The third method, namely inflation, as we all know permits the citizen to spend as much as he did before, but sees to it that he does not get so much for what he spends. The Minister of Finance must balance the proportions of taxation and borrowing. I think it is recognized that in a war of this kind it is not practicable to raise the entire cost by taxation as we go along. But whatever method he adopts, whatever proportion he decides should prevail as between taxation and borrowing, the difference between the national income in the hands of the public and the amount of goods available for civilian consumption must be made good, either voluntarily or by the enforced renunciation of spending.

May I illustrate with a concrete example. The figures which I shall give are purely arbitrary, although they do bear some relation to the actual facts. Let us assume for the purposes of argument that the national output of goods and services has a value in terms of dollars and cents of $4 billion. The other day my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) said that he thought $44 billion was too high. I think it is too low, but I have taken S4 billion knowing that it will not alter the principle of the example which I intend to give. We have a total output of $4 billion, and the government takes $1| billion of that for war and ordinary administrative purposes. By the process of simple subtraction, this leaves available for civilian consumption. S2J billion.

The Address-Mr. Abbott

For the purposes of my illustration I shall eliminate the question of external assets, because we are not, generally speaking, a creditor nation. The national income will be the same as the national output, $4 billion. Assume that the government takes $1 billion in the form of taxation; then we have left S3 billion. We have S3 billion in the pockets or the bank accounts of the public, with available goods and services to the value of $2J billion to meet it. If the public refrains from trying to spend this extra $500 million and saves it, of course the problem is solved, but if it does not, if it insists on spending it, the law of supply and demand will operate and prices will rise. In the case of the example I have given, the increase will be 20 per cent; if the public saves half, prices would rise 10 per cent. But in any case prices will rise until the money in the hands of the public equals the value of the goods available for purchase or consumption.

This initial rise no doubt would cause little disturbance. Generally speaking, the resultant profits from such a rise would go to a restricted class of people, the manufacturers, traders and so on, and it would probably be fairly easy to get at least a substantial part of that back by taxing that restricted class. But the increased prices are bound to result in a demand for increased wages. Such a demand is bound to be successful in part, although it will never catch up with the increase in prices. This in turn will result in the necessity for further increases in order to maintain equilibrium. It must be remembered that the government will have to continue to make its purchases of materials and war supplies at the higher prices. This will mean in turn more money in the hands of the public.

Of course the government, which has control of the banking and currency system, can always find the cash with which to pay for these purchases of internally produced goods. So the inflationary process goes on. Everyone agrees that inflation is the most disastrous method of financing a war. By the process of inflation governments can secretly and unobserved confiscate a substantial portion of the income of its citizens. While such a process impoverishes many, it may enrich or increase the wealth of some. Lenin is supposed to have said that the best way to destroy the capitalistic system was to debauch the currency. I do not know whether he actually said that, but I am sure that if he did, he was right.

Perhaps one of the most serious results of inflationary finance is the fact that those who have to bear the heaviest burden are impoverished, and quite naturally as a result they entertain serious and dangerous feelings

of grievance. I do not think it is unfair to say that the rise of the nazi regime in Germany was due, in part at least, to the violent hatred engendered among large classes of the population against the Jews who were alleged to have been the profiteers of the German inflationary period. It is interesting in passing to note that the nazis are using an inflationary technique in the occupied countries of Europe. Instead of carrying on the outright theft of foodstuffs and raw materials which they find in these countries, they are practising a form of looting by paying for these materials with a paper currency which will have a less than doubtful value in the future. This would seem to be a modern method of debauching the conquered.

Against all the disadvantages of inflation, there is one outstanding advantage, or perhaps I should say temptation. Inflation is politically easy. No one has to take any responsibility for it and no one ever takes any responsibility. It never appears in any budget resolution and parliaments are never asked to approve it. It is nature's remedy and, as Mr. Keynes says, if nothing else is done, it just happens.

In a long, costly war the restricting of civilian consumption by taxation and by borrowing is both unpleasant and distasteful. But it must be realized by the public that it is the war itself and not the method of financing the war which determines the price which must be paid by the community as a whole. There is no magic way of making such payment. If we choose inflation, we should do it with a knowledge of the grave risks we are running. We should do it with the knowledge that we are still making the same sacrifice, but are running the risk of incurring all the evils which inflation is bound to bring and which inflation has always brought in its wake.

Mr. JAQUES:

What about deflation?

Mr. ABBOTT:

The ideal thing would be to have neither inflation nor deflation but stability, and that is what we have. What I have been saying is not, of course, of such importance, nor will its truth perhaps be apparent in the early stages of this war before all our unemployed men and resources have been absorbed. But when that time arrives, and in my opinion it is arriving very rapidly, then it will become of vital importance. While statesmen or politicians can give leadership in these things, in t'he final analysis, under our democratic system, it is public opinion and the people that must prevail. In order to avoid inflation we must practise the old-fashioned virtue of thrift; we must eliminate luxurious non-essentials in order that we can release as much of our production

The Address-Mr. Abbott

as possible for war purposes. We must avoid all expenditures, both public and private, which are not directly connected with winning the war, with keeping our economic machine functioning or with maintaining the health, skill and strength of our people.

Mr. JAQUES:

You have been saying thait for twenty years.

Mr. ABBOTT:

We will probably keep on saying it for another twenty years. We must be ready to pay just taxes gladly. We must buy government bonds and war savings certificates. Some people- believe that it is possible to control public spending by a system of rationing and price-fixing. The Minister of Finance dealt with that very fully, and in my view at least, very satisfactorily the other day.

The principal objections to a form of general rationing-perhaps I should interject that some form of rationing and price-fixing may well form part of a plan of war financing-lie in the great diversity of the needs and tastes of the individual. In the case of certain articles, such as bread, bacon, tea or sugar, rationing may not cause great hardship, although even in those things the needs and tastes of the individual vary very considerably. But when you go down the list of the thousand and one things that people use and buy-clothing, shoes, dental and medical services, etc., it is obvious that not only the tastes but the needs of individuals vary considerably and that it would be absurd to issue a ration ticket to each individual for identical quantities of a particular commodity or service. It would require in addition an enormous police force, involving an enormous waste of man or woman power, to see that such a plan was enforced. It would have to be tied in with a policy of price fixing; but general price fixing unaccompanied by restriction of purchasing power would undoubtedly have the effect of increasing the pressure of consumption and facilitating the conversion of money income into the use and depletion of valuable resources, and if the supply for civilian consumption were restricted it is almost certain that shortages and unfairness of distribution would result.

It is highly improbable, Mr. Speaker, that wealthy individuals or corporations will become any wealthier in this war. If there are any such cases they will be very rare indeed. I think we can take it for granted that those, both individuals and corporations, in the medium and higher income brackets will be taxed to the highest possible extent, and I for one hope that they will. To me the major issue is going to be whether the mass of the people make their sacrifice by

savings and lending to the government or whether they have their purchasing power taken away from them by inflation. In my view at any rate, as compared with the orderly limitation of spending by taxation, according to accepted standards, and by borrowing from genuine savings, either voluntary or enforced, the unregulated impact of currency inflation inflicts hardships all the greater because their consequences cannot be calculated and because they are unfair in their incidence.

My hon. friend the leader of the opposition, in his speech two weeks ago, charged the government with imposing tremendously heavy and oppressive taxation, and he went on to say that there was no equality of sacrifice in the 1940 budget. He did not elaborate that theme, although I recall that he and all his supporters voted in favour of the amendment to impose a 100 per cent excess profits tax. But whatever he may have meant, to me in the sort of war which we are fighting to-day it seems sheer nonsense to say that the taxes imposed in the 1940 budget are oppressive.

I listened the other day to the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) describing conditions in his part of the country, and I heard the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) a little later describing similar conditions. I have heard it, of course, from western members on all sides of the house, and while I may and do disagree with some of those members as to the causes of those conditions and where the blame should attach, none of us I think will deny that those conditions exist. Surely my hon. friend does not believe that people who are living under those conditions can be expected to make further sacrifices and be further taxed for the costs of our war effort. I think it is fair to say, in view of the abnormally low prices of primary products and the tendency to fix those prices which exists, I gather, from the report the other day of the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner), that the farming community of this country are already paying a substantial amount of unrecorded taxation. I do not see how we can ask them, nor should they be asked, to make further sacrifices.

Taxes must follow the direction in which expenditure is flowing, and we all know that war expenditure is flowing largely in the form of salaries and wages in the industrial centres. I am convinced that it is from that class of our population that we must expect to get the main portion of our tax revenue and the main portion of our savings and borrowings by the government, whether those savings are, as I said before, voluntary or compulsory.

The Address-Mr. Abbott

So far we seem to have got along very satisfactorily. I have no desire to assume the role of a prophet, but I cannot help feeling that if this war lasts as long as I believe it will, and if we are required to make the sacrifices that I believe we shall have to make, we may have to resort to a system of enforced saving such as that suggested by the well-known economist J. M. Keynes. If we do, I hope and I believe that the people of the country will accept it and accept it willingly as a part of the sacrifice and the contribution which we must make in order to win this war.

In his magnificent speech delivered in this house two weeks ago to-night the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) reminded the house that the only limitations the government was prepared to place on Canada's war effort were those imposed by the extent of our resources, both human and material, and by our capacity for sacrifice. Everyone in this country must realize, Mr. Speaker, that this war cannot be won without sacrifices, and that means sacrifices on the part of all the people of this country, not on the part of some alone. I am not one of those who believe that inflation, the most unfair method of financing the war, is inevitable. I believe that we can, that we must and will take the hard way.

Moreover, I am not unduly apprehensive as to what our position will be after the war is over. We shall still have our fertile soil, we shall still have our forests and our mines. We shall still have our skilled workers, and our productive facilities will presumably be largely expanded. I cannot believe that it is beyond the ability and the character of the Canadian people to see that the post-war Canada will be both a better and a happier place in which to live.

Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln) : Mr. Speaker, referring first to the

hon. members who moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne, may I content myself with merely observing that I believe they have now been sufficiently eulogized in this house for their addresses, and I will just say "amen" to what has been said.

In examining what was contained in the speech from the throne, we noticed that there were no particular suggestions to which we could direct our observations and our criticisms; consequently we were in the difficult position of having to wait until the ministers made their statements, or, as they have sometimes^ been called, their essays, to this house.

It is the right of every member to make observations and criticisms, and no one relishes the inference that in so doing he is actuated

by any particular bias. We are here to represent the Canadian people as a whole. We must accept the statements which have been presented up to the present time to this house, and presumably we are supposed to be satisfied with the limited information which we have been given. We hope that we shall receive also a statement from the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty). In part, or, let me say, to the greater extent, I myself am not satisfied with what we have been told.

We have been informed of the vast expenditures which, as all the people know, are evident on all sides. But the public are still without the more definite information for which they supposed this parliament had been called. If we were able to get more definite information, and if this house were to continue to sit until we got it, the public would have considerably more confidence than they feel at the present time. To the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) let me say that every one of us realizes the tremendous responsibility which he carries, but our desire is to share that responsibility with him, and considerable regret has been expressed across Canada that he has not followed in this regard more in the footsteps of Britain's man of the hour, Winston Churchill. It has been said that the statement made by our Prime Minister savours too much of lip service. Perhaps that is true, perhaps it is not; but in this hour of crisis he seems to have left most of the burden to rest upon the war committee of the cabinet and other members of his government.

I deem it my duty to point out briefly some of these deficiencies as I see them. I do not do so as a carping critic, and I hope they will be accepted in the constructive spirit in which I am presenting them. Our desire, and I am sure it is shared by all the people of Canada, is to stop the aggressor and drive the enemy ultimately to cover. We desire to join together all the forces which we can assemble to set free the peoples of the world, to give them liberty to worship and to speak as they will.

In the brief time at my disposal I intend to make a few references to some statements which have been given to this house. My first reference will be to certain remarks of the minister who combines the portfolios of agriculture and national war services (Mr. Gardiner). If his speech is carefully read it will be seen that it is divided into three parts. I prefer to deal with them in the reverse order to that in which he presented them.

We all were proud and pleased to have the first-hand information which he gave the Canadian people, telling of the heroic fortitude of the people in the motherland, who are our kith and kin. We rejoice at their courage.

The Address-Mr. Lockhart

We heard also a report of the minister's activities and contacts with the government of the United Kingdom so far as the sale of Canadian products is concerned. It is quite evident that they desire to purchase from us. I was quite pleased to hear the hon. member who just preceded me (Mr. Abbott) emphasize the fact that already our farmers have made a tremendous sacrifice. It is about time, if we are to believe that this house, in particular in these days of war, is not a partisan body, that members of all parties rose and expressed their opinions as freely as the previous speaker has done.

Great Britain desires to purchase from us. We wish to do business with her. There has been briefly outlined in this house the financial strain to which Britain is going to be subjected. Already we see references to it in the press. As a Canadian, I say that the time lias come when, if they cannot pay, we have got to give. We have to find every possible way to meet this emergency, even though, as I have said, we have to provide from our own funds. Great Britain has long kept open the channels of the seas. To that achievement we, in spite of what has been said by the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald), have contributed but the widow's mite. We must do more in that respect.

As regards the third portion of the minister's remarks, I believe it would have been better left unsaid. Somebody remarked in days long ago, whether writing in prose or poetry I do not know, "Use what language we will, we cannot make ourselves anything more than we are". I did not like the political references made by the minister at the beginning of his remarks; it seemed to me that they cast a cloud, so to speak, over the rest of his speech. Canada must have more vision at this time. At the beginning of the session the Prime Minister assured us that there would be no partisanship, and I think we are all agreed that partisanship should not form any part of our war effort at this time. I urge upon the Minister of National War Services that he be very careful not to cast any doubt upon the ability of industry to do its part in this war. A rather damaging inference has gone across the country. I have already received information as ito the results of it, and I urge upon him to be careful and to take steps to see that it does not occur again.

I further ask the minister not to discredit in any way the ability of our workers to do their share in this conflict. There is an inference throughout the country in pegging of wages of our workers. I say to the minister, "Peg costs in Canada before you start to peg what the man is earning by the sweat of his brow". I think we might direct to the minister's attention some of the references that are just off the press, printed in the Canadian Corigress Journal, under the editorship of Tom Moore, a man who is recognized for his ability. I commend these references to the minister and ask him to read them carefully and inwardly digest them.

I have received many letters, and other members of the house have no doubt received such letters, with respect to the cost of administration in Ottawa at the present time. I therefore urge upon the minister, before he allows any reflections to be cast upon the industrialists or workers or anyone else, that he make sure that his house here is set. in order.

The minister has told us of the continuing reduction in prices to the farmers of Canada. This subject was referred to a few minutes ago by another speaker. We all desire to sell as cheaply as possible to Britain; undoubtedly Britain needs our aid in every respect. But our farmers must exist, the same as any other class in the country, and as Minister of Agriculture the hon. gentleman should see to it that our farmers receive eveiry possible consideration at this time. I wish to associate myself, in part at least, indeed, with all that was said by my deskmate the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). In the approach that is being made to the farmers they find that they are not receiving proper consideration. This has been referred to in the house on previous occasions by many speakers. The pegging of prices continues and multiplies. The announcement made in connection with bacon will have to be accepted by the Canadian farmer, but these same farmers cannot understand why ait this time the cost of bran, shorts, middlings and other feed products for their live stock continues to climb, with the country full of wheat, and with the price of wheat pegged. These are things that the farmer cannot understand.

If I were to take time to read one of the comments from a farmer who shows me distinctly that his actual profit on ten acres of wheat is $35.12-and it is worked out in a very careful way-the minister would realize the difficulty which the farmer faces. The payrolls of industrial workers are reaching high level's, and we know that they are working for it. Raw materials and finished products are climbing. When the farmer goes to buy his implements for farming, what does he pay? He is between two fires, and it is high time that something definite be done to relieve the situation.

We are told thait the British government does not want our fresh fruits and vegetables, and properly so. Perhaps they are not a requisite over there at the present time. Perhaps they will take only a limited quantity

The Address-Mr. Lockhart

of canned fruits and vegetables and basic products of the farm. I associate myself not only with what the hon. member for Peel has said, but with the remarks of the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling), who points out the position of the fruit and vegetable growers of Canada. They are between two fires; sales are limited in the United Kingdom, and yet, as the hon, member for Peel has said, we are allowing something like $18,000,000 worth of fruit and vegetables to come in from the United States. Hansard will give the exact figures, but I believe that is the quantity that has come in thus far.

Twenty-four millions.

Mr. LOCKHART:

An hon. member corrects me. At any rate, it is many millions. I wish to impress upon the Minister of Agriculture the position of the Canadian farmer. I repeat, he is between two fires: no market over there, for obvious reasons, while at the same time this great influx of commodities into Canada is permitted. The possibility of a market in the United Kingdom is limited, and the home market is taken away to this extent. One of the first duties of the minister is to continue his efforts, because under the special provisions of the trade agreement with the United States there is no reason in the world why the situation cannot be frankly laid before the government of that country; and, judging from their attitude in every other respect, I do not see why great things cannot be accomplished ait this time for the benefit of the farmers and producers.

Mr. HOMUTH:

He is not a Minister of Agriculture but Minister of War Services.

Mr. LOCKHART:

Well, I want the

Minister of Agriculture and of War Services, and of all other departments with which he is associated, to do the best he can in this matter. He represents the Minister of Trade and Commerce in Great Britain in some respects. I suggest that he take the Minister of National Revenue, or some other authority, to the United States with him, as apparently he did when he went to the old land.

There is something else he might do under the authority of the Minister of National Revenue. He could not only give some protection to the Canadian farmer but, in conjunction with the Minister of National Revenue as his proxy, he could see what might be done about keeping some $6,500,000 worth of United States periodicals out of Canada. Our foreign exchange must be protected, and I fail to see that all these periodicals now being admitted into this country are an essential service. So I direct the attention of the minister to this possibility of saving exchange.

Now I pass on to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), who I am sorry is not in the house. I appreciate, however, that he is away giving even greater service to our cause. I congratulate the minister on his frank admission of some of the deficiencies in our war effort. He has told us that many things are lacking, and has promised that this situation will be remedied as quickly as possible. Yesterday I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) rush to defend the withholding of information concerning Bren guns. Well, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding anything the hon. member may say, the general public expected the minister to give us complete information in regard to this important matter, without any explanations from any other hon. member of this house. The minister referred to certain units that had been enlisted as machine gun units. After many, many months of delay they were demoted, as they called it, and made into infantry units. They did not enlist as infantry units, and they are continuing to beg for machine guns with which to train. The minister has made it clear that not a great deal of this equipment is available, but his words will give some encouragement to these men, who now hope that some day they may be placed back in their original category.

Then I come to the question of the thirty day training, though I do not want to say very much about it. I 'have given rides to many scores of soldiers on our highways, and only last Saturday one chap said to me in this regard, "Well, at last that joker has been taken from the pack, anyway." Certainly we want trained soldiers, and I commend the minister on his statement that now these men are to be given training that will fit them to take their places beside our other soldiers in the main line of defence, which is across the sea.

Then I would ask the Minister of National Defence, or his associate, who I believe is acting in his place, to look into the food rations being issued to some of these units. I would also ask the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner), who seems able to handle a great many jobs, to take on the task of seeing that properly trained cooks are supplied to these units. I could give some specific instances if I wished, but it is only necessary to go into these training centres and hear what the men are saying in order to learn the situation. I could give some glaring instances, but I would prefer to give them in private to those in authority.

The Address-Mr. Lockhart

The Minister of National War Services has a real job to do, and I will ask him either to do the work seriously himself or to find someone who is competent to help him.

Then there is the question of free transportation for soldiers, which rests squarely on the shoulders of the Minister of National Defence. This matter has been referred to many times in this house, and I should like to add my word as well. Surely if we want the highest possible esprit de corps among the limited number of men who have been enlisted so far we should try to make this Christmas and New Year's the happiest possible occasion by giving them some form of free transportation in order that they may get home to their loved ones; some of them, perhaps, for the last time. So that with all the sincerity I possess, I urge upon the minister that he give this suggestion his very earnest attention.

The announcement made by the Minister of National Defence that in future all officers will have to come from the ranks will create more good feeling, I believe, than he may conceive at the moment. Many of the ordinary soldiers will tell you what they have been up against in this regard. I hope that what I am about to say does not apply to any hon. member in this house; but if any hon. member has used his influence to have incompetent young men in their teens put in charge of some of our real volunteer soldiers; if he has used his influence to get preference for these young men, openly and before the world I say to him, "Shame." I have heard that charge made on more than one occasion, but now the minister has made it abundantly clear that if this practice existed in the past it will not be tolerated in future.

There is just one other mystery upon which I should like to comment. Who will stand in his place in this house and say that to-day our front line trenches are not on the English channel and along the shores of the Mediterranean? No one even thinks otherwise, but I want to recall a statement that was made in this house not so very long ago, in which we were told that the Canadian parliament would decide to what extent, if any, Canada would participate in this war. I think all hon. members will recall that statement. Then if we turn to page 200 of Hansard for this session we find a question which was asked and answered; hon. members can look it up for themselves. And the minister hastened -yes, hastened-in reply to the question asked, to assure some unseen minority, a handful of men, wherever they may be in Canada, men who were once described as those who wanted to run to the bush in the event of an emergency, that notwithstanding anything connected with the extension of the training period they would not have to serve outside of Canada. I have no thought but to condemn anybody who does not recognize that our front line of trenches is on the English channel and in the Mediterranean. I have no apologies to offer when I make that statement. Consequently I regret the minister's taking so much trouble, as recorded in Hansard, to bring out so clearly the point in question. I wonder how our volunteers, who, for reasons which I am not at liberty to express at the moment, are discontented, would take such utterances.

Then, we find another echo in another chamber of this building. From that chamber we are told that we were doing all England expected us to do. Mr. Speaker, I happen to come of British stock, and I believe I share that characteristic, one of which I am justly proud, with most other hon. members in the chamber. Members of my family have gone to south Africa, Australia and New Zealand, the same, I am sure, as the relatives and friends of other hon. members have done. The -world knows it, the people in other countries know it, the people of our sister dominions know it, the people in Canada know it-and I believe I could produce correspondence to prove that England made no effort to restrain them. Therefore I cannot understand why the voice of this government echoes in another chamber the statement that there was a limitation placed upon Canada.

Some day history will reveal the facts. Some day the excuse given in this chamber that it is not in the best interests of Canada that we be told anything will be exploded, and at last the information will be forthcoming. Historians will then write the history of Canada, and at that time I believe it will be found that the Canadian people, not through any fault of their own, were retarded in their efforts to defend the empire. I believe it will be shown that this country had the same opportunity -as the sister dominions had to do its work, and that it would have done that work had it been given the opportunity to do so. The communications I receive from friends and relatives in those countries, and what I learn from personal conversations, do not fit in with the reports which have been given the house, and which continue to be echoed. Yet we cannot get official information. Some day we will get it. Some day the historians will record the actual position in which Canada found herself.

I must hurry on. Hon. members appreciate the observations of the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power). We appreciate his observations respecting the air training plan-retarded again, perhaps, for reasons which we do not yet know. Nevertheless a

The Address-Mr. Lockhart

valiant effort is being and has been made, one which has accomplished great things in the development of the air training scheme. We know that the gallant behaviour of the small number of Canadian airmen who so far have gone overseas will be reflected manyfold in the work of the men being turned out in the Royal Canadian Air Force. Hon. members on this side of the house encourage all that work. We are behind the minister in his efforts. I do not think there is a Canadian citizen who is not proud of what has been done up to the present time, or who would refuse in the future to do anything within his power.

Apparently the time 'has come when we may speak of our navy in terms other than those of ratings and officers. While in the limited opportunity they have had, our seamen have accomplished much, still greater things are looked for, and it is our hope that we may take our rightful position alongside the motherland in sweeping the seas clear of enemy craft. But I did not like the press comments of a few days ago, one in which the political inference crept in. An attempt has been made to explain it away, but the Canadian public are still smarting under the inference, and their annoyance is felt at a time when the nation is pressing for realities.

May I say a word respecting the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). Hon. members appreciated his extensive statement in which he outlined the huge expenditures whidh have been made. We have to win the war, and we have to find money to finance it. We have to provide our men with the necessary equipment. However I would suggest that the minister would do well to read an article appearing in the Canadian Unionist of October, 1940, in which we find the following statement:

One hundred Canadian industries are being financed by the government in order that they may engage in war production.

These are the words of workers. It continues:

Twenty-five of these plants are new. These one hundred industries are financed from the public treasury; they are nominally owned by the state, but not one of them is operated by the government.

That procedure 'has been explained. Then, it continues:

All of them are operated by private companies for private profit under contractual conditions.

Labour is just a little disturbed. Labour expected that at this session we would have more information as to how those contracts were developed, and how they are to be operated. We still have no information, although labour is asking for it. The people

of Canada are still asking for it; yet we have almost reached the stage of adjournment, and we have not received it.

Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):

I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but before he leaves the question of war services may I ask him if he has made a statement to the effect that in some way the effort of Canada has been retarded? I did not quite follow him.

Mr. LOCKHART:

That is the impression which has gone abroad. If the minister will permit me to say so, that is the general impression throughout Canada. The general impression is that the progress of Canada's war effort has been retarded for some reason or another-some reason we cannot find. We cannot get the information, and for that reason labour, industry and everyone else is still seeking information. Yet, we have not got it, despite the fact that we are drawing close to the time for adjournment. That is the inference I want to make.

There is another aspect of this matter to which I should like to refer. Only a few days ago a soldier and a gentleman stood up in this House of Commons to offer criticism of the government and make certain statements. I repeat that he is a soldier and a gentleman, and anyone who heard him speak will acknowledge that he is. While it is true that certain words which were used have been deleted from Hansard, I think someone owes this courteous gentleman and soldier an apology for allowing this language to be broadcast through the country and in the press. I associate myself with what the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) had to say. From first-hand knowledge I know that many of his statements are true. Some day we will foe able to get information about those matters which were touched upon briefly by the hon. member.

It is to be hoped that the Minister of Munitions and Supply some day will give us more information about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We are hoping that that will happen, and1 the Canadian people are hoping that that will happen. Someone says that perhaps it is a pious hope. Some day when we are able to get answers to the questions we may ask we will be able to learn why the minister has so persistently hung on to this particular branch of service to Canada.

The Minister of Finance made a very careful statement to this house, and we appreciate what he said. It has been said that it took a Churchill to awaken England, and I think the facts presented by the Minister of Finance will awaken the Canadian people to a realization of what they are up

The Address

Mr. Lockhart

against. We are hoping-it may be a pious hope-that when the estimates come down we will find that the Minister of Finance has seen fit to eliminate all unnecessary services and the payment of salaries to men about whom we can obtain very little information. Such expenditures dhould be eliminated. Economy in administration at this time will give the people more confidence-I assure the minister that that is the feeling abroad1- than anything else he can do in this emergency.

I join with the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) in his remarks about organizations being quite willing to help in our war effort. I know of service clubs ;by the tens, of men's and women's organizations which are looking for some leadership. They are floundering around looking for something to keep them busy, and I urge upon the government the wisdom of utilizing their services.

Last year we heard insults 'thrown across the floor of the house at the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) in connection with the construction of tanks. Surely any hon. member who is not politically biased will admit now that every statement made by the horn, member in that connection has been proved to be true. The evidence is here, because we are now producing tanks. Let us face the facts. Let us be fair to Canada at this time. I urge all hon. members to get up and express their own opinions.

I want to associate myself with the references which have been made to housing. The housing situation is urgent, and not only in the military centres. There is an article in the Canadian Congress Journal entitled "Housing in War-time" which I direct to the attention of the minister. We are informed that home improvement loans have been discontinued. There are scores of young married men and older men who are just recently in receipt of permanent pay envelopes. Many of them are ready to make the necessary improvements to their homes, but they have no facilities to borrow from private enterprise. They are not able to borrow from the government. There is also the inference in the press that the National Housing Act is to be further limited in its scope.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I am sorry to have to inform the hon. member that his time has elapsed.

Mr. LOCKHART:

May I have a minute to complete my remarks?

Mr. SPEAKER:

With the unanimous consent of the house.

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

We have been consenting for ten minutes now.