Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to deal with some matters which were raised by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) in his speech of yesterday. I think I should begin by giving him this word of encouragement, that alt hon. members on this side of the house, and no doubt all in the House of Commons, appreciate to the full the difficulties and the hard work which a minister of finance in a war-time period must necessarily encounter. Though there may be times when he feels that it is a thankless job, he must also realize that the various criticisms which are made from time to time by his majesty's loyal opposition are made with the veiy honest and sincere desire to help him, and to help the war effort.

I have some comment to make on the minister's address of yesterday because I believe he raised certain points which reflected on the Progressive Conservative party. He indicated that some of us on this side have failed to give praise to the government's anti-inflationary programme. We have been accused from time to time of criticizing the government, but we are now being criticized for failing to praise the administration. The minister set up yesterday-I will not say by design, because frankly I do not think it was by design-what actually was a straw man so far as our position in the matter of an anti-inflationary programme is concerned. It looked to me as if he were out with a lantern in the dark trying to find some non-existent issue upon which he could attack. So that all doubt may be dispelled, I say to him and to other hon. members that the Progressive Conservative party stands for adequate and effective control of inflation in Canada. I do not think the minister meant to characterize us as enemies of inflation control in the dominion, but if he did I would point out to him that this party has consistently attempted to play the game with the gov-erment in connection with their anti-inflation programme. One very good example of that may be cited in the fact that we have not brought down or asked this house to consider any amendment to the budget resolutions.

While perhaps I should not mention this, the minister did in his speech make some reference to pressure groups, not in Canada but in a relationship which he attempted to establish in connection with the republic to the south. So far as this party is concerned we have attempted during this session and in

The Budget-Mr. Graydon

other sessions to plead the cause of various sections of Canada, and I do not think the minister would wish to deny us the opportunity to fulfil that bounden duty which is ours. When one speaks of pressure groups, may I take time to say that after all I do not think the farmers of Canada can be called a pressure group; and more than that, I think if they were so regarded, it would be a pressure exerted not for the purpose of gaining an advantage over someone else but rather for the purpose of trying to establish some measure of equality and justice under the present programme.

Upon the shoulders of the government and the wartime prices and trade board falls the burden of responsibility for the administration of the policy which is now in effect. I do not regard it as an incongruous position to take when we seek to find some remedy for the injustices and inequalities which do exist under the present anti-inflation programme. The voices of labour and of agriculture in the House of Commons it seems to me are still, small voices compared to the voices which are raised throughout the country by these various sections themselves. I do not think that this opposition party can be chided for having given any undue leadership to that. But we have tried so far as we could to bring to the floor of the House of Commons and to the Minister of Finance the views of these people, not in the hope of making it more difficult for the minister or for the government, but rather that the government shall not overlook what we think are very often reasonable suggestions made by these groups from time to time.

I do not think that any of us want to offer apologies on the floor of the house for championing the cause of the little man in Canada, whether he be an agriculturist, or one who is in the lower brackets of labour earnings, or a small retailer. No apology is necessary from this party for championing the cause of these men. The minister asked for the cooperation of members of parliament generally in support of his programme. I should like him to understand our position, because it seems to me that some attention and consideration must be given to the various views that are put forward throughout Canada-in order that the anti-inflation programme of the government shall stand; not for the purpose of attempting in some way to weaken it. Because if inflation were coming in Canada-and God forbid that it should ever come; I think that is the stand we must all take in this chamber;

we must give a lead throughout Canada in the fight to prevent it-if inflation does come it will not be by virtue of the fact that the government gives consideration, and full consideration, to the views that are put forward by these various classes of people, but rather because their views were not listened to and an attempt made to find for them a way out of their difficulties. Only by so proceeding will the policy which the government now has in mind be saved.

I do not know whether these figures are correct, but I am reliably informed that some 400,000. men and women have left the farms in Canada since the war began. It seems to me that under the present man-power policy of the government it is almost impossible to rectify the position in which we now find ourselves. All those who come from agricultural districts will be ready to recognize that one of the reasons why men and women have left the farm in such large numbers is, first of all, that they have found greater returns in other lines of endeavour, and, second, that the conditions under which they work in those other lines are more satisfactory and agreeable to them.

Linked up, therefore, with the whole question of the matter of prices for farm commodities is the man-power situation which now exists in the dominion. I say this in all fairness to the government, that not until some semblance of equity exists between those who work on the land and those who work elsewhere shall we solve the whole problem of farm labour and farm man-power.

The government might well have considered the matter of treating agriculture in Canada as a war-time industry. Very little has been done in this regard; there is little indication that the government has it in mind. The inequalities which to some extent have been perpetuated in the present policy are apt if allowed to continue for any great length of time to have the reverse result to that which the Minister of Finance actually wishes to bring about by an anti-inflation programme.

A common-sense adjustment of inequalities will prevent inflation in this dominion. Failure to take into consideration some of these broad facts may offer opportunity for the breaking of the policy and the programme which the government is sponsoring. The government can give justice and equal treatment to these sections of our population without the danger of inflationary tendencies arising in this coun-

The Budget-Mr. Graydon

try. I say to the minister that history will show our attitude with respect to this matter to be of greater assistance to those who would prevent inflation than the adherence by the government to a policy which I believe does not meet with the approval of certain sections of our people and which creates inequalities and injustices. Therefore I say to the minister in all sincerity that he should heed these warnings before it is too late to prevent this country from plunging into a devastating whirl of inflation, which would be one of the greatest disasters that could occur.

No party in this house has any monopoly upon good citizenship or the desire to do the right thing during a critical period like this. Opinions may differ. The Minister of Finance may be right and I may be wrong, but I am giving the minister my views in this regard with the sincere and honest intention of helping him, so that the very programme he is attempting to carry out in Canada may not be harmed and may not fail. I would say also that we do not take a back seat to any party or any group in parliament in our wholehearted support of domestic and foreign policies which will enable us to contribute our all in this struggle.

I should like now to take up another point. In his address on the budget the hon. member for Lambton-West (Mr. Gray) made some reference to the present policy of our party in connection with national compulsory selective service. These were his words on March 12, as reported at page 1207 of Hansard:

... I am bound to say that in their zeal for a new leader, a new name, and a new platform . . .

The hon. member was referring to the Progressive Conservative party.

. . . the man-power issue has become a good deal more cloudy on the opposition side than it was last year, under the leadership of the hon. member.

There he was referring to the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). If any clarification of our position is needed, I want to say to the house that when the Progressive Conservative party chose a new leader it had definitely in mind the fact that the Manitoba legislature, under the premiership of Hon. John Bracken, endorsed the brief of the Canadian Legion, being the first legislative body in Canada to do so. In that brief will be found these words:

Immediate, complete and scientific mobilization, organization and utilization of all our resources-spiritual, intellectual, natural, financial, agricultural, industrial, man-power-in such manner that Canada may he geared to produce essential foods and munitions and to wage war to her maximum capacity.

When we chose our leader at Winnipeg his uncompromising stand on this point was well known. Let it not be said that this party is ceasing or has ceased to lay emphasis upon the principle of national compulsory selective service. This was made abundantly clear both at the Winnipeg convention and in our keynote speeches in this house, but in case any doubt remains in the mind of a single hon. member here, at the risk of repeating what has been said already let me read this part of the platform and programme of the Progressive Conservative party:

Recognizing that the world struggle in which Canada is engaged requires a total war effort, we believe in compulsory national selective service, and that all those selected to serve in the armed forces should be available for service wherever required. We believe in the effective total utilization and proper allocation for war, by compulsion where necessary, of all the resources of Canada, including agriculture, industry and finance, as well as man-power, and that our aim should be at all times to bring about so far as human means can achieve it, an equality in sacrifice.

Let me aliso point out to the government and hon. members of this house that this party lays the greatest emphasis upon the winning of this war. Our call for a manpower policy for Canada remains unanswered, and the government is playing with fire in failing to tackle this problem manfully and effectively. It is also significant, I think, that the very first plank in the platform of the Progressive Conservative party adopted at Winnipeg was that plank dealing with the war, while the next plank dealt with the rehabilitation of war veterans. So it will be seen at once that our party attaches great significance to those two matters.

I wish now to refer to the amendment and the amendment to the amendment. Perhaps the only comment on the amendment that may be required at the moment is this. We feel that in a time of war such as this we should as far as possible continue our present system rather than change to something new. Such a change, in essence, of course, is what the amendment actually calls for. As to the amendment to the amendment, I should like to comment perhaps at greater length. The adoption of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation amendment I am afraid would mean throwing our financial structure into the realm of politics. In our

27ie Budget-Mr. Graydon

opinion socialism would not lead to better conditions for the Canadian people. The duty of the state is to supervise and control where free enterprise abuses its privileges. Where such abuses arise the state must act immediately and effectively to correct them in the interests of the masses of our people. I fear that if the programme suggested in the amendment to the amendment were adopted-and this I believe is the opinion of a large section of our people-the cure might well be worse than the disease. The policy adopted by this party at the Winnipeg convention in this regard was as follows:

. . . we strongly advocate the strengthening of the basic Canadian tradition of individual initiative and individual enterprise and opportunity, and the freeing of economic activities from bureaucratic controls. Government authority, however, should be maintained and exercised wherever necessary to protect primary producers, workers and consumers from exploitation through such abuses as price fixing combines, monopolies and patent cartels. To those ends we believe that government should seek to create conditions under which the maximum volume of employment and the maximum national income may be assured through the initiative and enterprise of the people themselves.

This policy is vastly different from the policy contained in the amendment moved by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation.

In the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) made certain statements which I think I should not let go unchallenged. He made this statement on February 19, as reported at page 566 of Hansard:

I was disappointed with the statement made last evening by the new leader of the official opposition-

Mr. COLDWELL:

Which debate is the hon. member reading from?

Mr. GRAYDON:

From the debate in reply to the speech from the throne.

Mr. COLDWELL:

That is out of older.

Mr. GRAYDON:

Well, I can deal with it much more simply than by reading it. In effect he said that so far as this party is concerned, as a party in the House of Commons, we are not following a sincere and honest course. He accused me of having utilized my very limited abilities as a lawyer to deal with the question of the amendment which had been moved in the house by his party some time earlier. I believe that upon reflection he would not have attacked the sincerity of purpose of this party and1 of myself, and for that reason I shall not be too hard

on him now. But I must caution the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation that parties, as well as people, who live in glass houses should not throw stones. I say that because by the terms of their amendment they have put themselves in the awkward position of following old-fashioned, old-time party practices, practices from which the Progressive Conservative party entirely dissociates itself.

The amendment contains a bouquet for the old people, for the widows and dependents of those on active service; but with the bouquet is tied a couple of socialistic bricks to be thrown into the House of Commons as well. It seems to me that to tie these classes of our people into such an amendment for the purpose of obtaining support of policies actually unpalatable to the people as a whole does not do justice to them. I deprecate that strategy and those tactics. They brand the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation as one of the old-fashioned political parties in Canada. The amendment to the amendment, and the policy and strategy followed by the party moving it, provides the answer as to why those in Canada who are opposed to old-fashioned political beliefs, strategies and purposes, as well as those who are opposed to socialism, are finding a home in the ranks of the Progressive Conservative party.

In voting against the amendment to the amendment I believe it is unnecessary that I should point out that the most vigorous champions of the sections of our people mentioned in the amendment to the amendment, the poor unfortunates for whom something actually should be done, and the improvement of whose condition we have advocated from time to time, has been the party I now lead in the house. We have been their vigorous champions. We shall continue to be so, and in that regard we will not take a back seat to any group sitting to my left. We are proud to be their champions; and in voting against the amendment to the amendment not only do we affirm once more our policy with respect to the betterment of their conditions, but we deprecate their being used as the means to an end, as is happening in this instance.

May I refer to another matter which affects the Minister of Finance. A few days ago, in a statement in the house respecting the forthcoming victory loan, he asked for the cooperation of members of the house. The Progressive Conservative party which I now have the honour to lead in the house feels that the loan should be raised out of the savings

The Budget-Mr. Howe

of the people. Further than that, I tell the minister that the greatest effort should be made to see to it that holdings bought while the campaign is in progress ought not to be merely temporary holdings, but should be held for the duration of the war.

In my opinion borrowing from the banks is a bad practice. I am sure that is a view with which the minister will readily agree. It is a practice which must be curtailed; it must be wiped out. So far as the loan is concerned, everyone in Canada must throw his full weight into the fight, must pull his full share of the burden. I point out to the minister, too, that when he speaks about various matters being raised in the house which might affect the success of the loan, he might give consideration to another point. One of the factors which in some quarters has been detrimental to the success of some loans has been the belief held by many people that there are many examples of waste and inefficiency in the war effort. But may I say this: so far as the Progressive Conservative party is concerned, both in and out of the house, the minister will have every possible help, every kind of assistance. This I offer to him this afternoon. He deserves everything we can give him, and anything we can give him will be unstintingly offered.

I am not so sure that the people of this dominion fully realize the seriousness of the present war situation. I am not sure that the Prime Minister's declarations on this point have been strong enough. It is the duty of the government, the duty of parliament, the duty of the press, to say clearly to the people that we are still not much past the preparatory stage in our war plans and so far as hostilities go. As hon. members may recall, Mr. Churchill said of Casablanca, not that we were at the beginning of the end, but that we were at the end of the beginning. We are still at the end of the beginning. Victory is a long way off. This country, and other countries among the united nations, must still go through the period of blood, tears, toil and sweat. A long hard road remains in front of us. If there is anything that I as leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition can do to acquaint the people more fully with that fact, then I feel it is my bounden duty to stand in my place in the house and do so.

Many sacrifices will yet be necessary by all of us. While, from time to time, there may be artificial differences in parliament, those differences are small when compared with the major enterprise in which we are engaged. We must all try to do our part as, in our own light as true Canadians, we see it. We must

view our task not simply as members of any political group, but as true Canadians willing to give our all so that victory may be achieved. The government, the opposition, other groups in the house and all sections of this country are human and we can all be expected to make mistakes. But so long as they are honest mistakes they will be forgiven if our enterprise and war effort are carried on along effective and total lines. We must recognize our responsibilities as members of this House of Commons. When this session of parliament concludes its deliberations this year I should like to think that the Canadian people from one end of Canada to the other will know that we have tried to put first things first and to give our major attention to the business of winning this war. We as members of parliament have the right, we have the obligation and the duty, if I may say so, working as we are in a less dangerous field, to try to emulate the courage and the daring of those who have gone to fight for the preservation of the veiy rights that we are enjoying this afternoon in this chamber.

I would close by saying to the government once more that the Progressive Conservative party is anxious and willing to cooperate in any way possible with the government. We are anxious that we shall pursue, a course which shall be in the best interests of the people of Canada and to follow, so far as we can humanly do so the suggestion made the other day by the Prime Minister of Great Britain when he said, "In this critical period through which we are passing, let us keep our eye on the ball."

Mr. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to take

part in this debate for the purpose of covering two matters which I think are of immediate interest to the house. One is 'the accelerated depreciation of war plants, and the other is the arrangement between the government and the Aluminum Company of Canada Limited covering the expansion of the aluminum industry and the building of the Shipshaw power development.

I think we all read last evening in the Ottawa Journal an article extracted from the publication PM of New York. This was headed:

U.S. Financed Shipshaw Plant.

In the evening Citizen the heading is:

Canadian Plant is Financed by American Funds.

As a matter of fact this is wholly incorrect. The Shipshaw development was built with

The Budget-Mr. Howe

the corporate funds of the Aluminum Company of Canada Limited. I should like to make that clear. I intend to cover the whole story of the aluminum project before I sit down, but in passing I shall deal with this article, which states further:

The .$68,500,000 given Aluminum Limited by the United States government is an advance against-

Such and such a contract. It goes on to say that should the government decide to cancel the contract, Aluminum Limited will not be accountable for the balance. That is not a correct statement, as the cancellation clause in the agreement is in very different terms. Further on the article states:

The dispatch said the contracts between the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and the Aluminum Limited of Canada provide that the United States pay 15 cents a pound for aluminum destined for its own use, but 17 cents a pound for lend-lease use.

That is wholly erroneous. All the aluminum produced in Canada is sold at the same price to whoever buys it. In other words, the price to Great Britain in Canada is the same as the price to the United States in Canada. The price that Canada pays for aluminum is the same price that Australia pays. I think those are the main facts to which exception must be taken. I mention them in passing, but I intend to refer to them later on.

I read in the Montreal Gazette this morning a report of a statement made yesterday in the Ontario house by Colonel Drew. Colonel Drew said:

Mr. Symington had advised the spending of $100,000,000 of public funds on the Shipshaw development in the Saguenay river in Quebec.

As I said before, there were no public funds spent on the Shipshaw development; the development was paid for by the corporation. I may say, in passing, that I should not like to have Colonel Drew's responsibility for explaining what he did in this great war, as a contribution to the winning of this war. He is a man trained as a soldier. So far as I know, he has not offered his services in any capacity of that kind. He has made it his practice to attack public men who are carrying heavy responsibilities, with no more consideration for the facts than he has given in his statement here. In that regard he has the unenviable record of not having made good any charge he has made.

Mr. GRAYDON:

May I ask the minister

a question?

Mr. HOWE:

No, I have the floor.

Mr. GRAYDON:

May I ask just one

question?

Mr. HOWE:

No.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

He did offer his services at the beginning of the war. That is an untrue statement and it should be withdrawn.

Mr. HOWE:

You may answer at the proper time.

Mr. GRAYDON:

On the point of order, I think the minister should have granted me the courtesy of permitting me to ask for one item of information.

Mr. HOWE:

My hon. friend has just made a forty minute speech with no interruptions.

Mr. GRAYDON:

I quite understand that, but I did not make any statement in my speech of a character similar to that made by the minister. The minister has made the statement that Colonel Drew has not offered his services during this war, and my information is that he has.

Mr. HOWE:

Perhaps we each have different information.