Mr. JACKMAN:

"Liberal".

Mr. CROLL:

Liberal taxation; it has been pretty fair. It has not done too badly by my hon. friend. I have heard a lot of talk about taxation, but it is a privilege, and my hon. friend should know it, to pay taxes in a country such as Canada. A great number of people would like the opportunity to pay taxes in this country, and I have not seen anyone become poor as a result of paying taxes.

Mr. KUHL:

Most of it is legalized robbery.

Mr. CROLL:

My hon. friend comes from Alberta, and he knows legalized robbery when he sees it.

Mr. JACKMAN:

The people of ward 2 will find out.

Mr. CROLL:

Mr. MERRITT:

That is not the point at all. -

Mr. J. S. SINNOTT (Springfield):

I rise to take part in this debate although what I am about to say may not be taken very kindly by some hon. members on this side of the house. Having been the head of a municipality for a number of years I can see the difficulty which will be placed on the small municipalities and cities. I should have no objection to this bill had it contained a taxation clause which the ordinary business man has to contend with. Having seen airfields being built, having seen lands acquired by the dominion which took up the large part of certain municipalities^ having seen public buildings subject to no tax, having seen roads, schools, hospitals and other services going behind in small communities, I think it is time we saw to it that the dominion government should not be so high and mighty that it is not subject to taxation.

We have to keep in mind the little fellow. After all, in Canada to-day the little fellow is paying the major portion of the taxes, and

as private members of this house it is up to us to support the man who is paying the taxes. If this bill contained a clause which would make the companies subject to taxation, I should.have no objection to it, because I believe there is nobody who is more capable of expanding the industry of Canada than the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe). He has had experience in war time. If we have his guidance in peace time, I think we can do a lot toward helping the poorer classes of this country. I do not see how private enterprise can compete with a business alongside of it which is paying no taxes. It is not fair to private enterprise; it is not fair to the little community in which the government business is situated. Had this bill contained such a section I would have supported it. In the present circumstances I cannot.

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

There has been a certain amount of controversy on the issue of government companies versus private enterprise. There are a few thoughts which I should like to express concerning that issue. A certain amount of support of this bill has been expressed by hon. members on the government side, but I have not yet heard a clear statement from the minister or from any of his political supporters as to the real reason why the government must set up these corporations.

Why is it necesary for the government to go into business in the manner in which they intend to do under this bill? From listening to what has gone on I have not been able to discover just how far they intend to go in the matter of setting up these corporations. As a matter of principle I should like to hear a clear-cut statement on the part of the minister as to just why it is necessary for the government to enter into business in peace time in competition with private enterprise. I think that raises a very fundamental question which has been referred to already by several members of the Progressive Conservative party; that is, whether the carrying on of business is a legitimate government function. I agree with the statement made last evening by the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Case) who said he considered the chief function of' a government was that of legislating, not entirely carrying on regulatory or administrative action. Personally I agree with that thought. I cannot agree that the carrying on of business by the government is legitimate in any way whatsoever. As a general principle I say a government should do for the people what they cannot do for themselves; and I think the people of this nation have demonstrated that they

Government Companies

are quite capable of conducting their own businesses. Consequently I cannot see any real reason why a government should go into any business at all during peace time.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, * I cannot see what purpose such actions serve, what is gained by a government going into business. I have observed right along our C.C.F. friends claiming that the government must go into business because private industry has failed. I do not consider that it has failed. I believe the C.C.F. charge private enterprise with having failed because they are charging private enterprise falsely. They are holding it responsible for things for which it is not responsible. Therefore it is quite easy to charge it. Last evening the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) and others stated that we have a quarter of a million unemployed and that private industry is doing nothing about it. To hold private enterprise responsible for employment, as my colleague the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) stated last evening, is to hold it responsible for something for which it is not responsible. In all these discussions we should get down to a basis of fundamentals, and in considering this or any other similar bill I do not think we shall make any progress until we agree on those fundamentals. Of course if private enterprise is responsible for employment, then the socialist charge is legitimate; but I do not consider that it is responsible. On numerous occasions I have said that I consider the only legitimate function of private enterprise to be the production of goods and services, regardless of whether that requires much labour or little labour.

Some of the C.C.F. members made a few points with which I should like to deal for a moment or two. I feel that in their condemnation of private enterprise the C.C.F. members constantly confuse the use of capitalism with its abuse, when what they should do is condemn the abuse. To assert that we must abolish the use of private capital because it is abused would be equivalent to saying we must abolish the use of motor cars because very often people lose their lives through the use of motor cars. Likewise it would be just as logical to abolish the use of firearms because sometimes people are murdered through their use. So I say the C.C.F. members should deal with the abuse and should not confuse the use of capitalism with its abuse. I would not be so critical of their attitude if they were consistent in their policy, but this is what we find them doing. They condemn private enterprise; they condemn capitalism; they condemn profits and the profit motive, yet they advocate a procedure

under which they except certain sections of the community from that policy. They proceed to the farmer and say: We are against capitalism; we are against private ownership of the means of life; we are against profits; but we do not mean you. Then they proceed to the small merchants and tell them the same story. 'Thus they go up and down the street telling people they do not mean to include them. On the other hand, however, they condemn the principle of private enterprise. My comment is that if profits and private enterprise and private ownership are wrong as a principle, they must be wrong for everybody. They cannot be wrong for some and right for others. Surely consistency should be the acid test of any philosophy; and I suggest that hon. members of the C.C.F. party consider that very seriously. If they are prepared to place all people under their general policy, then I can do nothing but submit to the will of the majority if a majority of the people in this country want complete socialism. But I think the fact that they have left out the farmer, the small merchant and many other sections of the population indicates that they are quite well aware that the majority of the people of this country believe in private enterprise for themselves.

As was pointed out this afternoon by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), I believe, as far as state enterprise and government companies are concerned the government has no mandate to carry on in that fashion. If the last election demonstrated anything, it demonstrated that the majority of the people of this country still want to be their own bosses,-to manage their own affairs and to support private industry. I notice that quite frequently when that point is raised the C.C.F. members bring in the matter of Trestrail. My only comment is that surely they can rely upon the people of Canada to judge for themselves. The point with which I have not heard them deal as yet is the charges which Trestrail made in the literature which was circulated; and I think that would be much more relevant.

I believe those who supported the Liberal party, the Progressive Conservative party and the Social Credit party indicated by their support that they wanted to continue under a system of private ownership and private enterprise. But where the Liberal party and the Progressive Conservative party fall short is in not supplementing and in not advocating policies to supplement the private enterprise system in such a way that it can be made to work. They must reconcile themselves to certain fundamental changes which will permit private enterprise to function. And it can

Government Companies

function if certain changes are made. It is a tragedy to me to see that the country, the world in general, is being driven more and more into nationalization as a consequence of the refusal and failure of those who believe in private enterprise to make the necesasry changes. That is the greatest tragedy, that those who are the strongest supporters of private enterprise constitute its greatest danger by reason of their neglect to bring about the necessary changes which would make it function.

I believe wholeheartedly that once the basis of private enterprise and private initiative is destroyed, the basis for democracy is destroyed. I do not believe we can have any kind of democracy whatsoever once private ownership and private initiative are removed from society. All that will take its place is mass regimentation, as has been suggested many times. There can be no other substitute. So I suggest earnestly to hon. members in the Liberal and Progressive Conservative parties that if they want to see private enterprise flourish in this country they had better examine the proposals which have emanated from the Social Credit group in the house, because they are the only proposals which will permit private enterprise to function properly.

May I emphasize that it is wrong to conclude that just because there is unemlpoyment and a lack of distribution of goods, it necessarily follows that the government must go into business. As I said earlier in my remarks, I believe private individuals in Canada are capable of running their own business. Private enterprise does not necessarily mean monopoly enterprise-and I am afraid C.C.F. members constantly make that error. When they condemn private enterprise, meaning to condemn monopoly enterprise, they do the former a great injustice. I suggest they should differentiate; but they do not. In condemning private enterprise they condemn the thousand-dollar business as well as the million-dollar or billion-dollar corporation. Fundamentally I believe all people are private enterprisers, even including hon. members in the C.C.F. Many of them own their own businesses and their own farms; they .sell their goods at a profit, and, if they had their choice, would remain in those circumstances for the rest of their lives.

Mr. ROSS (Souris):

And they ask the government for more profit.

Mr. KUHL:

If private enterprise is good enough for them, then surely it should be good enough for everyone. I suggest their charges do not come with very good grace when privately they themselves believe in private enterprise.

I suggest that they should deal with the abuses of private enterprise and advocate the elimination of those abuses. Monopoly control, cartels, price manipulation and all those practices are merely abuses of the private enterprise system. If their position is a logical one, then the thing to do is to retain competition but remove the abuses. That is where I think the C.C.F. criticism and analysis goes off the beam. I agree with them in their condemnation of monopoly control and abuses which arise as a consequence. But if they are logical they should argue that competition should be restored. Instead of that, however, they suggest by way of substitution a still greater monopoly, namely state monopoly. All that happens when there is monopoly control is absence of competition; Surely logic dictates that the solution is to restore competition. It is only in competition that there can be freedom. Competition does not necessarily mean cutthroat operations.

How about cooperatives?

Mr. KUHL:

That is a matter for the individual. If people wish to join in cooperative societies, that is their business. But that is possible only under a system of prviate enterprise.

So I say to them this: Let them advocate the elimination of the abuses and maintain the principle intact, and we shall preserve a free society. To the minister, and to those who support him, I suggest that if they will bring in legislation which will enable private enterprise to work, they will receive the wholehearted support of the Social Credit group. If that is done, I do not think it will be necessary to bring in legislation of this kind. By making it possible for the people of Canada to buy everything produced, and by stimulating the buying power of the people, it will be possible for every industry to sell what it has to sell. If the abuses of capitalism are removed and the deficiencies taken care of, with adequate purchasing power, I am completely satisfied the private enterprise system will work as near perfectly as any human agency can be made to work. It is only under such an arrangement that we can preserve freedom as well as enjoy security.

Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Cariboo):

Mr. Speaker, I suppose like many others, I am at a loss to know whether the house is discussing the policies of the C.C.F. or this crown companies measure.

Mr. GRAYDON:

The same thing.

Government Companies

Mr. IRVINE:

I am glad to hear it, if that is so. If we were discussing the policies of the C.C.F. I should make a speech somewhat different from the one I am going to make.

The hon. member who has just taken his seat has given us an example of that type of irrational circumlocution which might be expected from an hon. member with far less capacity than I hope he possesses. I do not propose to follow his line of reasoning, or his lack of it; but I should like, in passing, to ooint out to the hon. gentleman just the sort if reasoning that he has presented to the louse. In criticizing the C.C.F. he says that lapitalism is all right, that we should not con-lemn private enterprise. He says that what ve should condemn is the abuse and not the use of these great institutions. Then he goes on to give an illustration or analogy. He says, "You may as well condemn the motor car because here and there one runs over somebody as condemn free private enterprise."

Then he goes on from that to argue the very opposite. He says, "You cannot be wrong and right at the same time; when the C.C.F. distinguishes between capitalism that is robbing the agricultural people of this country and the farmers who have been robbed, that is wrong. You must either be right or wrong all the time and make no distinction between the motor car which runs over somebody and the motor car which does not."

Mr. KUHL:

It is a matter of how you deal with it.

Mr. IRVINE:

Such as this.

Mr. IRVINE:

The next point is that there is no provision that crown companies shall pay taxes. The hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Case) comments on this point, and says, Hansard, page 2150.

We in Ontario realize that our hydro system, owned by the crown, has brought us cheap power and has assisted in our industrial development.

I think the hon. gentleman should have pointed out that his community has already received taxes in the forms of cheap power and developed industry. The matter of whether a government concern of this kind should be taxed could very well be considered by this house at some other time. But if we proceed that far there will be objections from many quarters; because, to follow the logic of the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Kuhl), what is good and right for. one must be good and right for everybody, so you must not stop in the middle, and if you are going to tax public institutions of this kind you must tax hospitals and public schools; you must tax churches, and, most sacred of all, you must tax the property of the C.P.R. So I am afraid that when we start to be logical about this thing my hon. friends of the Progressive Conservative party will not be so anxious about it. Let us not forget that the surpluses which come into any publicly operated in-

216S

Government Companies

stitution go into the public treasury, whether of the municipality or the provincial government or the federal government. It is nothing but absurd folly to tax what you already have in the public treasury: the result is to increase expenditures and the cost of public business by doing a foolish thing. When it comes to the municipalities, there may be a case there, and that, as I have said, might very well be argued at some other time. But I repeat if we extend the taxation powers of municipalities to government institutions they will have to be applied to such other organizations as I have mentioned.

I come now to the fourth argument of those who oppose the bill, and it is that these companies will be in competition with private business. That should be welome to those for whom the life and soul of business is competition. One hon. gentleman who spoke last night suggested that the principle of life is the survival of the fittest, and so, of course, he opposed the bill. I am afraid that if the principle of the survival of the fittest were applied individually it all cases the hon. member might have ceased to exist long ago. But as regards opposing government-operated institutions because they furnish competition to other companies, for people who believe in competition as an economic principle to take that stand is an utter absurdity. I do not believe there should be competition and this us where I shall proceed on the way a little farther than my socialist friend the minister.