Mr. GRAYDON:

Yes, read it.

Mr. ABBOTT:

I will read it with pleasure: We are opposed in principle to the continuation of other wartime wage and price ceilings and to restrictive controls. With very few exceptions we demand their immediate removal.

Mr. ILSLEY:

Would you like to have it read again?

Mr. ABBOTT:

Mr. MacNICOL:

Does not my hon. friend think that that is a reckless statement?

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:

The recklessness

continues.

Mr. ABBOTT:

I think it was Edmund Burke who said that it is not possible to tax and be loved. Perhaps that is true, but I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is possible to tax and be respected for imposing those taxes. I believe that is the position in which the Minister of Finance finds himself to-day. I was struck by a remark which was made to me by a friend of mine in Montreal-and he is also well known to the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario. I met him on the Saturday morning, two days after the budget was brought down, and he said to me: "Well,

judging by some editorial comment that I have seen and some talks that I have had with some of my friends, I am one of the few men who like this budget; but as a m">n who has bought all the victory bonds he could afford during the last six years I say, thank God we have a minister of finance and a government that is not afraid to tax."

Mr. H. R. ARGUE (Wood Mountain):

We have all listened with interest to the able speech presented to the house by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Abbott). He shines best when he criticizes the Conservative party, because in that criticism he is always right. But in my opinion he does a poor job of substantiating his own case.

Mr. GRAYDON:

He did not have a case.

Mr. ARGUE:

The minister can rest assured that the members of this group are not going to make the burden of its criticism that there has been much wasteful government expenditure. While no doubt some economies could have been made in different places-I am sure that all members on this side of the house will agree that it might have been possible-nevertheless what the people of Canada need is plenty of expenditures in the right place at the right time.

In my remarks this afternoon I shall attempt to deal in the main with the speech which was ably delivered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). Throughout his whole speech the minister referred again and again to what he thought were prosperous conditions in Canada to-day. He said he considered Canada more prosperous and further along the road to reemployment and reconversion than we could reasonably have expected last August. He said that we are enjoying a level of employment and prosperity that we had never experienced before in peace time. He then went on to show the main props that are under what prosperity we have at this time. What hon. members are attempting to do is to see that the props under what prosperity we have at this time are sound, secure and likely to be durable, because if they are not durable, then it goes without saying that the prosperity will not last long.

I believe we should attempt to analyse economic conditions in Canada to see if indeed we have prosperity at this time. Certainly if the great masses of the Canadian people are not receiving sufficient incomes to enjoy a high and decent standard of living then the so-called prosperity we have is nothing in which we should take pride. We should attempt to decide in our own minds if government policies are moving in fact toward greater prosperity in the nation.

The Budget-Mr. Argue

Mr. CASTLEDEN:

Is that a pre-election promise?

The Budget-Mr. Argue

Mr. ARGUE:

Yes; May 15, 1945. I should like to read these words:

Jobs! Jobs with bright futures for the young men and women coming out of the armed services with the best part ot their lives before them!

And then, in the official publication of the Department of Veterans Affairs, under date of June 15, 1946, we find that at the end of May, 1946, there were 43,336 veterans obtaining out-of-work benefits. Does that look like jobs for veterans, jobs with bright futures? Does that look like jobs with good reliable money?

Mr. MACKENZIE:

Are you opposed to it?

Mr. ARGUE:

With that many out of work-[DOT]

Mr. MACKENZIE:

Are you opposed to it?

Mr. ARGUE:

I am opposed to a party making a pledge before an election and then failing to live up to it. I am not opposed to benefits for those who have not jobs. The benefits are not much; they are second best. But a slice of bread is better than no bread at all.

Mr. MACKENZIE:

You are against it.

Mr. ARGUE:

I am not against it.

Mr. MACKENZIE:

You seem to be.

Mr. ARGUE:

I don't seem to be.