Having waited for some time to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I might say that, if I could start off in the high gear achieved by the speaker who has just taken his seat, it would not take me long to get through with my remarks. But having waited to say a few words in this debate, it being one of the most important ones of the session, I am glad to have this opportunity now. This debate gives to all hon. members on either side of the house the opportunity to speak for the district which they represent in this parliament of Canada. For that reason it is one of the most important debates of the House of Commons, if not the most important one.

I was rather surprised when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), who himself spoke in this debate for half of a labourer's day, was anxious at the opening of the debate to give it what we might term "the back door run" or to get rid of it in a couple of days. We have, however, listened to the great number of speeches which have been made. Many of the ministers have spoken, and some of them for the second time. It must, therefore, be an interesting debate to them. I can fully realize why the Prime Minister is anxious to have this debate shortened. An election is in the offing, and it would be well if the government could avoid criticism from the floor of the house with regard to their maladministration for the past four years.

When beginning his remarks, it is customary for a member to pay compliments and offer congratulations to those who have taken part in this debate. But as they have all received numerous congratulations, any adjectives that I might have to offer would be only a matter of repetition of what has been said by those who have spoken before me.

I will, however, say "amen" to all the congratulations that have been heaped on the mover and seconder, and on the other speakers.

There are, however, two or three congratulations I should like to add. I am sorry that the Speaker himself has left the chamber. I intended to congratulate him on being able to hold his honourable position in view of reports circulating after the close of the house on June 30 to the effect that he was slated for some cabinet position, and in view of the shuffle that took place while we were at home. I might say that the cabinet was nearly all gone over. We now find ourselves wondering, when we come in here, just who is who, and what cabinet minister administers which portfolio.

At this time I should also like to congratulate the Prime Minister even though he is not here in the house just at the moment. I wish to congratulate him on attaining the highest position in the House of Commons although he has been a member of parliament for only a short time. He deserves those congratulations and I am glad to extend them. At the same time I sympathize with him, as do many others, in having bequeathed to him the leadership of an extremely sick party at the present time.

I might also congratulate my hon. leader, but he has been congratulated by everybody, even the Prime Minister; he was congratulated by all the speakers on our side of the house and by many on the other side. I will say this to him by way of congratulation. To this house "He came a hero strong his race to run." He has also received the hearty congratulations conveyed in the winning by his party of three by-elections since he became leader.

The speech from the throne is a governmental document prepared by the cabinet ministers and then placed in the hands of His Excellency by his constitutional advisers. Hence any remarks by way of criticism made by any member of parliament in this debate are not in any way directed toward His Excellency, either in person or in private or public life. One can therefore speak at almost any length and on any subject, as long as one uses the common parliamentary language.

As one views the speech from the throne one finds that it is similar to others which have come before this parliament from time to time. I might say it is, more than anything else, a detour from the real issues confronting the people, and which the people of Canada thought that we should have at this session of parliament. No doubt it was designed to lure my leader away from the course that he might take. However, he was not to be lured away. He took his own course, followed it, and won his spurs in his first speech in this House of Commons.

If time permits I shall say something on freights and freight rates; but something has arisen in the legislature in Prince Edward Island, which is in session at the present time, which almost bars me from doing that. When speaking on the address in the legislature of Prince Edward Island on February 23 last, the premier of Prince Edward Island said this:

The dissenting seven provinces of Canada are making a strong impression. I think we are beating them right now.

He was referring to the powers that be who had increased the freight rates. He continued:

We have held up increases already granted and I do not think the railroads will be allowed to charge the exorbitant rates that they have been asking for.

Therefore the premier of Prince Edward Island, when speaking for the seven provinces, said more than I would have said if I were speaking on the freight rates. However, there is one thing on which I should like to say a few words, namely, transportation. Transportation and freight rates, ferry auto charges and the Maritime Freight Rates Act of 1927 seem to be so interwoven that when one speaks on any of these subjects they all lead into that of transportation. Some newspapers, also many members of parliament and others, continue to make reference to the Maritime Freight Rates Act of 1927 as a subsidy or a charity handout to the maritime provinces. It is unfortunate that such misinformation extends even into the sittings of the railway committee of the House of Commons, and it is very harmful indeed.

The maritime provinces have suffered from the ever-increasing unconstitutional injustices in connection with the operation of the Intercolonial railway, which is perhaps the most important part of Canada's constitution. The report of the Duncan commission in 1926 discloses this injustice. The Maritime Freight Rates Act of 1927 is an admission of it, and the action of the federal government, partially to offset the unconstitutional injustice by paying both railways an amount which reduced their charges in accordance with the act, is also an admission of the injustice. The amount that has been paid is only a fraction of the amount of the unconstitutional overcharge to the maritime provinces. Here let me mention this fact in connection with the freight rates act. When the railways were amalgamated freight rates were greatly increased across Canada. Taking 100 as the basis on which freight rates were established, the average increase in the maritime provinces was 92 per cent, while 55 per cent was the average increase across the rest of

The Address-Mr. McLure Canada. When the Duncan commission studied this matter they found that this was an unconstitutional injustice to the maritime provinces. On that basis they made a recommendation that brought into effect the Maritime Freight Rates Act of 1927, and our rate of 92 per cent was reduced to equal the average rate of the rest of Canada. Consequently almost 20 per cent was paid to the two railways for the freight that they had carried.

I bring this to the attention of the house, Mr. Speaker, in order that it may not be referred to as a subsidy or a handout. It is an effort to alleviate the injustice which had been imposed on the maritime provinces by reason of the overcharge of freight rates from the time of the amalgamation of the roads up to 1927. There is still a large amount owing to the maritime provinces for the years that they suffered these high rates as compared with the rest of Canada. That amount should be paid either in dollars and cents or in extra public works, which are long overdue in the maritime provinces. The way that they could start to pay it at this time would be by giving us some public works such as the bridge at Canso, the building of the Chignecto canal and, last but not least, giving Prince Edward Island a railway connection and living up to the terms of our going into confederation by treating the water which separates Prince Edward Island from the mainland as a bridge and not as part of the railway on which we are charged, which is against the terms of 1873, when we entered into confederation.

Time will not permit me to go into all the details of the maritime rates, but I wish to say that there is a better feeling in the maritime provinces now that we are to have a tenth province, another maritime province, which will help us, and make four provinces to fight for their maritime rights. For years we have been endeavouring to push our claims with the federal authorities, but we have been more or less discouraged. Some of the cabinet ministers have called us yappers because we were always talking about our freight claims and so forth. However, it does not matter what they term us; we are out for our rights and we are going to get them. If we do not get them from a Liberal government, we are sure that we shall get them from the Progressive Conservative government.

I want to deal with transportation in my own province, because this is the great problem faced by our farmers, fishermen, importers and exporters. This is the problem with which they have to deal, because we are not a manufacturing community. Our endeavours are more or less those of agriculture.

1386 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. McLure Sixty-five per cent of our people earn their livelihood from the land.

Fishing is our next largest industry. Freight rates offered our farmers, and means of transportation, are the all-important question with us. In the wintertime, from November until May, we have only one means of transportation, that of the Borden-Tormentine ferry. In the summertime we have the Wood Island-Cariboo route. Both of these, taken together, handle the service fairly well. However, we still want more service by way of transportation.

For instance, we are discriminated against because trucks are not allowed to travel free on the new ferry, using the Borden-Tormentine route. They are still being charged a rate, contrary to the terms under which we entered confederation. The heavy charges for the freight carried, as well as for the trucks, is by no means a satisfactory condition, so far as truck traffic by way of the ferry is concerned. Some slight reduction was made by the board of transport commissioners after their sitting at Charlottetown. While they had no jurisdiction over water rates, they did go down there and make some slight adjustment. When they got there they learned that they had no jurisdiction over water rates. I was glad to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) state in the house the other day that he knew that the board of transport commissioners had no right whatsoever to set freight rates for water carriage between any provinces, or between any province and any other British territory. This matter has been under discussion for some time, and I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister endorse my views in that connection-views which were in accordance with the terms of confederation.

The unfair part of the situation in connection with trucks is that while the ferry had no right to make a charge, according to our contract, they are nevertheless making a certain charge. They should carry the load free. I notice that some of the motor trucks are enclosed. The freight does not require handling, and in most instances those who are in charge never see it; nevertheless the weight is recorded, along with the weight of the truck, following which a rate somewhat lower than that of 1945 is charged.

That rate is charged for a certain class of goods including potatoes, turnips, hay and farmers' livestock. But supposing a farmer kills his hogs or his beef cattle, and wishes to take them across, he must pay the highest l.c.l. rate. However, if they are shipped as livestock they go at the lower rate. This is not the fault of the operators of the boat; they are just living up to the regulations.

Truck operators find the men on the boat most courteous; but they must live up to the orders sent to them by the Canadian National Railways or by the Department of Transport-or both of them. These charges are made on dressed beef or pork because they are not considered products of the farm. How they come to that conclusion, I do not know.

Farmers should have a preferred rate on all those things. Then, if a farmer is bringing back a load, according to the regulations freight traveling from Tormentine to Borden is charged at the highest rate. I have reference to coal, Nova Scotia apples, lumber and many things the people of Prince Edward Island must buy from the other provinces. A change in these rates would benefit our farmers and our people generally in the maritimes.

As hon. members know, the car ferry Abegweit is the boat on that run, and she has been giving excellent service. However, that boat is not able to handle all the traffic. Consequently we are hoping to have a new boat on the Wood Island-Cariboo route when it opens in the spring.

I understand a delegation was here in Ottawa interviewing the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and placing before him the suggestion that we should have a new ferry within the next year. I do not know how successful they were. They could not have been very successful. One suggestion they made was that they themselves would build the new boat if their subsidy was increased by $50,000 and guaranteed for a period of ten years. I do not believe either proposition was successful, because when the delegation returned to Charlottetown the news items did not contain any glamorous report as to the way they had been received.

I understand the Abegweit was built to carry out the terms of confederation. For that purpose the ferry system was inaugurated by the Borden government. While the car ferry is handed over to the Canadian National Railways, and while the railways are the greatest users of the boat, at the same time they use it as a connecting link between the Prince Edward Island railway and the railways in the other provinces.

What we should have is a free rate across the water for all our products, both outgoing and incoming. Why should the Canadian National Railways, who at the present time are the subcontractors of this boat, exclude any other method of shipping goods, such as the use of trucks? They could dispense with the truck opposition by placing a high rate on the transportation of the truck and on the freight it carries. Both these proce-

dures are unconstitutional and, according to the terms of 1873, an injustice to Prince Edward Island.

I am not going to say much more about transportation, but I should like to pay attention to another detour in the speech from the throne. The Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand), as the lord of Canada's post office business-and I wish he were in the house tonight to hear this-announced a net balance of profits of some $10 million. The figure given is $9,827,491. Like many others I am proud to see the Post Office Department piling up profits over the years. It is really a grand thing. However, the 33 J per cent wartime emergency tax on letter postage must have played a considerable part in piling up these surpluses, yet the Postmaster General has said that there will be no reduction in this tax. I am not arguing that it should be reduced, as I would rather see the Postmaster General use the money to give his rural mail couriers a chance to live by being paid sufficient for rendering the best service of any civil servants in Canada.

The mail couriers in my province, and I imagine the same remarks will apply to all provinces, are doing a wonderful work. They are wonderful men. They have to work almost every day in the year and are on the job through rain or shine. It has been brought to my attention that the department is rather niggardly with these mail couriers, and I should like to cite one case.

A few days ago the mail courier on a good route was offered the magnificent sum of six and a half cents per day to operate an extension of the route to the university near Charlottetown. This extension was to serve some 300 students and the staff and help at the university. The mail courier was quite ready to do the work for thirty or thirty-five cents per day, but all they would offer was six and a half cents per day and therefore the extension was not put into effect and the people at the university must continue to go after their own mail.

We have been promised from time to time that the problems of the mail couriers in Canada would be gone into thoroughly by this House of Commons and that adjustments would be made whereby these men would have some hope that after securing the necessary equipment their contract would be permitted to run for more than four years. At the present time the contract can be abolished if someone bids $1.50 or $2 lower. That is very discouraging. These men have no safeguard. All they have to do is their work, and they are doing it.

The Address-Mr. McLure

At the present time the department is offering mail contracts to veterans, and I am glad to see that being done. However, these contracts are being offered to veterans in receipt of small pensions and the suggestion is being made that perhaps they can bid a little lower than others and apply their pensions to what they receive. That is what I take objection to. Why should a veteran be asked to apply his small pension in order that a contract may be let below the regular contract price?

A short time ago a mail route in Queens county was advertised and tenders were asked for. It was stipulated that the tenderer must have a half-ton truck for mail delivery during the spring, summer and autumn and a snowmobile for the wintertime. They might just as well have added that he should have a small Moth plane equipped with special parachutes. A man could not tender for that contract unless he had a half-ton truck and could assure the department that he would have a snowmobile for the winter. The total equipment there would cost from $4,000 to $5,000, and yet the contract would be for only four years with no assurance beyond that. I do not know how many tenders were received but when the estimates of the department come down we will surely find out how many tenders have been put in for contracts on this basis. There are other matters in connection with mail service that I should like to deal with but we will have an opportunity to do this when the estimates are brought down.

In the few minutes I have left I should like to say a few words about a topic that has been discussed fairly well-taxation. In my province the burden, the annoyance and the perfect nonsense of taxation in connection with collecting and making out the forms falls most heavily upon the farmers. The farmers are quite willing to pay a legitimate tax but they are rebellious over being hounded by these inspectors or snoopers or whatever they are called. This whole thing is causing great concern to the farmers and labouring people.

Toward the close of the last session we made the great mistake of voting $19 million for the Department of National Revenue to cover temporary employees. I understand that that was largely to cover the employment of an army of tax collectors, many of whom were hired to spy on the farmers, labourers and small businessmen. They were armed with authority to go to the different dealers in the constituency to ask for information about their neighbours. The farmers in our province held a series of meetings to protest against the income tax form and the

i368

The Address-Mr. McLure manner in which they are being hounded by the officials of this department.

A few days ago the income tax branch at Ottawa sued the president of the farmers' federation of Prince Edward Island. The courthouse was crowded when the trial started and when the prosecuting lawyer started to question the witness he used a form of question which it was impossible for the witness to answer. For instance, he was asking him what he had to eat for his Christmas dinner six years ago. He also asked such foolish questions as whether they had extra turkey for Thanksgiving. He refused to answer because he could not answer such questions, and then the prosecuting lawyer said: "If you do not confess to this charge that is laid against you I will withdraw it and bring in four charges more serious against you." I should like to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) whether he considers that is justice in law.

There is another matter on which I am compelled to say something, although it has been mentioned so often now that I understand the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) is going to abolish some of the taxes in his next budget. We have a tax on soft drinks and chocolate bars. I believe every member of parliament has received thousands of requests for the abolition of these taxes. It is a heavy tax; 40 per cent is very high indeed. I have a letter on my desk from one man complaining about it. He says that it caused him so much worry that he did less business and had to lay off a staff of some twenty men. It is cutting down on employment. On the one hand we have the generosity of the governmept, of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), who goes around and hands out the family allowances to the children. On the other hand we have the Minister of Finance coming around the corner and snatching it all from the little ones.

There is one form of taxation that has caused us a great deal of worry in my section of the country, the taxation on furs and conservation fur farming. Under the former Minister of Finance the Liberal party seemed determined to put fur farming off the map, and the former Minister of Finance almost did so. Now that he has left, however, we hope that the new minister will look into the matter and study it from a sane and honest point of view. For example, the government imposed a tax of 25 per cent, called a processing tax, on the raw skins. There was not very much objection to that although it made an ordinary garment, even though the tax was imposed in process, cost all the way from $10 to $150 more than it should have. After that tax had been in force for a

year the fur merchants and fur farmers of Canada got after the Minister of Finance, and he stated that he would reduce the tax. He reduced the tax from 25 per cent to 15 per cent on the processing, but what did he do then? He had a real bludgeon behind him and he went to work. He reduced the tax to 10 per cent on the processing, and then on the finished article he imposed a tax of 8 per cent, which meant that the 25 per cent tax was increased from 2 per cent on the lowest grade of furs to 45 per cent on the best grade of furs. This heavy tax has put hundreds of concerns out of business.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding):

I must remind the hon. gentleman that his time has expired.

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon my leader, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), moved that the Progressive Conservative amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne be amended by adding certain words. There are three very pertinent sections to that amendment. I propose to refer to them briefly this time. The first of the three important sections is:

We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have shown such studied indifference to the Social Credit financial proposals put before this house from time to time for bringing social security and freedom to every Canadian, and economic stability and prosperity to the country as a whole.

The second section reads:

We also regret that Your Excellency's advisers have demonstrated such timorous diffidence in their failure to take up Social Crediters' oft-repeated challenge to debate in this house and show honest cause why the Social Credit proposals would not bring widespread security, happiness and contentment to the Canadian people.

The third section of the Social Credit amendment reads:

We regret further that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to bring forward legislative and administrative provision for maintaining purchasing power at a level which would make possible the equitable distribution of our total production and thus cushion the Canadian economy against the onset of depression.

We proposed that amendment because of the fact that we are vitally concerned that the government should take the necessary action in order to guarantee stability of the Canadian economy, and to prevent a recurrence of a depression such as that which occurred between the two wars, and which was so devastating in character. We are fearful that, unless concrete action is taken to stabilize the Canadian economy, it will give rise to further encouragement to certain elements within our nation so that they- and I have no hesitation in naming them, the communists-may further their attempt,

as I stated the other day, to undermine the very foundation upon which democracy rests.

Already the Canadian communists are becoming more vociferous in their advocacy of outright treason. It is becoming more obvious day by day that they are anticipating certain conditions, conditions in which they know the maggots of communism flourish.

I am greatly agitated about this matter; I am greatly agitated about the extent to which subversive elements within the nation are being permitted to use the mails of the country by which to disseminate the treasonable propaganda which they are now disseminating throughout the nation. I have already had occasion to inquire from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) as to just what course of action the government contemplate taking in order to stop this. I tried to state this afternoon that, in my opinion, they were using the mails to defraud. Some may say that is an exaggeration, but I say their purpose is to defraud us of our freedom, to defraud us of our nation. Moreover, that section of the Criminal Code states that it is a criminal offence to use the mails to deceive. If deception were ever practised within this country it is now being practised on a widespread scale by the communist forces who are pleased to call themselves Labour-Progressives.

Mr. Speaker, within my constituency a communist hive has recently come to light. I have received two copies of a circular from two very indignant residents of the town of Sylvan Lake. They came in this form, unwrapped, through the mail. The contents of it are largely devoted to the north Atlantic security pact, which I do not propose discussing at this moment. For those who are gullible enough to believe it, it states that the signing of the pact will change the cold war into a shooting war. That is what they are telling the people of my constituency. Then it is said we are doing all that we are doing in connection with defence measures within this country behind a smoke screen, as they are pleased to call it, against Russian aggression. They come right out and use this expression:

This is the modern hitlerite big lie.

Mr. Speaker, that reminds me of the type of propaganda these people put out in 1940 in their manifesto and which led directly to the action which the government took in outlawing the party. One may ask me, are you in favour of outlawing them? At the moment my attitude is this: If a skunk is raiding my chicken coop, I do not want to chase him down a hole and then have to dig him out. I would rather leave him on the surface where I can shoot him.

The Address-Mr. Shaw This circular proceeds to point out that the oil development in my own province, the building of the Alaska highway and the building of air bases in the city of Edmonton, are all part of this scheme of Canadian aggression. As I say, it is almost pitiful when you stop to realize that this is being put in the hands of the people throughout that district. The pamphlet then refers to a number of things to which I shall not refer, with the exception of this remark. It says:

It is a lie that Canada's independence is threatened by the soviet union. The soviet union in its thirty-one years of existence has not destroyed the independence of any nation.

I remind them of Hungary, Roumania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and so on.

The people who receive the pamphlet are urged to write to me requesting that I vote against the signing of the north Atlantic security pact. I think I can probably save them the time of writing by putting the matter on record as I have, uttering words of outright condemnation of the policies they are advocating and the methods they are employing in an effort to disseminate this propaganda.

An editorial appeared in the Edmonton Bulletin on March 4, entitled "The Age of Tolerance." I think it is very significant and so important that I should put it on the record. It is a brief one, and reads as follows: The communist leaders of the United States, following the example of communist leaders in France, Italy and England have announced with defiant clarity that if Russia attacks their respective countries they will side with Russia. It seems to be an amazing thing that people can say such things and stay out of jail.

Incidentally, I would say that Tim Buck said as much in that questionnaire in Liberty magazine, I think it was, last November. If his statement is analysed, I think it will be found he said the same thing, but in a cunning, sly, communist way.

Continuing to quote from the editorial, I read:

These vicious statements indicate, of course, what communism in the democratic countries really means. It means plain and unadulterated subservience to Russia. It means that communists, quite definitely and frankly, put Russia first.

Once upon a time, in a rougher and more manly age, statements of this kind were designated as treason. But this, of course, is the age of tolerance. We have graduated beyond the point of letting people say and think what they like. Today, they can do as they like, including cutting the throats of their own country with impunity.

The amazing thing is that, with all this namby-pamby deference to that kind of freedom, which is only unbridled licence, the communists and their leftist friends still howl to high heaven about the "intolerance" of the democracies.

If anyone ventures to resent the blatant propaganda of leftists and suggests that traitors be muzzled, there is at once a scream about the narrow bigotry of anti-reds and a wild protest about the stifling of freedom. It seems to many that our smug

1370 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. Shaw

complacency in the face of such repeated threats indicates nothing so much as the urgent need for a psychiatric examination.

In leaving that, Mr. Speaker, I think two things are extremely important: First, as I said earlier, we should endeavour to seek out every means of applying whatever measures we can to remove the conditions in which communism is bred and in which it develops. Secondly, I have come to the conclusion that some action should be taken to prevent the dissemination throughout the length and breadth of this country of the type of propaganda to which I have referred.

Mr. Low:

A treasonable type.

Mr. Shaw:

A very treasonable type of propaganda.

Coming back to the amendment, Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting to me to observe that, since it was moved very few of the speakers who have participated in this debate have chosen to deal with the amendment as such. I am not going to suggest for one moment that hon. members opposite refrained from dealing with the contents of that amendment because they did not know anything about social credit. Deep down in their souls they know they cannot refute the principles which we have advanced over a period of fourteen years in this house. They are not prepared to stand up during this debate and refute them if they can. When they are traipsing about the country I think it would be the better part of wisdom for them not to tell the people they do not understand social credit, because I am satisfied the people will immediately conclude they are not telling the truth.

During the course of the debate this afternoon, the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) made a short reference to social credit. I refer to it only for the purpose of making a correction. He observed that he had read Major Douglas' books; and, if I understood him correctly, he stated he did not agree with his principles as a solution of our economic problems because it is not money that counts but goods. I believe that is what he said. I want to emphasize, for the benefit of this house, that we have never at any time argued that money counts and not goods. In his book "Warning Democracy" Major Douglas stated this:

Looked at from this point of view, money is simply a ticket. A railway ticket is, in the truest sense, a limited form of money and differs only from any other sort of money in that the owner of it only believes, and is only justified in believing, that he will receive in return for it a particular form of service, i.e., transportation.

I want to read one other paragraph from another book of his, "Credit Power and Democracy", in which he states, as we have always stated-

[Mr. Shaw.j

What page?

Mr. Shaw:

These quotations are from the "Douglas Manual", and they are taken from his various publications. Major Douglas states:

Money is only a mechanism by means of which we deal with things-it has no properties except those we choose to give to it. A phrase such as "There is no money in the country with which to do such and so" means simply nothing, unless we are also saying "The goods and services required to do this thing do not exist and cannot be produced, therefore it is useless to create the money equivalent of them."

Further on he says:

For instance, it is simply childish to say that a country has no money for social betterment, or for any other purpose, when it has the skill, the men and the material and plant to create that betterment. The banks or the treasury can create the money in five minutes, and are doing it every day, and have been doing it for centuries.

Mr. Blackmore:

One would think that an intelligent man could understand that.

Mr. Shaw:

I quote that excerpt just in answer to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and to stress the point, as I said a moment ago, that we have not emphasized that it is money that counts but rather goods.

In the next few moments I should like to go back a few years, and it is not for the purpose that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) found it necessary to go back sixteen years today. I think he went back sixteen years, if I heard him correctly-

Mr. Gardiner:

Twenty years.

Mr. Shaw:

-to try to cover up some of the tracks he left in the sandhills of Saskatchewan when he was premier of that province. I am going back for quite another purpose. I might also say in passing that I think it is rather unfortunate that one should still have to cover up his tracks sixteen years after he made them.

We go back to 1930, Mr. Speaker, and I am doing it for this reason. When it comes to assessing political parties and what they stand for, it is often necessary to go back and examine some of the records. In 1930 the Conservative party was unfortunate enough to have taken over the reins of government in this Dominion of Canada. I say "unfortunate enough" because of the policies which the Liberals had pursued for some nine years prior to that time, and because of the conditions which had developed in the country by 1930 because of the pursuance of those policies. I remember our Conservative friends coming in in 1930 and if I remember it correctly their battlecry was: We will blast our way into the markets

of the world. They did some blasting all right; but if history indicates anything at all, to me it indicates that they practically blasted us off the face of the earth as a consequence of their policies.

And themselves also.

Mr. Shaw:

Yes. Somebody interjects, and themselves also.

By 1930, in spite of the fact that a depression was anticipated-in fact, that we were moving headlong into that depression-there was absolutely no breakdown whatsoever in Canadian production. The Canada Year Book for 1937 indicates that for those years 1931, 1932, and 1933 Canada's productive capacity was greater than it ever had been before. In fact, we had more houses and more goods of all kinds than we had had prior to that time. Yet the Conservatives were pleased to tell us that we were headed into a depression. Almost overnight 50 per cent of the purchasing power of this nation disappeared. Almost overnight the wheels of industry started to slow down and men were dumped out on their heads. Because of the fact that their right to eat seemed to be contingent upon their ability to procure remunerative employment, they experienced great difficulty in providing for themselves and for their dependents. Obviously, for the conditions which existed, the Conservatives of that day laid the entire blame upon overproduction within our nation. They no doubt saw the piling up of huge surpluses. But they seemed to fail to see at the same time three-quarters of a million unemployed and almost another million living on a substandard level. Their battlecry was: We are going to blast our way into the markets of the world. What actually happened, Mr. Speaker, between 1930 and 1935?

The Conservative party kept in operation all of the trade agreements which had been in effect up to that time. They also entered into a comprehensive preferential agreement with the United Kingdom. They also for the first time entered into a formal agreement with New Zealand, South Africa, Southern Rhodesia and the Irish Free State. Moreover, they entered into a trade treaty of broad scope with France. They entered into a commercial arrangement securing most-favourednation treatment from Germany. They also engineered an arrangement in order to secure most-favoured-nation treatment from Austria and Brazil. They also drew up a comprehensive agreement with Poland. In spite of those agreements, and in spite of the fact that they utilized a good deal of energy in an effort to blast their way into the markets of the world, a condition of tragedy continued to prevail within our own nation.

The Address-Mr. Shaw

In the first place, they seemed to forget that many of these surpluses were not real surpluses in any sense of the word. We had a great demand in Canada for surpluses, but unfortunately there was not an effective demand. By 1935 we find that we had 259,918 families on relief within this nation; the number of individuals totalled 1,229,935. That was by the spring of 1935-February, to be exact. After all, that was supposed to be two years beyond the depth of the depression. In spite of the fact that certain definite refunding operations took place during that time, we find that the debt jumped from $2,544 million approximately to over $3,205 million; and the interest paid during that same period of time amounted to approximately $673 million. So not only did we have a vast army of unemployed within the country and a vast number of people living on a substandard level, but hand in hand with that condition debts were piled up.

What was our export picture during that time? The Conservative party from 1930 until 1935, after entering into these export agreements, did export during the eleven months prior to the end of February, 1934, $527,391,000 worth of goods. At the same time they imported $386,279,000 worth. In other words, they managed to get rid of $141,112,000 worth of our production for which no goods were brought back to the country in return. In fact, the records indicate that they even exported some of their imports in order to try to solve the problem. I believe that $5,585,000 worth of goods that had been imported were exported during the same period of time.

For the eleven months just preceding the budget of 1935, exports exceeded imports by $133,867,000. Their policy of exporting was working, but the weakness in the whole thing was that they were absolutely refusing to bring back into the country or import goods in return for those which they exported. They knew that if Canadians could not purchase our entire Canadian production, there was no conceivable chance for the Canadian people to buy goods which were brought into Canada in exchange for goods which were exported.

I have already emphasized that we had no effective market within our country. When I try to assess the Conservative picture at the present time these are questions which come to my mind and which I hope the members of the Progressive Conservative party will endeavour to answer at least before an election. We are interested in the condemnation of the vast number of 142,000 orders in council. I am very much opposed to government by order in council, but at the

The Address-Mr. Shaw same time if anyone thinks that reducing the number of orders in council that a government passes will in itself solve the economic disabilities which inflict the country, then definitely he has another think coming. I should like to hear from the Progressive Conservatives whether or not they consider recessions and depressions inevitable. I should like to know whether they consider that poverty in the midst of plenty is an unavoidable consequence of recessions or depressions. I should like to know whether they agree that it is a sound policy to export from a country more than that country imports. I might interject at this point that when you do that you simply reduce the standard of living of the Canadian people.

I should like to know from them whether they consider that man's right to live is dependent entirely upon remunerative employment. Incidentally, I might also direct these questions to those across the way on the Liberal benches. I should like to know whether or not both Liberals and Conservatives consider that debt and interest are legacies which are bound to accrue as a consequence of the development of any nation. This is a most deplorable thing. As one goes back over the years since confederation, one wonders at the great development that has taken place in this country, but one also considers the absurdity that during that development a debt of approximately $16 billion has been piled on the shoulders of the Canadian people, a debt load carrying interest charges somewhere in the neighbourhood of $450 million a year. If a businessman were to pursue the same policies that the government pursues in connection with financing, that businessman would not last very long.

I cannot understand, Mr. Speaker, why it should be any different so far as the government is concerned. I said a moment ago that I am not satisfied, and the Canadian people are not satisfied, merely to have the Liberals and Conservatives fighting over this question whether there shall or shall not be orders in council. I am not satisfied to hear them merely arguing whether there should be this many civil servants or that many. I am inclined to believe that we must go considerably deeper than that. I would emphasize the fact that if we are assured by both Liberals and Conservatives that depressions are not inevitable; that poverty in the midst of plenty is not inevitable; that man's right to live is not dependent entirely upon his right to find remunerative employment; if they can assure us that debt and interest must not be inevitable legacies accruing to us as a result of developing this great nation of ours: then we and the Canadian people

[Mr. Shaw.l

will commence to understand at least just-what hope does lie in either of these parties.

We have already put ourselves on record as being in the main opposed to the policies advocated by the C.C.F. I am speaking for myself when I say that I am always very fearful that-and I am not going to say that all socialists are communists, although I will say I can never forget that all communists are socialists-into any organization, political or otherwise, men of evil purposes are bound to worm their way. 1 do not think there is any organization which can claim to be free from that. When I find advocated policies which I, at least, feel take you on the road toward communism, then I am just a bit afraid that, if we are carried so far, the wrong man will take the reins and we shall be plunged into the morass from which we shall not be able to extricate ourselves.

I am not going to occupy very much more of the time of the house, Mr. Speaker. We feel that this amendment of ours, very clearly explained by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) this afternoon, taken in conjunction with his budget speech of last year, offers to hon. members sound and concrete proposals for the stabilizing of our economy, the establishment of prosperity within our nation, and the bringing of security, happiness and contentment to our Canadian people. We urge all hon. members to give it their consideration.

Mr. G. R. Pear Ices (Nanaimo):

The amendment which has been moved by the leader of the Progressive Conservative party (Mr. Drew) and the subamendment which is now being considered as moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) indicate that there is some lack of confidence in the present administration. A good deal of evidence has been produced in the one hundred or more speeches which have been made during this debate, which would give abundant proof of that suggestion. Tonight I wish to indicate one other small and particular point in which I feel that there is justification for questioning the wisdom of the present government in that particular.

1 am going to deal with one point which concerns a great many men in a very personal way. In the speech from the throne reference is made to the fact that some legislation will be introduced regarding the administration of the armed forces of the crown. On February 4, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) indicated that there was to be a change in the old traditional policy of paying prize money to the men of the Royal Canadian Navy, and he elaborated on that point in a statement which he made on February 18, when he explained the policy which the present government

proposes to follow, a policy which breaks with all naval tradition, a policy which I suggest oreaks faith with many a gallant lad who joined the Royal Canadian Navy at the commencement of the war.

I wish to take a few moments just to trace the history of this prize money, how it became part of naval tradition, how it is a century-old custom under which sailors have received a certain bounty, a certain grant of money to augment the pay which they received.

It was first introduced in the reign of Henry VIII. At that time the various ports of the United Kingdom were expected to produce a quota of warships and their crews. When the war was over His Majesty divided up among these ports the money which had accrued from the sale of the prizes which had been captured during the naval engagements. Certain changes and modifications were brought in during the reign of Charles II, when it was decided that there were different conditions under which captures were made. There were certain ships taken when they were in port; others were captured on the high seas. A distinction was made there. Certain rights, or droits, as they were called then, of the admiralty, or droits of the crown, were made under that decision. Those rights going to the lord high admiral were used for the purpose of developing the fleet.

The rights which became the prerogative of the crown were divided up after the campaign was over among the seamen who had fought at sea. It was an act of grace; but it was an act which was followed down through the centuries, starting at the time of King Charles II.

Then, during the reign of William IV, the lord high admiral surrendered his rights to the exchequer-that is, moneys which arose from the capture of ships actually in port. But the rights to the crown from ships captured at sea still remained the prerogative of the crown; and the crown in those days still divided up that money among the sailors who were sailing in the fleet during the campaign.

So it went on, right down to Nelson's day. In Nelson's time one might say an evil practice crept in, because most of the prizes captured were captured by the light ships of the navy-the frigates and cruisers. Anyone who will read any of the "lives" of Lord Nelson will see how he complained against certain of his captains who spent most of their time chasing merchantmen of the enemy rather than perhaps engaging in battle. There was a tendency to do that. And as a counterbalance to that, the prize

The Address-Mr. Pearkes bounty, known as blood money, was introduced. This was paid to the ships of the line. When they sank an enemy ship the crew of the ship engaged in that battle received a certain amount of money, according to the size of the ship sunk and according to the number of the crew on the vessel. This was frequently referred to as blood money.

However, changes have taken place and, as the years have gone by, blood money has been discontinued. But prize money was paid after the first world war. Large sums of prize money were paid then, because the Germans had their merchantmen on the seven seas, and our ships were able to capture a large number of them. At the conclusion of the second world war the amount of money available for prize moneys was not nearly as large as that at the conclusion of the first world war, simply because the Germans had brought their ships into their own ports, and the majority of those still on the high seas were scuttled.

However, last November in the British House of Commons a prize bill was introduced. An estimate had been made by the lords of the admiralty as to the amount of money which would be available from the prizes which had been captured. That money was divided among the nations of the commonwealth which had fleets on the seas; and because the air force had taken part and assisted in many of those captures, a certain proportion was allocated to the Royal Air Force-the exchequer still keeping its one-third. And when I say that it kept its one-third, it was decided as a rather arbitrary arrangement that the exchequer, according to the tradition of the old droits of the admiralty, should keep one-third of the moneys to go into the consolidated revenue fund.

There was considerable debate in the British House of Commons as to the method in which the prize moneys would be divided among the air force and the various ratings of the navy. A decision was reached, in so far as the amount of money available for the United Kingdom services was concerned. This decision appeared in British Hansard of November 12, at page 863, in a speech made by Mr. John Dugdale upon moving second reading of the prize bill. Mr. Dugdale, parliamentary and financial secretary to the admiralty, said on that occasion:

It is the intention of the government that all naval officers and ratings, marine officers and other ranks and also merchant seamen who served in the navy under T-124-

T-124, I might explain, was a special type of enlistment of men serving in the armed merchantmen who came under certain special regulations of discipline. Some Canadians

The Address-Mr. Pearkes belief that they would be entitled to such moneys? I do not care how small the amount is; it is the principle behind the question. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Clax-ton) is trying, and rightly so, to build up the services of the country. Active recruiting campaigns have been carried on for the last twelve months. I venture to say that many members on all sides of the house-I know I have-have taken part in these campaigns.

I have urged the young men of the country to get into the armed forces. But such action as has been taken in this case is not encouragement. It is a petty, cheap, despicable business of taking a few dollars from men who gave so much during the war and putting them into certain funds when we believe that these funds are well endowed, when we know that there are large balances in them. Surely the government can rise above such petty cheese-paring practices and give these sailors the money which is their due, and to which they are entitled.

On motion of Mr. Blackmore the debate was adjourned.

In spite of indications today, I hope that the debate on the address will be concluded tomorrow. . If it is, we shall then proceed with the resolution for the introduction of a bill to extend certain emergency powers. I should like to remind hon. members that there are certain measures which, if not renewed, will expire on the 27th of March. I think it should be regarded as the responsibility of the house to express itself as to whether or not they should be renewed, and not allow them to lapse by default. There is not very much time left. There is sufficient time to deal with them in an orderly manner if it is the desire of hon. members that they be dealt with in that fashion, but I think we shall have to move tomorrow, even if this debate is not concluded by the end of the sitting then, to proceed with the emergency legislation from and after Monday the 14th.

At 10.30 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on February 22, 1949.

Friday, March 11, 1949