Mr. Woodsworth:

It may very well be that force may prove inevitable, yes, if the attitude of certain gentlemen is persisted in and the people of this country are denied the right that they have to self-expression and to the enjoyment of a decent livelihood.

The end result of communism and socialism would appear to be the same on the basis of that statement and yet hon. members of the C.C.F. maintain today that they now stand and have always stood for small business and free enterprise. That is rather a joke. With that evidence on the record I think you can safely say that the socialists in this house do not stand for small business and free enterprise and never have. They have always stood for socialism and the words I have placed on the record speak for themselves.

Guarantee of Loans to Small Businesses

The Canadian people should know this when the new party moves around certain constituencies. I should like to hear from those eight members; I should like to see them rise in their places and hear them say, "We are socialists", or "We are not socialists; we do not endorse the words of our great forefathers, Woodsworth and Coldwell; we stand for something new. We are conservatives with a small 'c'." I should like to know where those socialists stand. I am sure all hon. members would like to hear it, too, and particularly from the new member who has brought wisdom and direction on how we should run our constituencies, because I noticed that in the paper the other evening.

In conclusion, may I add my words of congratulation to the minister and to the government on bringing forth this bill to help small business to the extent and in the manner indicated, which means that they can now borrow up to $25,000 on a fairly long term basis. I am sure this will stabilize business and assist in the unemployment problem in this country.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

The Prime Minister is a good constitutionalist; let me ask him whether a provincial legislature has any right to interfere in matters like that?

Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):

Doctor Beauchesne, it is perhaps hardly necessary for us to say much after what has been said by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Hanson). We in our group support the nomination of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen). The leader of the opposition has suggested that

95826-u

one of the old-time functions of a speaker was to protect the commons against the crown. I suppose that function is largely obsolete, but we believe that an important function of the speaker to-day is to have a sense of impartiality and to protect the minorities against the government. That may be highly necessary in a house of this composition. From our knowledge of the hon,. member for Marquette through the years we are assured that he will recognize the high responsibility that will rest upon him as speaker, and we wish him every success in his new office.

Mr. J. II. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge): Doctor Beauchesne, the members of my group feel that if the reputation which was so well established by the Speaker who occupied the chair in the last parliament is maintained by the hon. gentleman who is now to take the chair we shall be fully satisfied. We realize that the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) has been nominated by the same right hon. gentleman who nominated his predecessor; we therefore expect that the same wisdom has been exercised in this selection as in the case of the former Speaker. The hon. member for Marquette has established a reputation for geniality and good nature among the members which has caused him to be well liked. At the same time he has the poise and dignity which cause men generally to respect him. We feel that these are qualities which are required in one holding the position of Speaker of this house, and I do not doubt for one moment either the hon. gentleman's disposition or his ability at all times to be fair in his judgments and impartial in his decisions. Therefore, Doctor Beauchesne, our group will support this motion.

The Clerk of the House declared the motion carried in the affirmative, nemine contradi-cente, and Hon. James Allison Glen, member for the electoral district of Marquette, duly elected to the chair of the house.

Hon. Mr. Glen was conducted from his seat in the house to the Speaker's chair by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe.

Mr. SPEAKER-ELECT said: Gentlemen of the House of Commons, I beg to return my humble acknowledgments to the house for the great honour you have been pleased to confer upon me by unanimously choosing me to be your Speaker.

The unanimity which has been expressed from all sides of the house of my appointment to the high office of Speaker of this House of Commons imposes upon me duties so grave

Lender nj the Opposition

and serious that I approach my task with very real humility and a profound consciousness of my own limitations.

In the days to come, I shall endeavour to discharge those duties in a manner not unbefitting our British parliamentary traditions, and, above all, I shall keep ever before me that, as presiding officer, I must exercise fairness and impartiality as between all members in the House of Commons and be, as has been said in this house "the protector of the rights of every individual member." I fully realise that only strict observance of these obligations will enable me to gain and retain the confidence and receive the advice, counsel and assistance of all hon. members, without which no Speaker can govern the conduct and decorum of this house.

To obtain that confidence I shall conscientiously strive and so far as in me lies I shall endeavour to prove worthy of the trust which you have this day committed to me.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

It cannot ba done; I am likely to be picked up by any local police officer, and if I were unfortunate enough to live in Ontario I would be prosecuted by the attorney general of tihat province. That might be an easy way of getting rid of people who do not agree with the government. Already the people of this country have been frightened. One of my own sons came back the other day from Scotland; he said to me: "You know it is astonishing, as soon as I landed on the shores of Canada I felt that in some way the people of Canada had been frightened, were afraid to speak out what they thought." He had come from Great Britain, where they are not afraid to speak what they think. As we all know, there is literature published in Great Britain and coming to this country that is banned in this dominion. It is a ridiculous situation. Does anyone think the mother of parliaments over there would stand for this kind of thing? We are told that Canada is fighting on the side of Great Britain to save democracy; fighting for liberty, free speech, free institutions. We

Dissolution of Parliament

are told that we have no fight with the German people, but that the trouble with the German people is that they are too submissive, too subservient, that they will take whatever is handed to them by the fuehrer. Are we to become so subservient that we have a virtual dictatorship set up in this country? As I look across at the Prime Minister he does not look like a dictator-

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

The people are not so concerned with niceties of that kind that they will be hoodwinked by such an excuse. As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) pointed out, this defence of not calling an election before parliament was called together, and then claiming since it is called we can immediately have an election, makes me tired; and I think it will make the country tired. I do not mind facing an election, but do not let us resort to that kind of thing. Why does the government not come to this parliament, give an account of its stewardship, and then go to the country? It is here that the government ought to announce its policies for the coming election. The government ought to come out fairly in this parliament and say, We propose to do this, that and the other. Surely the government does not want a blank cheque. There ought to be a debate in this parliament on the government's proposals; when that is all over we can go to the country, having all spoken our minds, having all declared our several positions, and then the people will know what they are voting for. They do not now know.

The Prime Minister talks about free speech. Under the War Measures Act regulations today we are in a precarious position. How can I go to the country and say what I think about war; how can I discuss freely the shortcomings of the government without coming under those regulations? It cannot be done.