1940-11-25

MARINE AND FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Bradette
Brooks
Brunelle
CrOite
Dechene
Deslauriers
Farquhar
Ferron
Gauthier
Gillis
Green
Hanson (Skeena)
Hazen
Kinley
Kuhl
Lapointe (Matapedia-Matane)
Leduc
Macdonald
(Kingston City) Maclnnis
MacKenzie (Neepawa) Macmillan
McLean (SimcoeEast)
Neill
Pottier
Reid
Roy
Ryan
Stirling
Telford
Tomlinson
Tripp
Tustin
Veniot
Ward
Warren-35.
(Quorum 10)

BANKING AND COMMERCE Messieurs
Black (Cumberland) Blackmore Bercovitch Blair
Breithaupt
Casselman
(Edmonton East) Claxton Cleaver Caldwell Donnelly Dubuc Eudes Fontaine Fournier (Hull) Fraser
(Northumberland) Fraser (Peterborough
West)
Graham
Jean
ICinley
Lacroix (Beauce) Laflamme
Lapointe (Lotbiniere) Macdonald (Halifax) Macdonald
(Brantford City) Macmillan McCann McGeer Mcllraith McNevin Marier Martin Maybank Mayhew Moore Perley Picard
Gray	Raymond
Hanson	Ross (St. Paul's)
(York-S unbury)	Slaghit
Harris (Danforth)	Thorson
Hazen	Tucker
Hill	Ward
Jackman	Woodsworth-50.
Jaques (Quorum 15)	
PUBLIC	ACCOUNTS
Messieurs	
Abbott	Grant
Anderson	Graydon
Authier	Henderson
Bercovitch	Homuth
Black (Yukon)	Isr.or
Blanchette	Johnson (Bow River)
Boucher	Leader
Bourget	Maclnnis
Brooks	MeCubbin
Casselman (Edmonton	McDonald (Pontiac)
East)	McGeer
Church	Mclvor
Clark	Marshall
Cote	Mullins
Cruickshank	Mulock
Desmond	Purdy
Ferland	Rickard
Fleming	Roebuck
Fontaine	Ross (Hamilton East)
Fournier (Hull)	Slaght
Fournier (Maisonneuve- Tborson	
Rosemont)	Tremblay
Fraser (Northumber-	Tripp
land)	Veniot
Fulford	Winkler
Gladstone	Wright-50.
Golding

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Bertrand (Prescott) Marier Brunelle Cockeram Denis
Douglas (Weyburn)
Edwards Golding Graydon Jaques
MacLean (Cape Breton North-Victoria)
(Quorum 8)
Marshall
MeGibbon
McLarty
McLean (SimcoeEast)
O'Neill
Rennie
Ross (Moose Jaw) Stokes
Sylvestre-20.
Standing Committees

[Stage Direction]
(Members to act on the part of the Commons)
Messieurs
Bercovitch
Bertrand (Terrebonne)
Blanchette
Bourget
Casselman (Grenville-Dundas)
Castleden
Chambers
Chevrier
Claxton
Cloutier
Corman
Damude
Denis
Dubois
Durocher
Edwards
Emmerson
Esling
Evans
Ferland
Fleming
Fraser (Peterborough West)
Furniss
Goulet
Grant
Green
Halle
Healy
Hlynka
Hurtubise
Kuhl
Leader
MacDiarmid
MacKinnon
(Kootenay East) MacLean (Cape Breton North-Victoria) McGregor McNevin Mills Moore Mulock Nicholson Purdy Rheaume Ross (St. Paul's) Sinclair Sissons Soper Tucker Tustin Weir White Whitman Winkler Wood-54.

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Adamson
Authier
T^PTIPP
Black (Yukon)
Bradette
Cockeram
Crerur
d'Anjou
Edwards
Esling
Evans
Furniss
Grant
Hansell
Hill
Hurtubise
Johnston (Bow River) Lacroix (Beauce)
Lafontaine Leduc Little MacNicol McCann McCulloch McDonald (Pontiac) McKinnon (Kenora-Rainy River) Nielsen (Mrs.) Parent Sanderson Sinclair Sylvestre Tremblay Tripp Turner Warren-35.
(Quorum 10)

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Abbott
Blackmore
Bruce
Church
Cote
Desl-auriers
Dubuc
Eudes
Fournier (Maison-neuve-Rosemont) Goulet
Hanson (Skeena) Hoblitzell Homuth Jean
Laflamme
Leger
Maclnnis
MacKenzie (Neepawa)
Macmillan
MacNicol
McCann
McGarry
McNiven
Massey
Mutch
Neill
Nixon
Pettier
Roebuck
Ross (Calgary East)
Ross (Hamilton East)
Sanderson
Slaghit
Stirling
Turgeon-35.
(Quorum 10)
Standing Committees
[Stage Direction]
Blanchette
Claxton
E sling
Hlynka
Pinard
Pouliot
[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Ross (Middlesex East)
Ross <Moose Jaw)
Rowe
Shaw
Sinclair
Ward-12.
(Quorum 7)
AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION	
Messieurs	
Authier	Lapointe (Lotbiniere)
Aylesworth	Leader
Bertrand (Prescott)	Leclerc
Black (Chateauguay-	Leger
Huntingdon)	Lizotte
Blair	MaeDiarmid
Cardiff	MacKenzie (Lambton-
Clark	Kent)
Cloutier	MeCuaig
Cruickshank	McCubbin
Davidson	McGarry
Dechene	McNevin
Desmond	Matthews
Diefenbaker	Mullins
Donnelly	Nielsen (Mrs.)
Douglas (Weyburn)	Perley
Douglas (Queens)	Poirier
Fair	Quelch
Ferron	Rennie
Fontaine	Ivheaume
Furniss	Rickard
Gardiner	Ross (Souris)
Gershaw	Ross (Middlesex East)
Golding	Rowe
Halle	Senn
Hatfield	Soper
Henderson	Sylvestre
Jutras	Turgeon
Kirk	Tustin
Lafontaine	Weir
Lalonde	Wright-60.
(Quorum 20)	
LIBRARY	
(Members to act on	the part of the Commons)
Mr. Speaker and Messieurs	
Adamson	Lizotte
Aylesworth	Macdonald (Halifax)
Black (Chateauguay-	MacKenzie (Neepawa)
Huntingdon)	MacKenzie
Bruce	(Lambton-Kent)
Cardiff	Macmillan
Casselman (Grenville-	- Marier
Dundas)	Martin
Castleden	Mayhew
Emmerson	Moore
Eudes	Poirier
Farquhar	Pouliot
Fontaine	Purdy
Fournier (Maison-	Raymond
neuve-Rosemont)	Reid
Gershaw	Rickard
Goulet	Ross (St. Paul's)
Graham	Shaw
Green	Telford
Henderson	Thauvette
Howden	W arren
Hurtubise	Winkler
Jaques	Wood
Jean	Woodsworth-44.
IMr. Speaker.]	
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the standing committees of this house shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 3, to amend the Militia Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. CHURCH:: The explanatory note sets out the reasons for the proposed amendment. It deals with conscientious objectors and others who under the act as it stands at present are exempt from military service.
I may add that in connection with the proposed amendments there will have to be another bill to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act with respect to exemptions covered by that act. That bill I propose to introduce on Tuesday next.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: In view of the white paper issued by the Dies committee of the United States congress, which purports to establish that the Transocean news service is a combined German propaganda and espionage service, and that the Transradio press service is its transmitting and receiving agency, will the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), who has under his wing Canadian broadcasting, take the necessary steps to deal with the use of broadcasting facilities in Canada by the Transradio press service?

Interest Rates and Rents


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: My hon. friend was kind enough to give me notice of this question. The governors of the broadcasting corporation are meeting in Ottawa next week, and will no doubt give consideration to the situation as developed by the Dies committee report.
I called the attention of the house as long ago as last June to the fact that we were not sure of the sources of certain information that was being broadcast. I think I went as far at that time as the situation warranted. Steps were taken to ban Transradio from the air. A storm of protest was aroused, and I think my hon. friend was one of those who protested in this house against the action we were taking.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not recall it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There was a storm of protest in the press; it was suggested that we were trying to muzzle news. The result was that it was felt that a comprehensive rearrangement of news over the air should be worked out. The broadcasting corporation has been working on that problem since then and has laid definite plans for a new type of news service beginning January 1 next.
In the meantime I may say that our censors have carefully watched the news put out by the forty or fifty broadcasting stations in Canada that have handled Transradio news, and they have found nothing whatever to complain about in the type of news put out.
I think the broadcasting stations that handle Transradio news will each have a problem of their own in the matter of deciding whether they wish to continue that news. I think they will have to decide a problem in public relations. Every one of those stations violently protested when the government suggested it was unwise for .them to carry that type of news, and I think perhaps we can leave them to work out their problem in their own way, until the broadcasting corporation decide what steps are to be taken in the matter.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): May I ask the Prime Minister if we shall take up the Sirois report after the vote is taken on the address?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: We shall have to wait until
the debate on the address is concluded before it will be possible to say what will then be taken up.



INTEREST RATES AND RENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: I wish to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) a question. During the discussion of his estimates on August 6 last I asked him if he would look into the question of rent control and high rates of interest. He said he would be glad to do so. Since that time he has given some measure of rent control. But I would call his attention to the high rents being charged by some apartment house owners in Toronto and district.
The second part of my question is this: Can something not be done about the exorbitant rates of interest charged by loan companies, loan sharks and others, dealt with last year by parliament? Will the minister look into this point and see whether the War Measures Act could not be broadened out as I suggested last August, to include not only the national moratorium referred to in that debate but some order in council dealing with high interest rates?


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour):: The question of the hon. member
is somewhat of a double-barrelled one. In the first place, as he says, steps have been taken to have some regulation of rentals in areas where the war situation has created congestion bringing about an abnormal rise in rents. That of course comes under the regulations of the war-time prices and trade board, and a rentals administrator has been appointed. I shall be glad to call his attention to the matter of high rentals being charged in certain apartment houses in Toronto.
As to the second part of the hon. member's question, relating to interest rates being charged on mortgages, as I understood him to say, and possibly on other contracts, that is hardly a matter that comes within the purview of the Labour department. I suggest that the hon. member consider directing this part of the question to the Minister of Finance or to the minister whose department would be more directly concerned.


Thomas Langton Church: The War Measures Act,
I understand, takes precedence over existing legislation. There is no more difficulty about dealing with interest than with rents. It is the same point.

National Defence

Unit Prices



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: In a return brought down on Wednesday last, sessional paper No. 121, moved for by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Hatfield) with respect to the purchase of 26,000 garbage cans for use in military camps, the Department of National Defence refuses to answer the inquiry with respect to the price paid, taking the. attitude that it is not in the public interest to give unit prices on any commodity.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Nonsense.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I desire to call attention to this portion of the return and to ask if this is to be the considered policy of the government. Surely this house has the right to know the cost to the country of even such a prosaic item as garbage cans.
Furthermore, I desire to make this statement, that a portion of the return is incorrect, to my own knowledge and to the knowledge of the hon. member -for Victoria-Carleton.


Mr. POULIOT:: Your knowledge might be incorrect.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It states that all these garbage cans were put into immediate use. To my own knowledge and to the knowledge of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton those which were assigned to military district No. 7-929-were not put into immediate use but were stored in a warehouse in the city of Saint John under storage expense. They were delivered there in March last at a time when there were no military camps in existence in New Brunswick and when, so far as I know, none were even announced.
I call the attention of the government to this because some official has made a statement which is-I shall not say untruthful, but incorrect. The minister is away and he certainly is not responsible. But I do desire to know if we are to be given in returns or in answers to questions information with respect to commodities used for military purposes and with respect to storage. If there is no one here who can answer now I should like to have the question stand as a notice so that the matter can be looked into. It is a very small thing, but there is a matter of principle at stake.


Hon. C. G. POWER (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I am inclined to agree with my hon. friend both as to the importance of the matter involved and as to the principle.

I Shall' be very glad to ask the appropriate officers of the department to inquire thoroughly into all matters relating to the garbage cans.



NAVAL SERVICES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: I desire to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald). In a Canadian Press dispatch from Halifax, appearing in newspapers over Canada under date of the twenty-first instant, it is stated that the city council of Halifax has asked the federal government to establish Canada's proposed new naval college at Halifax. In the dispatch it is stated that Mr. R. W. Mayhew, Liberal member of the House of Commons for Victoria-for whom I have every respect-had stated in Ottawa on the same day that he was authorized-"authorized," Mr. Speaker,-to state that the academy would be located near Victoria.
Will the minister state whether the hon. member for Victoria was authorized to make that statement; is it correct; if so, what reason does the minister give for not relocating the naval college at Halifax; and, why should not the minister himself, and not a private member, make such a statement?
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services): Apparently there has been some confusion in the mind of the newspaper man who gave to his paper a dispatch purporting to come from the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Mayhew). There are really two things involved here: first, the question of the site of the naval college; second, the additional training for short periods, three or four months, which is necessary now under the stress of war to prepare officers for their commands.
In connection with the short training period it is true that we are seeking some additional quarters on the west coast; and on the east coast we have erected some buildings for the purpose which I have already mentioned, namely giving officers a short term course.


Percy Chapman Black: There will be only one naval college?


Mr. McGEER:: Why should there not be
two?


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: It
is true that we acquired a site in western Canada for use in the same way as we have provided accommodation at Halifax, and for the same purpose-a short period of training for officers. That, I think, is what my hon. friend the member for Victoria, B.C., hadi in

The Address-Mr. MacKinnon (Edmonton)
mind when he spoke to the press men. They have construed that to mean that a site for a naval college has been selected. That is not the case; a site has not yet been selected for the college.


Thomas Langton Church: May
I ask the minister, first, if in the future he would give to the house, before it is disclosed to the newspapers, over the head and against the regular practice of this parliament, statements as to matters of this kind involving expenditures running into hundreds of millions? Second, has the British Admiralty been consulted about this? Third, why is it that the proposed college is to be located far away from the principal naval recruiting districts?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I
regret to say that I did not hear my hon. friend's question. If he will set it forth in writing I shall be glad to consider it and answer it the next day. I found it difficult to hear him at this distance.


Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Victoria, B.C.):: I am rather sorry that in this far corner I was unable to hear distinctly what the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services said. I think that as a matter of privilege I should be entitled to repeat what actually happened.
While negotiations were going on for the property in question, I was familiar with certain circumstances and received permission, not from the minister but from other departments, to tell the people at home that that property had been bought for the purposes of the navy. The Canadian Press asked me yesterday to make a further statement, and I requested their representative to go to the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services for the information. I assure the house that the minister did not authorize me to make any statement beyond the statement which was made in Victoria-that that property had been acquired, at about five per cent of its actual value, for naval affairs.


Mr. HAZEN:: Is it the intention of the
government to select in the near future the site of this new naval college?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I am not able to answer my hon. friend as to how soon this site will be selected. It will depend on various factors. As was stated the other day, the government has decided to proceed with the erection and maintenance of a naval college. When the site is made available and the other preliminaries are settled, a further announcement will be made.


Thomas Langton Church: I suppose the minister will announce the appointment of Lieutenant Farrow as commandant of the college.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, November 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Brooke Claxton for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Hanson (York-Sun-bury), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Blackmore.
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I propose to follow the lead of my colleagues and confine my remarks to the activities of my department which more intimately touch our war activities. Ordinarily there would be the war work of the national research council. My difficulty here is that, in spite of the magnificent work which is being done by that body, it is necessarily hedged around with the utmost secrecy. This interesting story will have to be told at another time. To-day I plan to confine my remarks to wheat.
May I just briefly express my appreciation of the remarks which have been made on this subject during the course of this debate by hon. members opposite. They have approached the subject in a fair, helpful and constructive manner. We all know that if we were faced with a very serious wheat problem when we were here last session, the gravity of the 1941 wheat outlook is many times more serious. Before touching on 1941 I propose to review the 1940 situation.
I desire to give to the house as detailed a statement as possible of the situation in regard to wheat since the house rose in August.
At the last session of the house I asked for certain amendments to the wheat board act as it then stood. These amendments were particularly important because they dealt with the appointment of an advisory committee to the wheat board, provision for regulation of deliveries, a new section dealing with the processing levy, and the inclusion of Vancouver with Fort William and Montreal as a delivery point on which the advance payment is made.
Before proceeding to deal with action which has been taken under the amendments to the act I desire to give to the house a statement of the position in which we found ourselves as the harvesting season approached and during that time.
With the close of the crop year at July 31 last, we had on hand 273,086,845 bushels of wheat in Canada and we had, in prospect, the harvesting of a wheat crop far in excess of the normal expectations of the agricultural industry. As the crop matured, it was seen
338	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. MacKinnon (Edmonton)
that provision would have to be made for a crop of at least 500 million bushels and the final result in the west now approximates 520 million bushels. Immediate consideration had to be given to the question how this crop was to be handled.
Because we realized that, unless storage facilities were available, a very difficult financial situation would arise for wheat producers, our aim was to provide for the handling of an amount of grain equal, at least, to that delivered by producers from a normal crop. The average wheat crop of western Canada over a period of the last ten years is 307,012,800 bushels out of which there was an average marketing of 262,390,535 bushels. But we went higher than this, and took as a basis for our plans an abnormal crop of 400 million bushels, about 100 million higher, and we reasoned that, if the government, through the wheat board, was able to take delivery of 335 million bushels, which would represent the deliverable part of a 400 million bushel crop, we would have placed the prairie farmer and western business interests in a position approximately coinciding with the normal expenditure of both these factors in the western economy.
Normally, of course, not more than 80 per cent of this 335 million bushels would be marketed in the first four months of the crop year to December first, and 20 per cent from December 1 to July 31 of the following year. Therefore, we set ourselves the task of arranging to take at least 268 million bushels by December 1.
To ensure that the farmers who threshed earliest, and that those who lived in close proximity to the elevators would not be able to deliver all their grain and thus shut out other farmers, the wheat board exercised the authority given to them at the last session and issued permit books. These books contained an affidavit to be signed by the farmer setting out the total seeded acreage that he had, the location of this acreage and the point at which he desired to deliver his grain. A statutory declaration covering these points was made in duplicate, one copy to be left in the permit book and the other returned to the wheat board at Winnipeg. As the farmer delivered his grain the exact amount was entered in the permit book.
In passing I may say that the wheat board have received nearly 300,000 of these statutory declarations, and they provide us with a fund of information in regard to seeded acreages which will be extremely valuable in connection with arrangements which may be made during the next crop year.

The purpose of the permit book was to provide an equitable sharing of the available elevator space. It was difficult, at the start, to know just what this share would be, but on the basis of preliminary calculations the wheat board first announced a quota of five bushels each of wheat, oats and barley per seeded acre. We immediately got hundreds of requests that the three quotas be made interchangeable, but it was originally calculated by the wheat board that, on this basis, not over three or three and one-half bushels of wheat could be taken. The wheat board knew from actual experience that the full' quota of five bushels each of oats and bailey would not be delivered by all the farmers as the greater quantity of these grains are held on the farms for feed purposes.
Because deliveries were inadequate to meet the demand for barley, the quota was increased from five bushels to ten bushels per acre on August 24, and on September 4 this quota was removed entirely. It was found that the bulk of barley was held for feed, deliveries would not exceed the demand, and would not interfere with storage. The action in removing the barley quota entirely has been fully justified by the result.
Because of a similar situation the quota on oats was removed entirely on September 9. Actually, the demand for oats has kept pace with the deliveries.
The first increase in the wheat quota came on September 9 and a large number of points were increased to 8, 10, 12 and 15 bushels per acre. With the gradual clarification of the situation, the general quota all over western Canada was increased on September 13 from five bushels per acre to eight.
The five bushel per acre quota would have provided for delivery of 139 million bushels. The eight bushel quota provided for delivery of 222 million bushels.
To clarify the situation, Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house I would like to place on Hansard a statement showing the acreage in the three western provinces, the yield per acre, the production, the marketable surplus, the amount provided by the quotas and the quotas in percentage of marketable surplus, and also a statement showing the actual deliveries which have been made in the three provinces, and the percentage of deliveries to quota.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Up to what date?


James Angus MacKinnon: Up to November 17, a few days ago, I believe it is. The statement is as follows:

The Address-Mr. MacKinnon (Edmonton)
Wheat quotas established and marketable surpluses as at November 19, 1940
Province	Area (acres)	Yield per acre (bus. per acre)	Production (bushels)	Estimated marketable surplus (bushels)	8-bushel quoti (bushels)	Estimated* additional quotas (bushels)	Estimated total quotas established (bushels)	Quotas in per c of marketable surplus (per cent)Man...	3,512,000	19-9	70,000,000	60,180,750	28,096,000	10,000,000	38,096,000	63-3Sask..	15,571,000	16-7	260,000,000	225,726,350	124,568,000	43,000,000	167,568,000	74-2Alta.. .	8,667,000	21-9	190,000,000	165,675,710	69,336,000	23,000,000	92,336,000	55-727,750,000	18-7	520,000,000	451,582,810	222,000,000	76,000,000	298,000,000	66-0
1 To November 19, 1940.
The general 8-bushel quota provides for the delivery of 222,000,000 bushels. In addition, the board has authorized quotas of 10, 12, 15 and 20 bushels per acre at a large number of points, and these additional quotas provide for the delivery of approximately 76,000,000 bushels. Total quotas authorized by the board now aggregate about 298,000,000 bushels, or 66 per cent of the estimated marketable surplus from the 1940 crop.
Under the quotas now established by the board, 63'3 per cent of the Manitoba surplus, 74-2 per cent of the Saskatchewan surplus, and 55-7 per cent of the Alberta surplus comes within the established quotas.
Number of Stations in Prairie Provinces having 8- 10- 12- 15- and 20-busliel wheat quotas
as at November 16, 1940
*Total No.	8	10	12	15	20Province	points	Bushels	per seeded acre	
372	83	94	76	90	29Saskatchewan 	390	266	199	180	102Alberta 	
611	182	1-65	132	91	41Total 	
2,120	655	525	407	361	172Per cent of total	30-89	24-76	19-20	17-02	8-11
* Elevator shipping points only.
Estimated Quotas and Marketings
The following table shows deliveries of wheat to country elevators in each of the three prairie provinces from August 1 to November 15, along with the quotas established for each province and the percentage of wheat delivered under these quotas.
Percentage
Quotas	delivery
Delivered1	established2	of quotasProvince	(bushels)	(bushels)	(percentage)Manitoba	
30,354,529	38,096,000	79-7Saskatchewan	
123,981,200	167,568,000	74-0Alberta	
66,719,604	92,939,000	71-8221,055,333	298,603,000	74-0
The above table shows that 74 per cent of the established quotas in the prairie provinces have been filled.
In Manitoba, 80 per cent of delivery quotas have been filled up to November 15. The corresponding percentage figure for Saskatchewan is 74 per cent and for Alberta 72 per cent.
1	Includes country elevator receipts and platform loadings up to November 15 and excludes primary receipts at interior private and mill elevators, amounting ito 2,647,797 bushels.
2	Quotas as at November 19.
340	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. MacKinnon (Edmonton)
I am not going to take the time of the house to give these figures in detail now but I would summarize them by saying the total wheat area was 27,750,000 acres; the average yield per acre in the three provinces was 18.7 bushels, giving a total production of 520 million bushels, the figure mentioned a moment ago.
It will be noted that the actual yields were as follows: Saskatchewan, 16.7 bushels per acre, Manitoba, 19.9, and Alberta, 21.9. Allowing approximately 681 million bushels for feed, seed, etc., this left a marketable surplus estimated at approximately 451,500,000 bushels. The eight bushel quota provided for 222 million bushels. As at November 19, just the other day, additional quotas have been authorized at different points to an amount of 76,000,000 bushels, making total possible deliveries under the quotas 298,603,000 bushels or 66 per cent of the total marketable surplus. Actually as at November 15-just a week ago-223,819,660 bushels had been delivered, or a total of 74 per cent of the established quotas, as at the 19th. Please note that quotas have been provided for
298,603,000	bushels, although for one reason or another deliveries to the extent of 223,819,660 bushels only have actually been received.
At the present time 70 per cent of the shipping points in western Canada have a quota of over eight bushels, some of these running as high as twenty bushels where exceptional storage space is available or where very exceptional conditions have to be met, and I am now informed that the general quota will be raised from eight bushels to ten bushels next week. There will be further quotas established from time to time during the crop year as wheat is moved into export and consumption channels.
You will see from these figures, Mr. Speaker, that the board have been successful through the splendid cooperation of the elevator companies in providing storage, sufficient to look after the marketable surplus from a much greater than average crop, as mentioned by me a few minutes ago.
It is interesting also to compare the deliveries this year to date with the deliveries in previous years. The actual marketings from August 1 to November 15 have averaged during the last ten years 183,098,831 bushels. In the last three years, the average marketings have been 218,229,357 bushels, so that the actual marketings so far this year have exceeded both the three-year and the ten-year average and, as a matter of fact, have been exceeded only in four previous years- 1928, 1932, 1938 and 1939. The latter year, you will remember, Mr. Speaker, was not only 
a very heavy crop year, but a year in which the grain was marketed at an exceptionally rapid rate.
It is also interesting to note that the value of the crop marketed to November 15 is almost 810,000,000 over the average for the past ten years and is only $21,800,000 less than the average for the last three years up to that date. What is most important, however, is that the farmers will still have wheat undelivered to the value of over 120 million dollars, which is 70 to 80 million dollars more than the value of the grain in their hands at this date during any time in the last ten years. This is a large reserve of payment or purchasing power.
I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, something of the problem that the government has had to face in the last two years. We set a price of 70 cents per bushel for No. 1 wheat in store at Fort William and Vancouver, and for eastern Canada at Montreal, for both the 1939 and 1940 crops. The 1939 crop in the prairie provinces amounted to 493 million bushels. The 1940 crop, as I have said, is estimated at 520 million bushels. This means that in addition to the enormous expenditure on Canada's war effort, the dominion government has extended a guaranteed price on production totalling over one billion bushels of wheat, of which amount we expect approximately 900 million bushels will be delivered by the farmers.
We did this in the full knowledge of the effect that the war was having upon markets for wheat. The war itself and particularly Hitler's aggressions have greatly restricted the range of our markets. For example, in July, 1939, Canada shipped wheat to eleven countries in Europe, and in August, 1940, Canada shipped wheat to three countries only in Europe, the United Kingdom, Eire and Portugal, approximately 600,000 bushels in all to the latter two countries. Through its maintenance of a guaranteed price, and through the activities of the Canadian wheat board, the government prevented the effects of this narrowing of markets from falling upon the Canadian wheat producers, particularly of the prairie provinces and upon the western economy as a whole.
With the approach of the harvest season there was general fear throughout the west that with only a five bushel quota there would be widespread financial difficulties because of the inability of the farmers to obtain enough money from the grain they were allowed to market to provide for their necessary expenses. Quite frankly I also shared that view and so stated in this house at the close of the last session. The situation, however, improved much more rapidly than we had anticipated and the general quota increase from five-

The Address-Mr. MacKinnon (Edmonton)
bushels to eight bushels, together with the further increases in the quotas at so many points, materially changed the picture.
There are those who say that still more should-have been done. In addition to guaranteeing a price we should, they claim, either directly or through the chartered banks, undertake to advance up to 75 per cent of the value of all wheat remaining on farms, which would actually mean that we would have to extend our immediate obligations in respect to wheat by at least 75 million dollars.
Advances on this scale would have meant adequate arrangements not only for provision of weather-proof and theft-proof storage facilities but also for the setting up of local organizations throughout the west to look after the inspection, measurement and sealing of the wheat. No one, I think, could rightly ask the federal government to launch a loan programme of this sort without having the wheat properly stored, and subject to proper inspection. Our first object then was to increase to the greatest possible extent the elevator storage facilities so that the farmers could secure the full price for more of their grain.
We had in all a rated storage capacity of Slightly more than 442 million bushels including annexes. After allowing for working space this gave us an estimated 420 million bushels of actual storage capacity. As at July 31, there were 243 million bushels already in storage, leaving the available space at approximately 177 million bushels. I am dealing here, of course, only with Canadian storage. Steps were taken to encourage the construction of additional storage facilities throughout the prairies, and an agreement was made with elevator companies that the cost of temporary storage could be written off by them over a period of two years in reporting for income tax purposes. As a result of this action additional storage capacity to the extent of 60 million bushels has been built by elevator companies throughout the west.
With regard to loans against farm-stored wheat, the government approached the banks and elevator companies to act as principals in a loan programme. Because of the lack of adequate safe storage on the farms no private agency would assume the risk in making loans. These agencies, the banks and elevator companies, were in a better position to discriminate between good and bad risks than was the government, had the latter attempted to direct a lending programme. The very fact that private agencies would not interest themselves in this business suggested that a loan programme under the conditions of open storage on farms might be subject to wide abuses if undertaken by the government. The government had no alternative except to make as extensive provision as possible for deliveries from the farms and, as I have pointed out, this has to my mind been successfully accomplished.
We realize, of course, that even if we were able to accept normal deliveries, there would still be a large amount of grain which would have to be carried over on the farms for some months at least, and we adopted the principle of paying farmers the same rate of storage for grain held on the farm as was being paid to elevator companies, namely, two-thirds of a cent per bushel per month. This provision induced many farmers to provide extra storage for themselves, they preferring to store their own wheat and get the enhanced prices available thereby.
With the permission of the house, Mr. Speaker, I should like to place on Hansard the schedule of payments which will be made for farm storage.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it very long?


James Angus MacKinnon: 
Richard Burpee Hanson: Would not that be in contravention of the act?


James Angus MacKinnon: I do not think so. Under these circumstances the ownership does not change. The merchant or other person accepting wheat from the farmer in that way simply holds it as trustee for the farmer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is
stretching the definition of "producer" pretty far, is it not?


James Angus MacKinnon: I
do not think so. In any event, it is working out fairly satisfactorily.
There have been some cases of hardship where landlords who have been seriously in 
need of finances have not been able to make arrangements with their tenants for a share of the deliveries, but these cases have not been many and it is hoped that with further increases in quotas and deliveries there will be a satisfactory division among all parties.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the wheat board act provided for a processing levy against all wheat milled for human consumption in Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask the minister whether that was intended to cover domestic wheat supplied by farmers to a little mill in New Brunswick for gristing? It is a grievance down there.


James Angus MacKinnon: I shall refer to that in a moment. In fact that matter is at the moment and has recently been receiving very earnest consideration by the wheat board.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think it ought to be abandoned.


James Angus MacKinnon: It may be recalled that in my statement to the house at the last session I referred to the very considerable drop which had occurred in the price of wheat just at seeding time, due to the developments in Europe. The result of these developments was that instead of the farmers having a market of at least 90 cents a bushel, the actual price at Fort William was 71 and a fraction cents. It was felt that some arrangements should be made to assist the farmers, if at all possible, and the arrangement of the processing levy was decided upon. The amount of this levy was to be fixed by order in council but was not to exceed 15 cents per bushel according to the amendment. By order in council dated the 24th of July a levy of 15 cents per bushel was provided for, and it was realized that 15 cents a bushel would be the equivalent of 70 cents per barrel of flour.
When I announced the processing levy in the house, I stated that it was to be remembered that this levy should not result in an increase in the price of bread. Immediately the levy was announced, however, considerable agitation in regard to possible increases in bread prices commenced, and at Vancouver the price of bread was actually increased.
The war-time prices and trade board immediately took action, and on the 6th of August issued an order limiting the amount which could be passed on to consumers by the flour millers to one-half the levy.
A full investigation was held by the wartime prices and trade board of the representations made by the milling companies that they could not absorb one-half the levy in accordance with the board's order. The

The Address-Mr. MacKinnon (Edmonton)
position of the millers in this matter was substantiated after investigation by independent auditors, and the board on September 6 rescinded their previous order of the 6th of August and since that date the full levy has been passed on by the processors.
I have been represented in this debate as having stated that this processing levy would not be passed on to the consumer, but my only statement in this regard was the one to which I referred a few minutes ago when I said that it was not anticipated that the processing levy need result in an increase in the price of bread. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, there have been no increases in the price of bread, certain adjustments having been made by the bakers so as to absorb the processing levy.
Some farmers gristing their own wheat objected strenuously to paying this levy, but it has been our opinion to date that as the processing levy was intended for the benefit of the farmer he should not object to paying the comparatively small share which he was called upon to pay on wheat gristed for his own consumption.
Representations have been made of hardship in connection with this levy in certain parts of the maritime provinces and this is a matter that is giving us concern at the present time.
In the maritime provinces-Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick at least-a number of mills have been established to serve local communities. These mills have been started, I believe, by the provincial government, and I am told that they are just barely able to keep going and that this processing tax is bearing heavily upon them. It is not really a heavy tax, but in their present position they find it difficult to handle the levy. This is, as I have said, under consideration.
I have mentioned the amendment which provides for a larger advisory committee to the wheat board. This committee consists of eleven members, of whom six more particularly represent wheat producers, appointed to assist the board. The members were appointed by order in council dated August 27. I would ask permission to place on Hansard the committee membership. It is as follows: Advisory Committee to Wheat Board Vancouver
Mr. Fred. H. Clendenning, Vancouver. Alberta
Mr. Lew Hutchinson, Duhamel, Alberta. (Chairman, Alberta Wheat Pool).
Mr. Paul Farnalls. Helkirk, Alberta. (President, Western Union of Municipalities). Saskatchewan
Mr. J. H. Wesson (President, Saskatchewan Co-op. Wheat Producers).
Mr. J. A. MeCowan, Summerberry, Sask.
Manitoba
Mr. D. G. McKenzie (1st Viee-pres., United Grain Growers Ltd., Winnipeg).
Ontario producer
Mr. Fred. Pettypiece, Auld, Ontario.
Quebec consumer
Mr. Rosario Messier, Contrecoeur, P.Q.
Line elevators
Mr. A. C. Reid (Pres., North West Line Elevators Ltd., Winnipeg).
Millers
Mr. D. A. Campbell (former Pres., St. Lawrence Flour Mills Co., Toronto).
Exporters
Mr. R. C. Reece, K. B. Stoddard & Co., Winnipeg.
I would like to express my apreciation of the very great interest which has been shown by every member of this committee. Three meetings have been held, the first on August 26 and 27, the second on September 30 and October 1, and the third on Monday and Tuesday of this week. Another meeting will be held in about two weeks' time.
At the meeting this week the committee considered, with the wheat board, possible plans for 1941 and ensuing years. A subcommittee consisting of Messrs. Farnalls, Reece, Reid, Wesson and Campbell is now working on the whole problem and this subcommittee will report to a meeting of the whole advisory committee early in December. All members of the committee have shown a real desire to be of every possible assistance to the wheat board in working out the problems which have confronted them. Full reports have been made to me as directed by the act.
There have been many representations made this year to both the board of grain commissioners and to myself personally, and I am sure to my colleagues and to members of the house generally, in connection with grading of this year's crop. I suppose there is never a year when there are not complaints from some quarters in regard to the grades, but I would point out that under the board of grain commissioners we have built up an inspection and grading service which is recognized as second to none in the world. The result has been that a certificate issued by the grain board is accepted at face value in any part of the world to-day. It is important to our whole wheat export business that there be no lowering of the standard of our grades.
The most insistent complaint in connection with grading this year came as the result of the prevalence of cracked wheat in the deliveries. This, we are advised, was largely due to the fulness of the kernels, the dryness of the wheat and the fact that farmers were not properly adjusting their combines and their threshing machines. Ordinarily a certain
344	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. MacKinnon (Edmonton)
amount of cracked wheat can be permitted, but the situation became so widely prevalent that action had to be taken. The board of grain commissioners issued a statement, and followed that up with a broadcast by Mr. J. Ansel Anderson of the grain research laboratory. Once the matter was called to the attention of the farmers and remedies suggested, the prevalence of the occurrence of this cracked wheat immediately became less pronounced and comparatively few complaints were made in the last few weeks of the threshing season.
Another matter, Mr. Speaker, that has given us considerable concern was the situation that arose in Alberta due to a very large quantity of tough and damp wheat, the consequence of bad weather which occurred during harvest time in a portion of Alberta which ordinarily enjoys a dry harvesting season. It was at first estimated that a total of not more than 25 million bushels was in this category. Recent surveys would indicate that the figure will be very considerably less. Because there was no certainty at first that the elevator companies would be able to ship this wheat out before it began to deteriorate in their elevators, deliveries for a while were impossible. The wheat board took prompt action. Chief Commissioner Mr. George Mclvor and some of his staff made a special trip to Alberta to check personally on the situation. As a result immediate arrangements were made for additional cars to be placed at the particular stations affected, and this car movement is now working satisfactorily so that deliveries from farmers of tough and damp grain will be moved to terminal elevators for drying purposes. This will relieve what otherwise might have developed into a serious situation, with producers suffering loss on account of deterioration of their wheat.


Mr. QUELCH:: Could the minister give the amount of the spread in the price of tough and damp wheat?


James Angus MacKinnon: I cannot say offhand.
It is essentia] that all farmers who have tough or damp wheat in danger of deterioration should deliver at once in order that steps may be taken to have it properly housed.
In speaking of grading, Mr. Speaker, I might say on the basis of the first three months' inspection this crop has graded higher than any previous crop and has a higher percentage of No. 1 northern than in any previous year.
Before going on to deal with the situation in the coming crop year, I would like to touch briefly on one matter which is frequently brought to our attention. This is the possibility of finding new uses for wheat.

Every probable avenue has been tentatively, if not exhaustively, explored by our national research council for years. The most popular idea is the development of power alcohol from wheat, but our experiments to date show that this is not economically practical. To make it so, according to our experiments, wheat would have to be purchased for about thirty cents a bushel. Experiments and investigations are continuing.
At the present time, Mr. Speaker, those of us particularly charged with the responsibility for wheat are endeavouring to arrange for the construction of additional wheat storage. This we believe is needed to enable us to carry out our intention to accept from the producers all of the 1940 wheat crop in this crop year.
None of us is unmindful of the situation which we shall have to face, in dealing with the 1941 crop. We here, and those vitally interested in wheat production and in wheat handling, are and have been giving intense study to this problem. There can be great changes in the situation in a few months' time, but we all fully recognize that a wheat policy covering the 1941-42 crop year must be announced some time in February, well in advance of the seeding season. From the standpoint of the wheat board and my Department of Trade and Commerce, unless there are radical and unexpected developments overseas, the 1941 wheat policy will have to be decided upon with a knowledge that apart from domestic consumption only between possibly 140 and 175 million bushels can be exported in the crop year ending July 31, 1942.
I would remind the house that as Minister of Trade and Commerce, it is the marketing facilities through the board of grain commissioners and the wheat board which are under my jurisdiction. In other words, my department's responsibility begins with the delivery of the wheat to us. Any matters relating to operations on the farm lie within the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), and with the provincial departments of agriculture.
I have endeavoured, Mr. Speaker, to cover all the points which have been brought to my attention since the house rose in August and to give to the house as much information as possible. I would like to say to the hon. members of this house that we stand ready at all times to give as complete and full information to them, respecting the wheat situation, as can properly be given. It is obviously impossible, however, for me to disclose the situation of the wheat board in regard to actual sales or actual prices at which sales have been made. I say also quite sincerely that we will welcome constructive criticism.

The Address-Mr. Bruce
I would like to express my sincere appreciation 'to the members of this house representing constituencies other than those in western Canada for the sympathetic consideration which we have received from them in dealing with the problems of the prairie wheat producer. The majority of the members realize the difficulties which the western farmers are facing, and it has been a matter of considerable gratification to me to know that we have the generous support of these members in connection with the actions which have been taken dealing with the wheat problem.
The problems which have been faced by the wheat board in the last few months have been tremendously difficult. I believe that the members of the board are to be congratulated on having so capably handled the problem. They have had to evolve and put into practice new methods and new ideas. That has been done successfully and with the minimum of friction. I wish to assure every member of this house, and particularly those representing agriculture, that this government stands squarely behind a policy of giving the utmost protection to the farmer. That, I think, has been proven by the burden which we have already assumed. We all understand that our primary purpose at this time must be so to organize our whole economic life in Canada that our success in the war will not be jeopardized in any degree. I believe the great majority of farmers are reasonably satisfied with what has been done and will be done by this government.
I hope that what I have said this afternoon will not be construed as an argument that all the wheat growers are in a happy position to-day and that little need be done for them. They are n6t unmindful of the responsibilities that Canada is assuming, and although the 70 cent per bushel advance payment may not give many farmers even a meagre profit over cost of production they are accepting this as part of their contribution to the war effort. We are undertaking to see that they do not bear an unfair share of the burden.


Mr. PERLEY:: Can the minister say
whether any arrangements have been made, or are under consideration, with the British government for the export to that country of wheat milled here in considerable quantities and shipped in the form of flour?


James Angus MacKinnon: If I understand the question correctly, the hon. member wishes to know whether I have any information about arrangements that have been made.


Ernest Edward Perley: Or under consideration.


James Angus MacKinnon: I have heard nothing of any such arrangement, and I do not believe any such arrangement has been discussed. I do not think, however, that I need hesitate to say that recently very much more than normal quantities of wheat have been shipped to the old country in the form of flour, and for obvious reasons.


Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: I desire for a moment to call the attention of the government and of the house to the acute shortage of housing in Canada. The United States have recently decided to build 300,000 pre-fabricated houses to take care of the situation which they expect to develop there during the coming year, and I think Canada, because of our great timber resources, is in a particularly fortunate position to undertake the building of pre-fabricated houses. I do not intend to go into the subject fully to-day because, after the recess, a better opportunity will be accorded. I should like, however, to say a word in commendation of the branch which the Department of Finance has set up for the purpose, namely, the national housing administration. This is under the direction of Mr. F. W. Nieolls, R.A.I.C., a prominent architect and a most capable officer. He has done extraordinarily good work during the last five years in connection with housing. I should like to see his department enlarged so that he could have more opportunity for research, particularly with regard to building material and methods of construction.
Anyone who knows anything about the housing problem will realize the great importance of town planning in connection with housing, and before we go any further in the building of houses which are so urgently needed in Canada, I urge upon the government the necessity of establishing a separate bureau of experts in town planning attached to the housing administration. To do so, it will be necessary to have an amendment to the housing act to give authority for town planning.
Another matter which I had thought of discussing at this time but which perhaps will also be better deferred until after the Christmas recess is the question of national health insurance. When the national Unemployment Insurance Act was put on the statute books last session, nothing was done with regard to the problem of health. When the British House of Commons passed their national Unemployment Insurance Act in 1911, the first part, and I think the most important part of that act, dealt with health insurance, comprising not only insurance against ill health which necessitates the loss of employment but also the prevention and
The Address-Mr. Bruce

cure of sickness. I was in England when that act was introduced in the British House of Commons and I remember very well the many protests from the medical profession. As members of this house and members of the government, most of whom are professional men, know, there is always a degree of suspicion and fear lest some new enactment may interfere with the prerogatives of members of a profession. Although that fear was expressed loudly throughout England at the time, I am happy to be able to say that in the course of ten or fifteen years the men who were loudest in their protests against the enactment of health insurance in England admitted that it was a good thing not only for the British people but also for the medical practitioners as well; and to-day I think the profession in the mother country will be found to be unanimous in their support of the national health act. Hon. members may know that Germany introduced a similar act fifty years ago, and I believe it has operated successfully in that country.
I mention this now because the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has told us that in January he is calling the premiers of the provinces together to consider the Rowell-Sirois report, and I hope that at that time this question will be brought to the fore, and that perhaps, if the provinces will give their consent, an amendment to the national Unemployment Insurance Act will be undertaken during the next session to include this important matter of health.
I have twice been deeply shocked during this session. Last Thursday a minister of the crown, back after about four weeks in heroic Britain, rose in his place and boasted to this house that he had made millions for Canadians by his shrewd bargaining with the defenders of everything we hold dear. I could scarcely believe that the time could ever come when anyone would be triumphant over bargains arising out of the motherland's necessity in her hour of direst need. Surely if there ever was a time-


Mr. GARDINER:: Mr. Speaker, on a
question of privilege, I did not boast that we made millions as a matter of bargaining with Great Britain. We accepted, with no bargaining, the prices that Great Britain offered us.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is no privilege in that; that is merely a matter of opinion.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a statement of fact.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman who had the floor said that the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) a

few days ago had boasted of having made a shrewd bargain with Great Britain. The Minister of Agriculture is within his rights and within the rules of the house in stating that he did not make such a statement.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Mr. Speaker, I refer to Hansard of November 14, which contains the report of the speech of the Minister of Agriculture. On page 100 is given a statement of the value of exports of certain Canadian agricultural products and fish to the United Kingdom for the years 1935 to 1940, with estimated figures for 1941. The value of those exports in 1935 was $34,133,394; the value for 1941 it is estimated will be $105,741,000. For nine months of this year the value was $63,343,411.


James Garfield Gardiner: Largely without increasing prices and, in some instances, even with decreasing prices.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Well, that may be so-[DOT]


James Garfield Gardiner: It is so.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: -but I do not think it alters the situation; and if the minister has anything further to say, perhaps he will be good enough to wait until I have concluded my few remarks.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Let him make another
speech afterwards.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can do that if necessary; I have two more rights.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I was about to say that surely if there ever were a time when we should make a thank-offering, it is now. Let us open our bursting granaries to Britain and give her our wheat. Now is not the time to drive bargains or seek higher prices than are prevailing right at home. Certainly we must pay the farmer, and pay him a fair price, but let our dealings with Britain be on a basis of a thank-offering out of our abundance.
Last Sunday night the second shock came. The Minister of Agriculture in his dual capacity as Minister of National War Services, said on a nation-wide radio hook-up:	,
Factory managers who contend they cannot produce to capacity without interfering with the training of men may have to be told by someone, just as they are being in Britain, that they as factory managers are not good enough for war time.
The inference from those words is plain: Do what I tell you-or else. He was addressing the patriotic industrialists of Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: Again I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. gentleman is reading into my statement in the house and into my statement last Sunday night something

The Address-Mr. Bruce
which was not said. The statement which I made was based upon correspondence which I have from factories, and one factory in particular, which refused to send any men to the camp. I am prepared to back up my statement.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member for Parkdale is putting his interpretation on the minister's statement. That is done in this house every day and is a legitimate practice. Are we to be muzzled?


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member let me have the floor to correct it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But given an inch you take the whole ell.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I have quoted, Mr. Speaker, from a press release from the office of the director of public information. My quotation will be found on page 9.


James Garfield Gardiner: And, speaking for the two papers which have done most of the talking to which I referred.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, now, that is most uncalled for.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not uncalled for.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let the hon. gentleman proceed. I implore you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to be courteous to the hon. member who is now addressing the house.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member for Parkdale has the floor and will proceed without interruption.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) said the other day that the army and the men in the factories were partners, that they realized how essential each other's services were. With that I heartily concur. Here, however, is the view the Minister of National War Services has of the importance of labour. I quote from the same radio speech:
My observations in Britain lead me to conclude that we can put too much emphasis upon the need for skilled labour. I inquired in factories and shipbuilding yards everywhere and was told in every line of industry that not more than five per cent required any skill before coming in to do the job, and in a very short time they could operate the machines and tools in the plant.


James Garfield Gardiner: Correct.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The Minister of National Defence said that he would see industrialists in England before trying to work out a new system of training recruits on a widespread system of granting exemptions. His colleague blew into England like a Saskatchewan dust
storm, bargained for millions of dollars' worth of bacon, cheese, apple juice, tomato juice, and saw everything there was to see in the factories. Exemptions are not needed, he says. Only five per cent of the workers need to be skilled, he tells us. It does not matter what experts have been telling us for months. It does not matter what the Minister of National Defence says or finds out. The one-man cyclone from the prairies has been there first. He talked to the workers. He watched the workers. From his long experience-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: In industry.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: -he tells us, and I again quote from the radio speech:
One girl running a rather important machine said she lived in the country. ... I have seen similar girls milking cows, and I am sure it took much more nerve, ingenuity and skill to sit on a stool and pull teats than it did to operate this inanimate creation.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the government: We wish to cooperate with you and assist you in every way possible in your war effort, but in turn we expect you to be frank with us and let us know the facts. After listening to the statements of the ministers, one would conclude that everything they had done was one hundred per cent perfect. We would be more likely to believe them if they admitted sometimes that they had made mistakes. They could not do better than follow in this respect the example of British ministers. I will conclude by quoting a few words from Mr. Churchill's speech of yesterday, in which he says:
I have never concealed from the nation or the house the darker side of our dangers and burdens, but it is in adversity that British qualities shine brightest.
I hope and believe that the same may be said of Canadians.


Mr. R. T. GRAHAM (Swift Current):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to join with the many other members who have addressed this house at this particular session, in expressing my pleasure at the high character of the addresses of the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I sometimes think that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) and others long experienced in this House of Commons must feel a certain degree of pleasure in seeing the influx of young men into our parliamentary life, and I am inclined to suppose, from talking to some of these older members, that this particular parliament is distinguished in that regard. It seemed to me a happy circumstance that

The Address-Mr. Graham
both the mover and the seconder were comparatively young men. and that they have elevated, by making such fine presentations to this house on that occasion, the high esteem which the country as a whole has for our young people.
As is quite proper, almost every hon. member who has addressed this house has dealt first with Canada's war effort. That undoubtedly is as it should be, because of course we are a unit in placing the war effort first in our minds and our hearts. There is no problem confronting this country that is not closely associated with the successful carrying on of that effort which we as a nation must make our foremost aim-as speedy a victory as possible in the war in which we are engaged. I for one desire to express to the Prime Minister and the members of his government my high appreciation of the leadership that he and his cabinet ire giving to the country and to parliament. I have listened to a number of criticisms directed at the government, but I admit that I am not so much concerned whether a particular unit is short a few shirts or a few boots if I am satisfied that the ministers in charge of our war effort are men of high integrity and lofty character, animated by the purpose with which we wish them to be animated, that is to say to give Canada the most efficient, effective and worth-while effort in the present war. Having listened to these accounts of stewardship given by the different ministers, may I say that to me, and I am sure to Canadians in general, the character, the working capacity and the high purpose of our ministers are a matter of great pride.
I have just finished reading a new life of the elder Pitt, Earl of Chatham, and when we think back to the political conditions which existed in those days we are inclined to wonder how there comes to be still an England. So again I wish to express my pride that, in the record which has been laid before this parliament and in the discussions that have followed, never by innuendo, by insinuation or by direct statement, having in mind the hundreds of millions of dollars which are being expended by this country in its war effort, has there been the slightest suggestion that the conduct of the government is not honest, that the men who are in charge of the war effort are not above possible reproach. It is no small thing that we as a country have men of such high character and integrity.
In connection with our war effort there are one or two matters of which I would like particularly to speak. One must again compliment the government upon having taken, at the outbreak of war, such speedy
rMr. Graham.]
action in attempting to control what might easily have been a course as disastrous as the one followed in the last war. I have in mind the matter of price control in respect of certain necessary commodities. That action must not have been taken without deliberation beforehand, and I believe the ministry is to be complimented upon having gained something from the lessons which were learned in such a costly manner during the last war, and upon applying the experience gained at that time to see that so far as humanly possible the same results may not flow again.
Yesterday I listened with keen interest indeed to the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). With all essentials in that presentation I find myself in agreement. I suggest to him that in carrying out the financial policies of Canada the government must be careful to see to it that that equality of sacrifice based on ability to pay, as he described it, is fairly distributed among the different economic classes which make up our population. I know he has in mind that high purpose, but I would suggest to him that, despite all the efforts of the government there are certain results which spring, not from inflation but from the rapid expansion of the business life of the country. Naturally, labour becomes in greater demand.
I noticed a short time ago a request from the government that the practice of one industry of attempting to induce workmen to leave another industry, 'through the inducement of higher rates of pay, ought to be discouraged as something not in the interests of the whole. I believe the government realizes, however, that, despite the ability of the members on the price control board, it is an impossible task completely to eliminate a gradual rise in the cost of living during the great struggle in which we are engaged1. It seems to me, therefore, that the government must be extremely careful to see to it that the primary producers in Canada are not unfairly dealt with as a result of the expansionist movement which must come.
One or two of the speeches of hon. members in the official opposition have suggested to me a point which I believe ought to be discussed. I am a veteran of the last war, and I do not believe any veteran of that war would disagree with me when I say that on that occasion we had a definite path to follow. We had a certain number of months' training in Canada, and at that time our object was to reach England. After we arrived in England we received a few months more training, after which we were sent to France. The purpose we had set out to accomplish was then before our eyes, and we had a path we knew we were about to follow.

The Address*-Mr. Graham
It seems to me that in the present war the commissioned and non-commissioned officers and men who enlist in our army, air force or navy have a particularly high duty to perform in the service of their country. Human beings have not changed in some respects. When we are young we like to go places; when we are young we are full of energy and like -to do things. It seems to me that one of the tasks we must perform in connection with this type of warfare is so to train the officers and non-commissioned officers in their leadership that there will grow up in the ranks of our services a high respect for his majesty's uniform, and a high sense of the duty which devolves upon them. They are being confronted with a severe trial of patience, one -of the hardest trials to bear. Because of their inability to reach the front line and meet the enemy, they have a sense of frustration, and it seems to me that those who are their leaders must in some way inspire them to that high degree of character and patience which will help them to perform the task allotted to them in a manner of which not only will we be proud but which will reward them when they leave army life.
I like to think that hon. members, and particularly those who are veterans of the last war, have the duty of attempting to instil in the minds of the officer class with whom we come in contact the necessity for such direction. I believe the syllabus, the lectures on discipline, and a certain amount of the educational material being distributed among the men in the services should be designed with the idea of inspiring them, no matter what their ranks, with the duty that is cast upon them. They must be kept aware of the nature of their task, and of our hopes that they will discharge their duty with that high degree of credit attained by the men who served in the last war.
While listening to the debate I noticed the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) repeated what had been said at the last session by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), namely, that private members on this side of the house have a duty to perform in their relationship to the government, in much the same way as have private members in the opposition groups. I believe no one will disagree with that observation. I suggest, however, that that duty can be performed in many ways, and I would assure both those hon. gentlemen that members on this side of the house are performing their duty in many ways.
Sometimes I believe that the government must be confused with regard to the attitude taken by members of opposition groups. As
they point out, while it is their duty to oppose, to offer constructive criticism and to make suggestions, yet of necessity there must be a reasonable degree of consistency in those presentations. I could not help noting the paradox of the oft-repeated demand upon the government that they give more and more information, and greater detail as to what is being done, and the suggestion made yesterday by the hon. member for Vancouver South that the government was spending too much time in that particular task. He suggested it should be engaged in giving attention to the education of the people in Canada, so that their efforts might be harnessed to our tremendous war effort.


Mr. GREEN:: I did not say that; I think the hon. member has misunderstood what I said.


Roy Theodore Graham: I accept the correction.


Howard Charles Green: I was complaining about the type of information being released.


Roy Theodore Graham: I do know, however, that
the hon. members to whom I have referred have in mind exactly the same idea as other hon. members have, namely, that the government of the day must conduct the war effort with the greatest degree of efficiency, and attempt to do all that is required. I suggest to the house that that is exactly what the government is doing-always bearing in mind the type of country in which we live, the people who live in it and the difficulties which must present themselves to any government of any political stripe which may have assumed the duty of conducting our war effort.
While it is true that as private members on this side of the house it is our duty to offer constructive criticism, I sometimes wonder whether we have not a somewhat heavier duty cast upon us than is placed upon the shoulders of members of opposition groups. Sometimes we envy the freedom with which the member in an opposition group may express himself. We on this side of the house are on a team, if I may so describe it, and we are charged with the duty of assisting the government in performing a task. On the other hand, members of the opposition may spray this side of the house with a machine-gun barrage of criticism, and they may direct their fire in any direction they see fit. Let me assure hon. members opposite that if -they will conduct themselves in the traditional manner of a good opposition we, in turn, on this side of the house, will perform our duty in the manner we deem fit and proper.
There are only two domestic matters upon which I should like to touch. One has been dealt with at considerable length to-day by
The Address-Mr. Graham

the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). I refer, of course, to what is known as the wheat problem. In discussing this particular problem I should like to take it out of that category of problems wi.th which western Canada only is concerned. If ever there were a national problem, in both size and the effect it has upon the country, it is surely this wheat problem. Of course, it is part and parcel of the problem of agriculture, and I want to say to hon. members from Ontario and the other eastern provinces that we from the west recognize it as such. When any problem affecting agriculture in the eastern provinces arises, they will find us ready and willing to assist them in securing measures of relief. In turn, we hope that they will help us when this huge problem confronts us.
I need not remind the house that many hon. members from western Canada were born in Ontario and the other eastern provinces. Many of us grew up in the east. We are, therefore, in a dual position and are able to appreciate, to some extent at least, the attitude of mind of the Ontario people, for example, and the attitude of mind of the people of western Canada. It is only by a joint and common effort in tackling all these problems that we can hope to find a solution.
I listened with more than usual interest to the address of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle when he dealt quite fully with this problem. It will be recalled that he suggested that last year in western Canada-I think he had Saskatchewan particularly in mind-there had occurred what he described as a racket in connection with the grading and handling of wheat by the elevator system. I know the hon. member is the owner of an elevator. He is a member of this house and obviously he has taken a great interest in this particular question. He is also the operator of a large farm. I am sure he made that statement, having fully in mind his responsibility as a member of parliament.
I agree with him that if any such condition exists, it should be remedied immediately, but I must confess that I am a little surprised that such a charge could be made against the elevators in the particular province from which I come. We have a great cooperative elevator system known as the Saskatchewan wheat pool, and I can hardly credit that that organization, which dominates the elevator situation in that province, would lend itself to what might easily be described as a racket. I sincerely hope that this will be the final conclusion that we reach after all the information has been received. I feel sure that the wheat pool, by its example and fairness in handling the farmers' wheat, will have shown that there is no opportunity in my
fMr. Graham.]
province for the carrying on of any such racket as that described by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.
The matter is one that seemingly could easily be checked. As I understand it, all wheat goes through the wheat board and there is a record, not only of the number of bushels but of the different grades of wheat which have passed through the country elevators. We know the amounts that were in the elevators prior to the marketing of this year's wheat, and it seems to me that it would be easy to determine whether the elevator systems had profited to any extent, great or small, at the expense of the producers.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle seemed to have little but criticism of the policy adopted by the government last year in connection with wheat. My experience has been somewhat different. Leaving aside for the moment the initial price paid to the farmer, I would say that the quota system adopted by the government has given the farmer an opportunity to market his crop in instalments. I suggest to the hon. member that that is not an unmixed evil. A great many benefits have been derived as a result of the farmer being given that opportunity. It will be remembered that the hon. member compared the amount of wheat delivered on a certain day in 1939 with the amount delivered on the same date in 1940, and estimated that some $50,000,000 less was in circulation in 1940 as compared with 1939. But any one who has lived in Saskatchewan will know that had that $50,000,000 been paid out, it would not have reached the hands of the producing farmers. In all likelihood it would have gone into the hands of the so-called creditor class. While we may have a certain measure of sympathy .for some of the creditor class, our first concern in this wheat crisis is for the farmer.
So we find that the farmer who was blessed with a crop, despite the fact that he could market only his quota, has a certain sense of security from looking at his well filled granaries. They are filled with a commodity which we all believe has an actual worth and will continue to be an actual asset to him for the coming year until deliveries are completed. Of course, all this is conditioned upon the agencies of the government being able to give an opportunity to the individual farmer actually to deliver his quota. In addition, it is based upon the assumption, as clearly indicated by the government policy, that before the end of the present crop year the farmer will be enabled to market practically all his crop.
Those of us who have lived long in the west know that there is a certain amount of value in the fact that throughout the year

The Address-Mr. Graham
the income of the farmer will be spread out, so that on no occasion will he be presented with an emergency or crisis in his family household. But I say to the government, and particularly to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, that if an individual farmer in a certain district has not been able to deliver his quota of grain, the government should take notice of that and realize that it will be impossible for such a man to get along without some method of converting into cash the only commodity he has, that is, wheat.
All things considered, I find myself viewing with considerable satisfaction the application and the working out of the quota system as applied by the government last year under its wheat policy. Like other hon. members,
I realize that it would have been of greater value to the farmer had it been announced at an earlier date, but I realize also that there is considerable justification for the government not announcing its policy before it did.
We must remember also that at that time weather conditions made uncertain the type of crop yield in the west, and remember again the position of our usual markets. We all know that France unfortunately was in the midst of a break-down and that that market was disappearing. In addition, we did not know and we do not yet know the attitude of Russia. The same applies to Japan. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that we never do expect the superhuman from the government, and when we remember the uncertainty as to the amount of crop we would have to deal with, and the uncertainty as to available markets, it is not, to me at least, a matter of wonderment that the government waited as long as time would permit for these important factors to become as clear as they could.
But, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce has properly pointed out, in this crop year 1941 a wholly different situation presents itself. We now know fairly well the markets available to us. It is true we do not know the amount of the 1941 crop, but we do know the extent of the nationally-owned storage space available in the crop year 1941, and so I was highly pleased to hear the minister state to the house to-day that it was the intention of the government to pursue its study of this problem and in February, when the house reconvenes, to make an announcement of its policy for 1941.
What are some of the problems? I propose briefly to outline them without at the moment suggesting a solution.
Obviously the Storage problem is one which will have to be solved. We now know that we shall likely enter the next crop year with
all the present storage capacity filled. If that is the situation, it seems to me that the government must do one of two things, or both. One is to adopt a policy of increasing the present storage owned by the elevator systems or by the government. That, it will be noted, would permit the continuation of the quota system, if sufficient space were available, without having to advance money on the wheat in the farmer's hands. On the other hand the government might encourage the farmer more than it did last year to build granaries or storage facilities on his own farm sufficient to handle a larger portion of his crop. It seems to me a necessary corollary of the adoption of that policy or of both policies-the extension of our national storage facilities and encouraging the farmer to increase his own storage facilities on the farm-that the government must in this crop year consider the necessity of having to finance in some way the farmer who is holding his wheat on the farm.
There are in western Canada areas in which the mixed farming type of agriculture could, of course, be greatly increased, but there are other districts, my own among them, in which that would be found impossible, not because the farmers there do not desire to do so, but because climate, type of soil and other fixed conditions make it absolutely essential for them to continue the growing of wheat as the only possible method of staying in the farming business. For many of these fanners there is no possibility of changing from wheat to a mixed type of farming unless, I suggest, the government carries out a vigorous policy of broadening and making a greater use of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.
In my particular district I had, during the recess, the pleasure of visiting the Maple Creek project, and it seemed to me that I could have done the prairie farm rehabilitation scheme and the eastern members of this house a great service if I could have taken them on that trip with me. The hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Evans) was kind enough to take me over that sixteen-mile project and nothing, I think, could be more astounding than to see how an otherwise barren district had been converted by the use of conservation of water into an oasis flowing, metaphorically speaking, with milk and honey. That project is a wise and worth-while idea. It will enable feed and fodder to be available to districts south and west of the project which have suffered from a visitation of grasshoppers. So if, perchance, the government intends to pursue a policy which will encourage the farmer to change his methods of farming and to go
The Address-Mr. Graham

into a more mixed type of farming, I should like to see joined with that a generous appropriation for Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act purposes, so that those districts which could be served by the provisions of that act would be given that opportunity.
Having dealt with the question of storage, I should like to discuss the question of price, which must be considered again this year. I know that representations were made by almost all the western members with regard to the price for last year's crop. The decision of the government was announced. But it seems to me that even if the government adopt the same line of reasoning this year as last year, they may have to recognize the rising cost of living and the necessity of putting the farmer in a position of equality with that of the year 1939. That is a subject which, I am aware, will require a great deal of consideration. The quota system itself has worked out fairly well; but if it is our desire not to encourage the growing of any greater quantity of wheat than is necessary this crop year, we must remember that there is in that quota system itself a certain encouragement to increased wheat acreage, and as the United Grain Growers' Grain Company of Winnipeg has pointed out, the government might well consider, in this whole problem of voluntary reduction of wheat acreage, changing the basis from that of acreage to that of bushels. I think that point deserves consideration.
The question of storage charges which was raised by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle raises the question whether, in the light of the experience that we have had during the past year, it might not be wise to take over all of the elevator storage capacity in Canada. We all recall that last year the elevator companies were quite pleased to offer to the government the taking over of their plant, provided that the government would compensate them with a return of some 6 per cent on the capital invested. I know that this is not something which would be done in normal times, but because of the nature of the problem, and because particularly of this constant and reiterated demand that storage and other service charges be reduced, it may be the policy of wisdom for the government to take over the elevator system and the storage facilities of this country.
I have already referred to the question of crop acreage. I think it is the consensus of opinion of those who live in western Canada that the only way in which we can wisely and effectively accomplish any crop reduction would be, not by any compulsory method but by encouraging a reduction in the wheat
[Mr. Graham.3
acreage and by the improvement of farming methods. I know that in my own district this year peculiar weather conditions resulted in a fairly good crop on summer-fallow and practically none on stubble. That in itself will be an encouragement to the average farmer who is not already doing so, to summer-fallow more of his land and to discontinue the sowing of grain on stubble.
The use of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, together with encouragement to the farmers to take up some other method of marketing coarse grain and wheat, or any other product they may go into, is the only means whereby we can reasonably hope to achieve success in the endeavour to reduce crop acreage.
Then there is the relationship between Britain and Canada in the marketing of wheat. The other night I listened with a good deal of pleasure to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I have followed closely everything he has said on this subject, not only in this house but elsewhere, and I was interested to hear him recount his experience and the knowledge gained in England. One of the points that emerged from his discussion is the fact that there is a certain barrier to the purchase by Britain of more of our agricultural produce, owing to the exchange relationship between the English pound and the Canadian dollar, and I for one would heartily welcome a declaration on the part of this government that, if for no other reason than to assist the motherland in her moment of trial, we are prepared to give her free access to the markets of this country and, moreover, are ready to absorb any differential that might result from exchange, so far as commodities with which we can furnish her are concerned. This would not only emphasize the relationship that exists between the mother country and ourselves, but assist in the marketing of products other than wheat in the old land, and it would allow our farmers to go in for diversified farming, discontinuing the production to so large an extent of commodities of which at present we produce so much and which we find it difficult to market.
My purpose in bringing up this question and in outlining some of the problems that will face the government and the people of Canada is not to offer any immediate solution or any definite, planned solution. My opinion is that it would be difficult indeed, without some technical information which one would necessarily require, to determine exactly how all these problems that I have suggested could best be solved. I have, however, a good deal of commendation for the suggestion of the United Grain Growers Company Limited of

The Address-Mr. Graham
Winnipeg, that the whole question of marketing wheat be turned over during the recess to a committee for study and report. I care not what sort of committee it may be, so long as the personnel are properly equipped for the task. It might be a committee of this house.
The minister has indicated that he is himself giving this matter great attention. That is obvious. The wheat board, the advisory council and the wheat committee of the cabinet, I have no doubt, are all bending their efforts towards a solution of the problem. It is not insuperable. The statement made by the Minister of Agriculture the other night, whether it was optimistic or pessimistic, in its evaluation of the factors relating to this great commodity, shows clearly that the problem can be solved. If it is properly studied, I have no doubt that the government can find a solution for it.
The various agencies which the government itself has set up will no doubt have a great deal of information on the subject; but I rather think it would be wise, during the recess, to give an opportunity, to representatives of different groups who are vitally interested in finding a solution of the problem, to appear before a committee and submit such information as they may have. That committee could call to its assistance any or all of the agencies of government which have been busy collecting information. Perhaps the advisory council to the wheat board might be sufficiently representative to perform that task on behalf of the country. In addition to the information which it would give to those charged with the study of the problem, it would be a splendid service to the farmers, who are suffering from a sense of misunderstanding. Nothing would make me happier than if the federal government could see fit to have the subject investigated in this way, so that we in the west and the farmers in the east would feel that ample opportunity had been given for the presentation of views. It would show that the matter was being sympathetically considered. The farmers and all others concerned would gain an appreciation of the problem, and when the solution came there would be a sense of partnership in the conclusions reached, which would greatly benefit the country.
At the present time agriculture is restless because it senses it is not keeping its proper place in the economic life of Canada, that it is not being treated as are other sections of the nation's activities. Every hon. member, no matter whether he represents a rural riding or comes from a city, realizes what it would
mean to this dominion if those engaged in this great basic industry were allowed to remain permanently in a state of depression.
This problem calls for the best in each of us. I am sure that there is no fundamental difference of opinion among the members of this house as to its being desirable that the government should find a proper solution.
I had intended to touch upon one other matter, the report of the Rowell-Sirois commission on dominion-provincial relations. May I say simply this, and I think it will sum up my views on the question:	I wish to
emphasize the position taken by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) the other night, and I suggest to those representing Ontario and Quebec particularly, the two great central pillars of confederation, that they come (to the conference as Canadians rather than as residents of a particular province. As we look back over Canadian history, so well outlined in the first volume of the report, is it not well for us to ask ourselves this question: What would Macdonald and Blake, what would our own beloved Laurier and, let me add, Sir Robert Borden do if they could attend such a conference? These wise leaders of the people, regardless of political affiliations, gave leadership at the time of confederation and afterwards in an effort to bring harmony into the dominion.
I will not recite, as I had intended to do, certain excerpts from the report in relation to Saskatchewan. There is a standing challenge there to have something done to meet the situation that exists to-day. We remember the words of Lincoln, that a nation cannot exist half slave and half free, and that is true to-day of Canada. The worst thing possible that could befall Ontario and Quebec- and we have a right to expect the highest leadership from those provinces-would be to leave any part of this dominion in the unfortunate position in which Saskatchewan finds itself to-day. And the finding with regard to Saskatchewan is made by a commission on which there was no representative from that province. The personnel was drawn from the two central provinces, the maritimes, Manitoba and British Columbia, and no one from Saskatchewan need be afraid of anything that might be said is suggestive of bias in favour of Saskatchewan.
Here we have the completed report of a detached and independent royal commission charged with the duty of examining that very question. So I leave that by again appealing to the private members of this house who come from the central provinces- yes, and other provinces-and to the provincial leaders of the provinces, that when

The Address-Mr. Graham

they come to that conference, while in some respects the recommendations may be questioned, while all the recommendations are not necessarily to be accepted, and while the figures in the report are to a large extent only estimates, they come firm in the purpose to find a solution of a problem for which a solution must be found.
In conclusion, I think the contribution which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has made to the public life of this country is such that his cup must be filled to the brim with pride even on the record he now has, but what a happy conclusion to a life so filled with accomplishment would it be if he could do two things: one, to lead this country to victory in this terrible war and preserve for us the measure of democracy upon which we can again build our way of fife, and, second, to set our own house in order through the report made by that royal commission.


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: This debate has been marked by sincere and honest expressions of opinion. I hope the house will credit me with a like sincerity. It has been said that Canada is fighting to preserve itself, and that its first line of defence is in Great Britain. That may be so, but the Canadian people realize that the people of England to-day are fighting for their lives and for the preservation of their homes. I cannot forget my native land; although it is forty years since I left I still have many relatives and many friends there, and I feel that they would wish me to express on their behalf their profound gratitude for the efforts and sacrifices which the Canadian people are making in their war effort.
I should like to associate myself with those who have asked that the government grant free transportation to soldiers on leave. I am sure that would be the wish of the vast majority of the Canadian people.
I should like also to say a word on behalf of a great many widows of soldiers who fought in the last war, whose lives were prematurely cut short on account of their war experiences. I am told that many thousands of these widows are destitute. Again I say that if the government would look after these widows and at least grant them the necessities of life, it would meet the wishes of the vast majority of the Canadian people.
I should now like to remind the house, in case my remarks may be misunderstood, as ours in this group often are by the press, that the basic philosophy of social credit is individual freedom, and that we detest dictatorship in any shape or form. It is said that democracy is government according to the

will of the people. If that is so, and we have had a democratic government-or so it is said-why is it that in the last twenty-five years we have had two major wars and, in between, a series of depressions, unemployment, poverty and destitution? Surely those conditions have not existed as a result of the will of the people. Since they have been prevalent, I can only conclude that we have had government according to the will, not of the people but of other interested parties.
There are two political philosophies: one, centralization or totalitarianism, and the other, decentralization or democracy. Social crediters stand for decentralization, and therefore democracy.
Twenty-two years ago the world was, we were told, made safe for democracy. For a time there was a period of great prosperity. But soon after the peace was concluded we ran into a time of great depression, which continued more or less up to the start of this war. In fact it is not too much to say that the cause of this war was the depression, which had lasted more or less for fifteen years. It is easy to blame Hitler, but there was a gap of fifteen years between the end of the last war and the rise of Hitler, and had the people of Europe and of the world not been subject to the conditions to which they were subjected, I am sure that Hitler never would have been heard of.
I have said it is obvious that we must have had government according to the will of parties opposed to the interests of the people. I do not think there is any doubt that these interests were financial. As the biggest banker in the British empire said:
Bankers control the policies of governments and hold in their hands the destinies of the people.
The world has been money mad. Only the bankers, the money lenders, have been listened to, and anybody who dared to criticize what the bankers said was either laughed at and discredited or treated to a conspiracy of silence. I remember that in September of last year, when the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) brought down the first war budget, he said, as he said yesterday, that the real cost of war must come out of current production; and I remember saying at that time in reply that that was true, that the real costs of war were blood and sweat and tears, and that therefore any debt which was left after the war was over was not real. Yet we have been paying the debts of the last war right up to the present one, without reducing the amount in the least; in fact it is bigger now than it was. When we add the debt of this war to that of the last, I cannot imagine what conditions will be like.

The Address-Mr. Jaques
I believe the bankers already have an idea of those conditions; they have said that we shall have hard times for generations. Moreover, this time is not like that of the last war. Then, the people accepted those conditions as being inevitable, but this time there are very many who do not believe that it is necessary to suffer privation as a reward for winning a war. Hence it is that we hear proposals such as federal union and "union now." The proposals are that each country shall surrender its sovereignty over finance, armaments, fiscal policy and the judicature. I should like to ask what would be left. The authority of parliament would be reduced to less than that of a provincial government, and the provincial legislatures would be reduced to the status of parish councils. Further, if we are to have no sovereignty, how can we have a sovereign? If we surrender our sovereignty we surrender our sovereign. Yet these proposals are publicized in the press; and just before I left Alberta, a Mr. Streit rvas given the facilities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on a nation-wide hook-up to put those proposals before the Canadian people. If that is not treason, I should like to know what it can be called.
As a proof, just one proof, that governments have not the control of finance, I would refer to the description, in Viscount Snowden's " Memoirs " of an incident in 1931 where England had a financial crisis. He relates that he telephoned certain financiers in Wall street, New York, and asked them whether, if the British government were to reduce the standard of living of the unemployed and the scale of social services in general, that would be acceptable to these financiers. Think of it,-the British government going hat-inhand to international financiers and asking them if they would agree to furnish a little money provided the government reduced the standards of living of its own people! And what was the consequence? The navy mutinied.
To my mind the object of those international financiers was to make it impossible for Great Britain and the empire adequately to finance rearmament in order to face the German threat. How else can one account for the fact that, in the face of certain aggression by Germany, the allied countries refused to prepare themselves to meet it? I heard a Minister of National Defence say in this house that the Canadian flying corps had ceased to fly. Could he say that there was no room in the air? Could he say that there was no gasoline when Alberta has so much that pipelines are needed to get it out of the country? Could he say that there were 14873-23-$
no young men willing and anxious for the job? No. There was only one reason: we had no money; and we had no money because neither this government nor the government of any other democratic country is sovereign to-day. One and all are, and have been, controlled by international finance.
As I said before, we in this corner and our followers throughout the British empire detest dictatorship in any shape or form. Certainly we were never confused as to the difference between Germany, Italy and Russia. I remember that when, on many platforms, I have lumped those three countries together, people have objected; they said, "There is all the difference in the world between Russia and Germany." Then I would say, "Well, there are three eggs on this table. Here we have a hard-boiled egg-you can call that Germany. Here is a scrambled egg-you can call that Russia. And here is a poached egg-you can call that Italy. They look a little different. Some people like them fried, some like^ them poached, but they are all eggs, and nothing but eggs."


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: Germany is a bad egg.


Norman Jaques: I was coming to that. But there is another kind of egg-a rotten egg; and that is dictatorship by finance. Last summer I asked perhaps the greatest financial authority in Canada why it was that the French left off building the Maginot line precisely where the Germans broke through in 1914. We were told that France had the finest army in Europe. We were told that its Maginot line was impregnable, and that it had the finest flying corps in Europe. But the Maginot line was not even finished. It was like a bridge which went three parts of the way across the stream.
I asked that man if he could tell me why it was that the Maginot line had not been built past that certain point, and he said to me, " Well, they had a financial crisis, and they had to economize." Will anyone say that that crisis was accidental? I say it was deliberately brought about, and the result of their economy has been the loss of France-a real economy, indeed!
I remember trying for some hours in the committee on banking and commerce to persuade its members that saving money caused a Shortage of purchasing power. Of course I was reminded of the proverbial rainy day. Then, a report of a royal commission in Australia was put into the evidence to rebut the ideas I had advanced. That royal commission was appointed by the government of Australia, and its findings were that saving money did not cause a shortage of purchasing power.
The Address-Mr. Jaques

We were, however, told yesterday by the Minister of Finance, and we now are told repeatedly by the orthodox professors that the very object of selling war bonds is not to raise money to finance the war, but rather to cause a shortage of purchasing power. And so the orthodox have had to eat their own words. As I have said before, the canons of sound finance are silenced in war time by the cannons of the enemy.
If I may I should like to read a short quotation from the September issue of The Banker, a magazine published in London, England. In part it is as follows:
Are we to suppose that if these Spitfire funds had not been raised, the production of Spitfires would have been any the less? Clearly not. The factories would have been producing to the limit of their capacity in any case. Money to buy Spitfires has no more connection with the production of Spitfires than have the spring flowers.
And it goes on to say:
When the savings appeals argue that "every pound that flows in from the sale of defence bonds increases the flow of molten steel from the crucibles and blast furnaces" this is a plain misstatement of fact.
That is not the statement of a member of the social credit party. It is the statement of a banker, as it appears in The Banker of London. If it does not correspond exactly with the statement of the president of the Canadian Bankers Association in Canada, then I would say the difference may be explained by the fact that in England no one is sure whether he will be on this earth from one day to the next. In face of that fact, perhaps the man who wrote that article thought that confession would be good for his soul.
Then, in connection with any suggestion hon. members in this corner of the house make, we hear remarks about "funny money." Mr. Jaffray, president of the Canadian Bankers' Association, was quite eloquent on that subject last week, and left the suggestion that money created by any government and not by bankers must be "funny money." So far as it is possible to deny anything, it has been denied that there is such a thing as the creation of money. Yet it is obvious that it nvould be impossible to finance our war effort without money creation. Otherwise, what would have been the point of saying, as has always been said in this chamber, and in any other parliament, that it would be impossible to do this or that because it was not known where the money would come from.
Of course, money to finance a war is created. Let there be no mistake about that. I am not criticizing this government in par-
ticular. I am, however, criticizing the principle it upholds, one which has been upheld by every democratic government in the world. That is the reason why democracy is in the danger in which it finds itself to-day. Everywhere and in all countries parliaments have surrendered their sovereign rights over the issue and creation of money, and have delegated that power to private corporations responsible to nobody other than themselves. Those corporations are not even national. It is an international arrangement. And so they have played one country off against another.
After the last war a policy of deflation was forced on Great Britain. Mr. Jaffray may talk about "funny money," if he wishes; but speaking in the House of Commons in England in 1922, the Bight Hon. Bonar Law, some time Prime Minister of England, said this, as reported in Hansard for the month of May in that year:
We borrowed 8,000 million pounds. As a result of deflation we shall be required to repay 16,000 million.
"As a result of deflation"-no wonder the bankers always warn us about the dangers of inflation. But they never mention deflation. That debt was doubled-and if Mr. Jaffray says that our ideas about money are funny,
I will say to him that that money was hot, and very hot. It was stolen-deliberately and absolutely stolen.
I well remember that away out on the prairies of Alberta I had kept cattle through what was the longest winter in the history of western Canada, a winter which had lasted seven months. I thought I would be rewarded for my efforts, but when I came to sell those cattle I got only one cent a pound, as a result of that deflation. My debts were doubled and trebled; yet that is called sound money. It is the biggest racket the world has ever known. It is the cause of the terrible conditions that we have at the present time. There will never be peace, there will never be prosperity, there will never be true democracy until parliaments assume their responsibilities and control the creation and issue of money.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: That is
what they were going to do, but they forgot about it.


Norman Jaques: Many people advocate
federal union or the surrender of our sovereign powers as the only way to peace. They say that we must disarm and hand over our sovereignty to an international police force. The only way to ensure peace is to remove the causes of war. To disarm would be just the same as tying behind his back the hands

The Address-Mr. Jaques
of a victim of the seven years' itch. It would not remove the cause. To say that you are going to cure national problems by making them international is the same as saying that you are going to cure the inmates of a hospital by tearing down the partitions.
The Minister of Finance had this to say:
That in real terms, that is to say in terms of the loss to the nation of the production required for war purposes, the war is paid for substantially while it is in progress.
That is true. In other words, the real costs come out of current production. Therefore, when the war is over, the real costs will have been paid. Why, then, should there be a debt at the end of the war? If the real costs have been paid, then the debt cannot be real. I cannot see any flaw in that argument. As a matter of fact, there is no need for debt at the end of war. The minister continued:
That the task of finance is not only to provide the funds which are used to pay for the war services but more fundamentally is, by taxing and borrowing, to restrict the civilian demand .for economic resources in order that they will be available to the defence or supply departments when required.
That is reasonable; but if the war is financed, as it certainly is, by the costless creation of money, why should anyone expect to be rewarded for lending his money? Why should a man who has more money than he needs hold the country in his debt forever simply because he lends it to the nation? If it is not necessary, why borrow it? All the necessary money can be obtained by costless creation of credit. A London banker says that this is undoubtedly what is happening. Why should those people who do something which is quite unnecessary be rewarded by having the rest of the people in their debt for all time?
I can remember when the Minister of Finance was putting over the first war loan. He said he wanted the bonds distributed as widely and as evenly as possible. If we had taken him at his word and had done just that, what would have been the value of the bonds? Every one would have had the same number of bonds and we might just as well tear them up because every one would be paying his neighbour's interest. But as the minister went on to say, some of the people-I would say the vast majority

are too poor to buy bonds. The soldiers are too poor to buy bonds, and it is these people who are too poor to buy bonds who will be taxed to pay the interest on the bonds belonging to those who happened to have enough money to buy them. These bonds were offered as a safe and profitable investment, but it is
our soldiers who make them safe and profitable. If we are beaten, these bonds will not be worth the paper they are printed upon. When our soldiers come back from war they will be taxed to pay the interest on the bonds belonging to people who have taken no risks. That is not equality of sacrifice.
May I say a word about the farmer. Just before I left home to come to Ottawa I was asked to address a meeting of the executive of the united farmers of Alberta. I told them that I had not attended the meeting to make a speech, that I had come to listen and to learn their wishes, which I would lay before parliament. I told them that we had done our best at the last session, but I did not hold out much hope. I told them that if the Alberta farmers and other farmers in western Canada were in a depressed condition, that must be agreeable to this government because it was part of their fundamental policy; if a class of people have no money to spare, that is all to the good because the government will be spared the trouble of extracting it from them. A Liberal who was present rose and said he was sorry that I had introduced politics into the discussion. I said that I had not introduced anything of the kind, that I was not criticizing the government; that I was merely stating facts.
How many of these war bonds will be held by the farmers of western Canada? Next to none. Yet when the war is over, they will be taxed to pay the interest on bonds which they never had an opportunity of acquiring. I know of what I speak. I have farmed all my life and I know these people. If they are able to exist, that is as much as they can do. They cannot buy bonds; yet after the war they will have to pay. If the war lasts for years and years, as we have been told it may, what will be the state of debt in this country? As I said before, those people who have not been able to buy bonds will have to pay interest to those who have been able to buy them.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said at the end of his speech:
Never again must we allow any man or any group of men to subjugate by fear and to crush by the power of might the spirit and the lives of honest and humble men.
There is only one way to make that possible. The government must assert its sovereign right over the creation and issue of money. So long as governments-I am not blaming this one more than any other-allow money lenders, because that is all that bankers are, good servants but impossible masters, the worst kind that you could get, to dictate the policy of governments, how is democracy pos-
The Address-Mr. Stirling

sible? We believe that a strong, free and prosperous British empire is the best guarantee for the peace and sanity of the world; and instead of surrendering the sovereignty of the empire or of any part of it to any international force, which of course would be international finance, those sovereign powers should be strengthened by restoring to the crown in trust for the people absolute control of the issue of currency and credit.
On motion of Mr. Stirling the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 5.55 p.m.
Monday, November 25, 1940.
The .house met at three o'clock.



ALBERTA PROVINCIAL BANK


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the standing committee on standing orders be instructed to inquire and report on the advisability of accepting as sufficient for this session the proceedings taken last session in respect of the presentation of a petition, the filing of a bill, and the publication of notice relative to the proposed incorporation of the Alberta Provincial Bank.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This motion is the one I referred to the other day when my hon. friend first presented it. I then mentioned that the committees had not at that time been constituted. They have since been constituted. I said then that I saw no objection to the motion carrying once the committees were constituted. I repeat that now.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, November 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Brooke Claxton for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Black-more.
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, the 1940 session was prorogued and

the 1941 session opened two days later because of a demand by public opinion for information. The demand was somewhat insistent, particularly from that portion of public opinion which has been looking on with admiration, at the effort which Britain has been putting forward, on our behalf as well as her own, and there was some apprehension-that portion of public opinion which is aware that the first division of the Canadian corps received its equipment for its training in Great Britain; which has some doubt in its mind yet, whether the second division has yet received all its equipment in Great Britain for its training, and knows that the third division and the fourth division in this country have not yet been fully equipped; that portion of public opinion which has heard of the shortage which exists in equipment for the reserve units of the Canadian army, shortage of motor cycles for motor cycle units, tanks for tank units, anti-tank guns, anti-aircraft guns, instruments for the signallers, the requirements of training for all those specialized units which to-day form a part of a modern corps, without which equipment they cannot train; and without training they are not only useless but a positive menace to those corps to which they are attached.
The house has now had read to it rather voluminous statements by the various ministers whom we know as the war ministers, with an historical preface by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). It has received a mass of information; it has been led through the ramifications of the boards and committees which are directing this work, and the process of digestion is going on.
Certain things, however, emerge. The plans outlined of course have not yet reached their full measure of production.
But the battle is now. Oh, the pity of it, that the government did not realize the intensity of the need months ago! The low countries had to be invaded before it was realized that Canada's utmost effort would not be too great. Had that been realized, as I maintain it should have been realized, the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) would not have had to tell us the other day that the peak of production was yet eight months distant.
Hon. members may be inclined to say that this is being wise after the event, but is it? So far as the general public is concerned, probably it is. So far as the ordinary member of this house is concerned, probably it is. But I maintain that so far as the government

The Address-Mr. Stirling
is concerned, it is not. The government is the director of this effort. The government has been looking on at Great Britain directing the effort, the magnificent effort, of the people of the United Kingdom. Cables have been passing all the time; and you cannot make me believe that the government of the United Kingdom failed to keep this government aware in minute detail of what they foresaw, of the information with regard to the enemy that they had received, of what they were doing and were proposing to do, and as to those measures of cooperation in which the partners in this effort must share. It is not the custom of a government to impart the contents of secret cables. It would be hardly proper for them to do so; but these cables are passing all the time, and it is on the contents of these secret cables that governmental policy is laid.
Last session the Prime Minister, replying to me with regard to a certain matter, said that Canada bad not refused any request made by Great Britain. Of course she had not. But Great Britain does not make requests of the dominions until the ground has been thoroughly sounded and it has been made pretty certain that the request, if made, will be granted. But the cables are passing week in and week out, day in and day out. Envoys are discussing; ministers are visiting; communications are being exchanged, yet eight months had to elapse before this government really got into its stride and started Canada pushing. The inevitable result was perfectly evident, that if Britain could not hold its defence Canada was doomed. The measure of Canada's effort last winter was the measure of the government's policy at that time. Now we are told that Canada is making everything. If Canada under direction to-day can make everything, Mr. Speaker, under similar direction she could have made everything last winter, or begun to do so. Canadian industry has not been backward. Canadian industry has been only too anxious to get really busy. Aeroplane manufacturers were clamorous for work. The Department of National Defence had combed Canadian industry to such an extent that they had a card index containing a couple of thousand names of firms listing what they were capable of doing and perhaps what they were anxious to begin doing. Canadian labour is not backward. We have the word of their spokesmen, and we have the evidence of our eyes. We need only look at what labour has accomplished in the erection of the buildings for the commonwealth air training plan, and on top of that the provision of the establishments required for the training of the Royal Air Force.
No, Canadian labour has not been backward, but only recently has the tempo of
Canadian effort been quickened. The only thing that is changed is the government's policy on which that tempo was based and the realization, I say once more, that Canada's utmost effort will not be too great.
I am not going to attempt to deal in detail with the statements which have been made by the ministers; the process of digestion is still going on. They paint broad pictures; they withhold certain figures. With that I do not make complaint. The ministers must have the decision as to what is wise to give out in the way of figures, and what is not. But there can be only one reason for official reticence, and that is the danger that information may reach the enemy. Official reticence must not be used for any other purpose. Sometimes it appears to me that official reticence is being carried rather far. Let me give an example.
During the last session of this house we were most anxious to obtain a progress report on Bren gun production. We could not get it. The minister dealt in generalities; he told us the situation was satisfactory and that production was ahead of schedule. Again in the statement he made in this house ten days ago he used the same soothing language, and again we were not given the figures. Then three days later he handed them to the Canadian Press. I look upon that, Mr. Speaker, as somewhat of an affront to this house. The minister, giving what appeared to be a full description of Canada's effort in this matter, in which he knew the public was interested, did not give the figures on that occasion, but he handed them to the press three days later. There is no doubt whatever in my mind that a certain number of people, I do not know how many, have known those figures for some time past. Indeed last session I was told that certain members of this house had been informed as to those figures. I was not. But if there are enemy agents in our midst, as I have little doubt there are, it is pretty evident that Herr Hitler knew the figures of our Bren gun production before we members of the house knew them, and I do not think that is a satisfactory way to keep the ordinary member of this 'house informed when, individually and through the various parties, he has informed the government not once but many times that his desire to get on with and help in this effort was as great as that of the government. W'hy give the public the opportunity to wonder? Is it not better to give out information such as that, which surely cannot do any harm and -which tends to keep up the interest of those who are endeavouring to examine such matters?
The Address-Mr. Stirling

About a month ago I had the opportunity to take a parade at Vernon, British Columbia, through the courtesy of the officer commanding the camp there, on the fourteenth day of that period of training. I was greatly impressed with what I saw. I was greatly impressed with the fact that some 1,200 young men, as fine a bunch of youngsters as you could possibly wish to see, were before me revealing what they had learned in the short period of approximately eighty hours of training. It is due to the excellence of the work done by Colonel Sutton, D.S.O., and the officers and non-commissioned officers associated with him that that high degree of training in such a short time has been attained. They were a remarkable set of men, those teachers. They had been connected with many famous units-the Royal Marines, the Indian Army, t(he British Army and the Canadian Army; and so well had they made contact with those recruits, and so well had they imparted knowledge to them, that the atmosphere was good, the bearing of the men was good, and the way they had learned the rudiments of drill and of marching was excellent. I formed a very high opinion of that effort.
I am not going to enter into a discussion as to whether the thirty-day training plan is a good one, or could be bettered. Certainly I do not consider that any sensible man could possibly imagine that soldiers could be trained in thirty days. But there are one or two factors to which I am persuaded considerable weight must have been given, when the thirty-day training period was decided upon. One of those factors is the desirability of drawing together at thirty or forty places across the country young men of a certain age and from every province in Canada so that they may be looked at, so that they may rub shoulders one with the other, so that they may receive the rudiments oif training and discipline and thereby place themselves in a somewhat better position to receive that training which would be necessary if the day should come when far larger numbers of land troops are required.
The second thought which occurs to me in connection with the making of that decision is that because the equipment for the reserve units of the Canadian Army was known to be short, it was impossible to believe that there would be equipment available for the new recruits which would make it possible for them to receive the advanced stages of training at the present time.
What further results have there been from the national registration? The idea of a national registration was put before the house by hon. members from this side of the house. It was suggested on more than one occasion

before the government adopted it as a desirable procedure. Certainly it was not put forward with the idea of its being only a channel for military training. The purpose of the registration, this numbering of the people, was that of giving a great deal of information. It was to enable the segregation of potential labour, male and female, young and old, trained and untrained. It was to afford opportunities for the provision of training schemes for those who were not trained. We have not heard of any result arising from national registration other than that which has already arisen in connection with the training camps. I am sure the people of Canada would like to know what if any progress has been made in other directions.
When Great Britain was arming and Canada was not, a great many of our trained mechanics, both young and middle-aged, were sliding off to Great Britain to work which attracted them. Have we done anything deliberately to make up that shortage? I ask the question, because the correction of that shortage is seriously required to-day, and the need will increase as the months go by.
Not long ago a suggestion was made to me that a scheme which would make use of the machine shops and larger garages to be found in every city or town of Canada might well be developed. It was pointed out that, in those machine shops and garages, training could be given to those youngsters, of which there are so many, who have a mechanical bent. It was pointed out, further, that as training developed it might be possible in those shops to undertake sub-contract work, as parts of a greater whole. The man who made the suggestion to me was one well trained in mechanics, one who had served as a combatant in the Canadian Army but whose age and condition of life precluded his serving again. He is only one of that large number of men who have the necessary knowledge, premises at their disposal and the intense desire to use their talents, who could be used in Canada's war effort. If this suggestion has not yet received consideration, I put it to the government as one which in my opinion merits their attention.
We are told that Hitler's smaller submarines are being made bit by bit in just such shops scattered throughout Germany. After the work has been done in those shops the parts are assembled near water, and when the assembling has taken place they are sent out to do their deadly work. If Hitler's shops can be utilized in his war effort, then Canadian shops can most certainly be used by Canadian youths for our effort.
The voluntary service registration bureau was set up by the government to operate as a

The Address-Mr. Stirling
clearing house to which the thousands of applicants, desiring to take some part in our war effort, might send their names. I do not know what happened to them. I do not know how many thousands so applied. I do not know whether the government, when requiring labour of a certain kind, approached the bureau and succeeded in obtaining the necessary supply of help. I do not know whether the civil service commission made use of the bureau when vacancies occurred in the service. I believe however that the public of Canada would like to have a report on the efficacy of the registration bureau, because many persons I have met look upon it as merely a cemetery of hopes.
I should like, too, to draw the government's attention to the voluntary work which has been going on under the direction of the British Columbia Women's Service Club. I believe it was last June that Mrs. Kennedy, the controller, and Mrs. McGusty, the commandant of the Vernon Branch, came to Ottawa. After obtaining the support of hon. members from British Columbia they interviewed the late Hon. Norman Rogers who listened to the objects of their work and their desires, and appeared to be most interested in what they were endeavouring to do. I am not aware that any kind words worthy of note have been spoken to them. I am not aware that any of the services which they have been so assiduously training themselves to perform have been in any sense made use of. But it is quite evident that from week to week we approach more closely the time when industry and other activities will have to avail themselves of women's labour. I should think it would be most desirable that the government reconsider the recognition of units such as the one to which I have just referred, because at the back of each of these organizations is the intense desire to help.
In the neighbourhood of Princeton, an important mining section of British Columbia, the population of which is drawn from many countries of Europe, some of which are now under the nazi boot heel, a Spitfire fund was set up. Contributions both large and small have been flowing into it. No sooner had they commenced to collect than a discouraging reference to Spitfire funds appeared in the press. Is the government wise to discourage efforts of that sort? It is this sort of effort which provides a safety valve for the enthusiasm of certain Canadians. I am not in the least surprised to hear that the minister would much rather have the money go into the war loan.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I did not say that, nor have I discouraged these funds.


Grote Stirling: The minister says that he has not discouraged them, but my information is that the discouragement came from somewhere. I remember reading a paragraph or two in the press-I have not the article before me so I shall not elaborate-which gave me the impression that the government was inclined to discourage the collection of Spitfire funds. If the minister says that he has not, then I am mistaken and the people of Princeton have been mistaken. When they started collecting for this fund from that rather scattered and cosmopolitan population they were met with the announcement that the government was discouraging such funds. If the government have not been discouraging these funds, or even if they have, would they be good enough to explain their views further to the Canadian people?
I come now to the response by the public to the second war loan. Shortly after the loan campaign opened I received a letter from a man of standing in his community who told me that he and a number of his acquaintances had been deterred from investing in the war loan because of the waste and political partisanship in connection with the building of the camp at Yernon. I passed that letter on to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), who, in thanking me, said that he was going to take it up with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), and that he would also speak to him about it. Some three weeks later I received another letter from another man written in the same strain. I know this gentleman quite well and I have considerable confidence in his judgment. I replied immediately asking that he give me some details, whereupon I would lay them before the proper *minister. He furnished me with the details and I am passing them on to the minister who is carrying on the work of the Minister of National Defence in his absence, in the hope that the matter will be run to earth.
I know how easy it is to make charges of this description, and I know how hard it is to obtain the facts to substantiate them. People do not want to talk; people are afraid of losing their jobs. But it would appear that these things are prevalent. I regret to say that my own experience has been that they are quite prevalent. It is the duty of the government, by investigation or by any other means in their power, not only to set such charges at rest but to disprove them. The government, from the Prime Minister down, have assured this house that it is not their personal desire that partisanship should enter into this effort. I must accept their statements, and of course I do. But theirs is the brain that is directing this effort. To what extent has that brain taken active

The Address-Mr. Stirling

control of the hands and fingers that direct and control the details? That is the question. It is very easy for a minister to say, "I will not have anything to do with partisanship," but as soon as he has said that he attaches to himself the second duty of seeing that those who are responsible to him are honourably carrying out that undertaking.
As I have indicated already, the national registration was instituted, not only for the purposes of military training but to provide one of the instruments with which the National Resources Mobilization Act could be put into operation. That act gave the government very wide powers, and they have been using them. One of the things the government have done has been to set up an exchange control board. When a Canadian desires to go to the United States he must satisfy the exchange control board that his visit is reasonably necessary before he can obtain the exchange with which to carry out his trip. As I pointed out last session, there has been a steady stream of Canadian money going to the United States to pay for fruits, vegetables and many other things which, in my opinion, not only are not necessary at this time but constitute a positive waste of money which we need so badly for the purchase of things that are really required. Our exchange situation is becoming no easier. I read with great interest in the paper this morning a statement to the effect that the Minister of Finance had decided to publish a list of fruits and vegetables and was going to request licensed importers to refrain from importing them until further notice.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is my hon. friend referring to a news item which appeared in the Gazette?


Grote Stirling: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: On a question of privilege, and for the purpose of setting my hon. friend right, I should like to say that that news story is entirely incorrect if it is taken as meaning that I authorized the circularizing of the wholesalers by the wholesalers' association. The news story itself does not say that, but I am afraid it may have led other persons to the same conclusion as that reached by the hon. gentleman. The representatives of the wholesalers came to see me some days ago, but there was no suggestion, either on my part or on theirs, that there should be any request made by their organization or otherwise to wholesalers in Canada not to import certain fruits and vegetables. I was considerably surprised to see the notice in the press to which the hon. gentleman has just referred. At this interview the wholesalers suggested that if steps were in contemplation by the government for the restriction of the importation

of fruits and vegetables, care should be taken to avoid undue hardship. They suggested also that they should be consulted before any steps were taken. I suggested that they should put their views in writing, which they have not done as yet. Apart from that there were no suggestions or requests or arrangement made at that interview.


Grote Stirling: I am grateful to the minister for his explanation, and with that I shall have no further remarks to make with regard to this news item which I read in the manner he indicated. Evidently it does not correctly explain the situation at the present time. But I can continue with this thought. We have only a certain amount of money to use for necessities and it is utterly wrong for us to use it for things which can be dispensed with. In one week of June of last year $50,000 worth of tomatoes entered the Montreal market and $40,000 worth the Toronto market. I do not say that importations to that extent are still going on. But what I say is that if the Canadian consumer is using his money in that way-the Canadian consumer may be the thoughtless consumer- he should have impressed upon him the necessity that there is one better way of using that money, and that is to exercise the spirit of self-sacrifice so that we can attain an equality of sacrifice. That is the only way in which every Canadian dollar can be put to proper use.
And how the situation has been aggravated by an incident that occurred a few weeks ago in the west! Trade in the United States found itself short of certain varieties of apples of certain sizes. Finding that Canada could supply them it ordered them, and two or three hundred carloads of these apples were shipped from British Columbia to the United States at their request. Such a shout went up amongst United States producers that the reverberations reached Washington, and I am given to understand that further shipments have been somewhat discouraged. Now, what does this mean? For years United States produce has been streaming into this country, in earlier days without let or hindrance but with some preventive methods in later days, and when such a condition as I have described arises, with trade in the United States requiring something that Canada has, and asking for it, this roar goes up. Such a noise was made about it that an official of the Department of Agriculture in Washington, D.C., went out to the west, and this is what he is reported to have said, as quoted from the Wenatchee World of November 1:
As British Columbia growers possess popular sizes, American buyers have taken them. All supplies have been sold firm, and there has been no speculation and no consignment shipments. None have been dumped on our market.

The Address-Mr. Maybank
In that transaction hon. members will realize that instead of Canadians wasting their money in buying something they did not need they have just been endeavouring, by this little piece of trade, to build up Canadian exchange so that money would be available for our war effort.
It is a most unsatisfactory thing that our money should not be put to its proper use, and if that treatment to which I have already referred is not the treatment which the government has decided to make use of I suggest to the government that the time has come when, if the Canadian people are not using in the best possible way one of Canada's resources, the money Canadians have to spend, the government should make use of other legitimate devices to impress upon the Canadian people that there is only one way to use their spending money, and that is the best way. I do not know why the government has been so long in taking action with regard to this matter, drawn to its attention as it has been for six months. I cannot imagine that it fears the Canada-United States agreement because in that agreement the two signatories put their names to a war clause which would enable action to be taken by either country in case either or both were involved in war.
But the fruit and vegetable end of this great question is but one portion of it, and I am hopeful that the government will tackle the question from the point of view of impressing on the Canadian people that anything in the nature of luxuries which can be done without must be done without at this time in a spirit of equality of sacrifice. I believe that- there is still in this country far too large a number of people who do not realize the necessity for self-sacrifice. We must have drummed into our ears at all times equality of sacrifice so that a public opinion may be created which will frown on anything which is opposed to it, and that equality of sacrifice must not be alone among the people in this Canada of ours but must extend outside into the ranks of all who fight with us the battle of Britain.
Canada as long as she has been Canada has relied on the Royal Navy for her protection, and the Canadian people, many of them, have hung their heads because of it. True, in later years we provided ourselves with a most efficient little navy in no sense commensurate with our wealth, or with our trade, or with our necessities for protection. There was no equality of sacrifice there because it was the taxpayer of the United Kingdom who maintained the Royal Navy. We did not contribute but we greatly benefited by the existence of that formidable police force.
14873-24^
I was pleased indeed to listen to the Minister of National Defence for Naval Affairs the other day when he recognized that disparity and spoke with hope of a considerable expansion of our Royal Canadian Navy. But let the government leave no stone unturned in impressing on the Canadian people the necessity of sacrifice, that the results of the national registration be used to the full, and above all let the very words National Resources Mobilization Act become an actuality. Let the services of the thousands of men and women who want to help be utilized. Let every effort be made to speed up and increase the tempo of Canada's war effort so that another occasion may not arise when Canadian heads have to hang because when the battle of liberty was on, the contribution which Canada made was too late.
Liberty is not a word,
But is a substantial thing,
A precious jewel, purchased At the dear rate of life itself,
And so to be defended.
Those words were written three hundred years ago by two English dramatists, and they bear the stamp of eternal truth.


Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to follow in general or in any detail the remarks of the gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Stirling). I should like however to say this, that no person could cavil or complain in any way of the speech which the hon. gentleman has just made. I feel that I am in a privileged position to be able immediately to congratulate him upon a temperate, kindly and thoroughly gentlemanly speech such as. of course, one would expect and has a right to expect from the front benches of the opposition party.
There is perhaps a particular reason for not taking up in detail the remarks of the hon. gentleman. The reason is that his remarks were by no means a severe criticism of the government. Indeed it seems to me that the fact that so prominent a member of the Conservative party spoke in the manner in which he did just now, indicates that this government has been doing a mighty fine job of work in leading this country in its war effort. Such criticisms as the hon. gentleman offered were on comparatively minor points, and there cannot be much wrong when one of his calibre can find practically nothing to criticize. The government, in other words, is somewhat in the position of the chap who gave the name of the chief of police as a character reference. The chief of police when asked about the man, said that he did not even know him. Referring to the chief's

The Address-Mr. Maybank
comment, the man retorted, "Having lived thirty' years in the city, and the chief of police not even knowing me, I must be all right."
There is, however, one remark made by the hon. gentleman to which I should like to draw attention. He said, as I recall it, that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) made certain statements in the house with reference to Bren gun production, and that these statements were of a very general nature; but that a few days later, speaking to the press, he elaborated upon them and gave to the press information which he held back from this house. With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is in error. If you will turn to page 149 of Hansard you will note what the minister said at that time with reference to Bren guns. I think the hon. gentleman will find upon inquiry that what was later reported in the _ newspapers was merely a different rendering of the same information which the minister gave the house, and that the minister did not withhold information from us and then, going outside and meeting the gentlemen of the press, give them more details. What was said on page 149 runs this way:
Regarding Bren guns; I have given my hon. friend the number up to the end of September. I am not giving the number delivered each week, but it is a figure which I must say is most satisfactory having regard to what was planned on when production started at the plant. These weekly deliveries are increasing steadily and by the end of the first year of production we expect to have three times as many guns delivered as were called for by the contract.
From there on, you see, it is a matter of arithmetic. The note I have indicates that the contract called for about 1,000 from April first this year to March 31 of the next year. It will be seen, therefore, that the minister, in giving his statement to the house in the fashion that he did, simply left it to the press to apply arithmetic to the problem and then the reporters could give a very definite statement to the country. It may well appear that the minister was more definite with the press than he was with the house, but that, I think was not the case, and I suggest that the hon. member was mistaken in his criticism in this regard.
So far as the general effort of this government is concerned, I have read somewhere that it might be described as a series of brilliant improvisations, and that incredible results have been achieved. I do not know whether that is an accurate statement, having regard to the use of the word "improvisations"; perhaps it is not properly used. We were not prepared at the time of the break through in the low countries and the collapse of France,

and I do not see very well how any country, in all the circumstances of democratic life, could have been prepared. The speeding of plans was necessary, and in that sense we can, I think, appropriately say that there has been a series of brilliant improvisations. So far as I am concerned, and chiefly because I am not a person who is very easily satisfied,
I wish to offer my meed of praise for the work of the government in leading this country, particularly during this last six or seven months since the debacle to which I have just referred. I do not intend simply to chant a paean of praise, yet since I am not, as I have said, a person easily satisfied, I do not wish to let the opportunity pass of expressing praise of the government, because I believe it is justified. I do this in the same straightforward manner that, as this house knows very well, I would quickly express criticism if I thought that it was what the government, or any other organization, deserved.
To-day I wish to speak mainly about problems and points of interest concerned with labour matters in the country generally, but before doing so there are some non-labour matters which I should like to mention.
In the first place I desire to add my voice to the voices of others who have spoken in favour of free transportation for the troops at Christmas time. It does not seem to me that half fare or fare one way for the man on furlough is sufficient. When something is offered which does not accomplish the result aimed at, it is just the same as offering nothing at all. Men who are distant from their homes cannot, because of lack of funds, go home and back during the Christmas furlough. There is no use offering them half fares. I suppose they could go home and then be brought back as deserters, but none of them wants to do that. It seems to me that there has been already enough expression of opinion along this line; practically ninety per cent of the house must be in favour of free transportation for soldiers, and I urge the government to see that justice is done and joy is given at Christmas time.
There is one other non-labour matter which I wish to draw to the attention of the house and, more particularly, to the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald). The minister was here a few minutes ago, but had to leave to attend to some departmental duties; I know that what I am saying will have his attention later. It is, it seems to me, an odd situation of which I wish to speak. It appears that the rules with reference to a wife's allowance are quite different in the navy from what they are either in the air force or in the army. When a man in either of the last two

The Address-Mr. Maybank
mentioned services gets married, automatically his wife receives S35 per month allowance. Not so, apparently, in the navy. It seems there is a rule that the allowance will not be paid to any officer or rating married on or after November 1, 1928, unless and until he has attained the age of twenty-two years. An informant writes me:
Is it not an irony to ask the boys of Canada to fight for freedom and justice when we refuse them that at home? What difference does the age make? If a man of nineteen is old enough to fight for Canada, should his wife be left to starve while he is doing it?
I must say I heartily agree with my correspondent's point of view. My informant also tells me of a man under twenty-two years of age who received permission of his superior officer to marry; he believed that the allowance would go to his wife, but her allowance has not been paid and will not be paid.
The rule, as I have explained, is that if a man gets married when he is under twenty-two years of age the wife gets no allowance. The rule was passed in 1928, and it occurs to me that perhaps the navy is endeavouring to carry on the old tradition that a sailor boy should have a girl in every port. That might be interfered with if Jack were encouraged to marry. I do not know whether that is the reason for the rule but I can think of no other. The rule that the wife of a young man under twenty-two who marries with permission is to get no allowance ought to be changed at once. The wives of men in one force should get the same treatment as wives of men in the other forces. If it is not desired to have naval officers and ratings marry under twenty-two that could be the subject of a regulation, but if they are to be permitted to marry then this government should take the responsibility that it ordinarily takes for the wife of the enlisted man.
I now wish to touch upon some labour problems that have come to my attention. Frankly I am presenting one or two cases that are in the nature of grievances. I make no apology for doing so; nor do I present the grievances in any spirit of captious criticism or complaint.' But if the friends of a government will not tell it of the things that are wrong there is little chance of the government correcting them, and abuses will continue, to the detriment finally of the whole country.
Some of the instances I desire to mention relate to the government as an employer. I recall the oft-used expression that the government should be a model employer and so be an example to other employers. We like consistency. We passed an act popularly known as the Lemieux act and put into effect a
labour charter which is set forth in an order in council of last June. The principles of this type of labour legislation should be the guiding star of the government itself as an employer. But we have people working in the government service at salaries that are certainly less than fair. We have some, indeed, working for niggardly salaries and starvation wages. I do not say that the percentage is large, but in government employment, where the total number employed is so great, a large number are working for what is not by any means a fair wage. One man I know of, a married man with a family of three or four, has been regularly employed at a man's job

not a boy's job-for the last four or five years, and his net wage is $56 a month. His is not just an isolated case but is one of a class, and that is the wage that is being paid. This sort of thing is not fair. When we are at war there is all the more reason for seeing that injustices of this kind ire not allowed to continue.
Again we have persons employed by the government on what is termed the seven-day week basis rather than the six-day week. For years we have seen nearly all the world on a six-day week basis, but we have, and have had for years, at Fort Osborne barracks, firemen and other men working in high-pressure plants on a seven-day week basis and getting less money for seven days than the ordinary wage paid elsewhere for six days. I tried to get the matter straightened out some time ago. I had at that time the support of the late Hon. Mr. Rogers, who as Minister of Labour realized it to be a concern of his. I had the support, I believe, of the then Minister of National Defence, the present Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie). Everything seemed to be going along all right until our attempts bogged down or were broken down in the treasury board. Now it seems to me that that sort of thing is, as Mr. Rogers recognized, a proper matter of concern for the Department of Labour. It seems to me to be the business of the Department of Labour to inquire into labour abuses; and they should look at labour conditions that are close at home as well as those far afield.
We still have our unemployment problem. I have spoken about the war effort of Canada, and I had in mind the Department of Munitions and Supply; I might just say a word with reference to that department. I have been in entire agreement with the policy followed so far by the Minister of Munitions. I realize that in the placing of contracts he had to consider practically just one thing- speed of performance. The need was urgent;
The Address-Mr. Maybank

the pressing need was to get deliveries, even though it resulted in centralization of industrial work in these central provinces, chiefly Ontario. Even though the policy resulted in very little war work going out to the prairies and other parts of Canada I am in entire agreement with what has been done, and I think that the minister of that department and all concerned with it are to be congratulated. But the situation has now reached the point where certain other principles can be taken into consideration.
The social aspect of these contract placements should be recognized. In my own district we have all manner of industries that could be put to use in war work. Some of them are being used, but they could be used a great deal more. It is not economic to be paying out money for unemployment relief and at the same time placing contracts without reference to the social needs of the country. This is the time to attack what has been called the "hard core" of unemployment. Nobody knows just what the hard core of unemployment is; someone coined that bright phrase, it seemed clever and many people took it up and used it as though they were saying something. Then people began to define the hard core of unemployment, and it turned out that whenever unemployment had been reduced to a point that the particular individual considered satisfactory, the hard core of unemployment had been reached and there was nothing further to be done. But we can dissolve the hard core of unemployment if we turn our attention to it, if we face up to the problem and devote to it the necessary time and money and energy, and, above all, imagination. There is no reason for any unemployment in this country to-day. I know there are many persons on relief whom it is difficult to absorb into industry, but something can be done for all. I have known workmen's compensation boards to spend money upon people who appeared to be totally incapacitated through injuries, and who were therefore unemployed. This, these boards did for financial reasons, to avoid further drain on their funds. They endeavoured to rehabilitate these apparent unemployables and restore to them their ability to earn a living. And most important of all, though perhaps this was incidental as far as the boards were concerned, they restored to these people the dignity which is possible only in conjunction with an earned living, which cannot exist when there is involuntary idleness coupled with a subsistence allowance.
I wish to speak now of another very critical labour problem of a different sort. The hon. member who preceded me touched upon this problem but did not enlarge upon it to any

great extent. From what little he said, however, I am inclined to think that we are in entire agreement on the matter. I am definitely worried, Mr. Speaker, over the possibility of a labour crisis in this country in spite of the fact that we have an unemployment problem at this moment. Indeed it would be possible to have a labour crisis, by way of a shortage, and at the same time have an unemployment problem. It seems paradoxical, but theoretically it is possible. At any rate I do not think any person can observe what is going on in the midlands of England without becoming fearful in regard to the labour situation in Canada. Just after the bombing of Coventry, for example, I noticed in the New York Times that certain United States industries were expecting special calls to be made upon them in reference to either Rolls-Royce engines, which apparently they were manufacturing, or perhaps similar aeroplane engines which might be substituted for the Rolls-Royce engines. The inference is clear. Evidently that engine plant in Coventry had been damaged.
For the last year or so the Winnipeg Free Press has had an excellent reporter in England. This reporter, Mr. Francis Stevens, recently returned to Canada. Within the last few days I read one of his stories, from which I culled this paragraph:
After what happened to Coventry and the horror heaped upon a midlands city last night by the nazi air force, we know without being told that Britain must turn to Canada as never before for sustaining strength in her lonely struggle to save civilization.
Of course what Mr. Stevens means is that in all probability Britain will have to turn to Canada to a greater extent than ever before for her supplies of munitions of war. In the past we have sometimes spoken of ourselves as the empire's bread basket. I fancy we are becoming, and shortly will become even more fully, the arsenal of the empire. I know, as I think we all know, that Great Britain has been facing difficulties in regard to labour shortages, and it is inevitable that we shall have the same difficulties unless we make the necessary preparations.
For example, if we inquire into the employment trend in this country it becomes clear that there must be a labour crisis. When we see the employment trend we are forced to realize that we are marching straight into the jaws of such a crisis. In the Financial Post of three or four weeks ago the development was shown. It was set forth that as of last September there were 2,717,000 persons gainfully employed in Canada. That was the peak employment up to that time. The figure for the previous September was about 26 per cent

The Address-Mr. Maybank
less. The monthly average for 1939 was
2,344,000,	very much less; and for the previous year the monthly average was 2,297,000. If you were to indicate that labour trend by means of a graph you would draw a line not merely upward but sharply upward, with no variations, no dips or jumps or anything of the sort; it would be very nearly a straight upward line.
I know that recently the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) spoke as though there were no difficulties, though a short time previously it had been indicated in the house that the government was taking steps in regard to the matter. Some persons jumped to the conclusion that there was a difference of opinion. Some people feel that this is a time for sharp retorts to the Minister of Agriculture, in the hope of being able to register a blow in verbal combat. Well, there is no need for anything of that sort. It is very silly to behave in that fashion. The fact of the matter is that we can be facing this crisis and at the same time have difficulties presented by employers of labour such as the minister mentioned. Everyone knows the tendency of the employer to object to any interference with his personnel, and no doubt many employers cry before they are hurt and make all kinds of trouble. I do not mean to say that is the general rule, but there are persons like that in every walk of life. There is no need to get over-argumentative about a thing of this sort.
A few moments ago I mentioned certain figures suggesting the trend. If you look at the enlistment figures you come to the same conclusion. We might say that just before the war our forces numbered perhaps 4,500. I have not the exact figures showing the number of men in our forces at the end of the first year of war, as I was able to give them in dealing with the number of persons gainfully employed, but I take it that at the present time there are about 170,000 men in the army, 30,000 in the air force-these figures may not be exact, but I think they are approximate, and after all I am only indicating a trend-and a few days ago it was said that in the navy there were something like 15.000 men. To these figures must be added about 30,000 trainees. This last is a changing personnel, but that is about the number. This gives a total of about 245,000 persons who have been taken out of the possible employment pool. So you might say that since the war started, in the neighbourhood of half a million people either have been put to work or have been taken away from the pool of men from which workers come. Of course if that sort of thing goes
on and we do nothing about it we shall have to refrain from setting up industries that otherwise we might desire to set up.
It is not only the matter of a general labour shortage that we must consider; it is the shortage of particular kinds of labour. Perhaps we have not been as wise as we might have been since September, 1939. We should have paid more attention to what General McNaughton said the day after war broke out. He declared then that the war would be one of machines, and that it was vitally important not to deprive industry of certain skilled types of man-power on whom the rapid expansion of production depended. He wanted to set up a list of essential industries, and also a list of reserve occupations. Anyone can understand not a great deal being done in this respect during the hectic days we have gone through, but it would be folly of the worst imaginable kind if we were to continue in error.
As the house probably knows, Great Britain has been having considerable trouble of this sort. The Right Hon. Ernest Bevin some time ago warned employers against living in a fool's paradise. He said he was reluctant to make training obligatory, but that it might be necessary. Under his direction, as long ago as last February, organizations were set up for the training of men. There were 15,000 being trained at that time. The Economist reported that a longer time was needed to train a munitions worker than to train a soldier, and claimed that the government would turn out about 40,000 in the year. Just at that time, however, it appeared that the Germans were carrying on a similar training, and that they had already trained a half million workers for war industry. Mr. Churchill declared there was need for about a million women to go into industry. Great Britain now realizes she made a late and inadequate start. We are still later, and we must give the problem our most serious attention.
As I see it, we should begin at once with comprehensive and intensive training of people for industry. The best way to do this is to have people employed while they are learning. In that way we will get better learners and better results. National registration cards offer an excellent basis for this effort. Then, there are many people employed at the present time in non-essential industries who could be employed elsewhere. They could be employed in more essential walks of life. For example there are some who are driving trucks. I am not suggesting that the driving of trucks is not essential, but many who are
The Address-Mr. Mayhank

so employed could do work which is more essential. There are many thousands who could fill their places.
It is my recollection that at the time of the last war a great deal of the automobile driving was done by women.
It seems to me, too, that there are industries now operating which need not continue to operate, and whose workers might be better employed, from the national viewpoint, in a war industry. The easiest way to effect that transfer is to carry out the sound Liberal policy which many of us have advocated for years, namely, to let in goods from Great Britain. Now is the time when the advocate of low tariffs has all the force of the war on his side-the first time it has ever happened. I suggest that those who are making in Canada goods which could be obtained from Great Britain could be released for other more essential work.
Furthermore-although this is somewhat aside from the point I am making-the great need in Great Britain to-day is that of obtaining foreign exchange. She must sell her goods, and she could sell large quantities of them in Canada if we would only let them in more easily. If we freely admit British goods, Great Britain will then be able to pay for many things obtainable in Canada, and it seems to me possible that she would thus create a credit which could be used in the United States. That she needs this financial aid is clear. The press of yesterday reports that Lord Lothian has returned to the United States stating that in 1941 Great Britain is going to face a severe financial crisis. He is asserting to the people of the United States that Great Britain needs financial help. The very best thing we can do for Great Britain is to permit her to send her goods to Canada, and in that way while helping her we will help ourselves to solve our labour problem.
I do not wish to leave the suggestion that nothing is being done about this problem, because I know very well that a good committee has been set up by the government to look into the matter. My only reason for emphasizing the point is to urge upon the government that it, through that committee, and in every other way prosecute its inquiry to a point where it may with all speed and all energy take the necessary steps.
The government is to be commended for what it has done, and I just hope that there may be no slackening-I do not expect any- in its effort.
It is perfectly true to say that we have not been ready for several things which have happened, and we were in good company in that state of unreadiness. Probably it was impossible for any democracy to be ready.

But the situation now is different. We can see our problem looming up in front of us. Here is something for which we can be ready; here is something we can do. When the time comes for us to answer the call of Great Britain for more industrial assistance, we can be ready to give it.
It will be remembered that during the last war Lloyd George went about the country organizing industry. I can well remember his stating that he feared Britain might have to write over the doors of factories the words "Too late; too late." We must not be found in that position.
For about twenty years I worked on railroads in one capacity or another. During that time I performed a variety of jobs. Sometimes I have tried to decide just what it was that was most desired in a railroader, and I have come to the conclusion that a good railroader is one who is in the right place at the right time,. "In the right place at the right time"-that might very well be our motto in connection with the problem I have been dealing with. Let us hope that, representing the people of Canada, the government will be in the right place at the right time in connection with our industrial help to Great Britain, and if this is so, we shall never be too late:.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am sure every hon. member realizes that this is a grave time through which we are passing. We in Canada should be as well aware of that fact as any other people in the world.
I believe some of the criticisms and suggestions offered by the two hon. members who have immediately preceded me in the debate are worthy of consideration by the government, but I was struck by the implication of the statement of the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) that the people of Canada are only too anxious to do what they can in connection with the war effort. Then I recall what the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) said a few days ago-that there was a feeling of dissatisfaction and uncertainty throughout Canada. Perhaps " uncertainty " would be the most correct word to use. I am quite in accord with that opinion. As I said last year, you cannot force people into patriotism. I think we are beginning to realize that. The sooner we get down to basic facts, the sooner we ask ourselves why there is such a lack of patriotism, the better it will be for all. Let us not pat ourselves on the back. We must face this thing sooner or later.
The answer is that the people do not know what to do. They do not know what the government wants them to do. There is no

The Address-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
leadership. I do not mean that in any offensive way; I would not offend hon. members for the world. But I ask them to listen to reason. I can remember the laugh that went up from the other side of the house when I suggested two or three years ago that we should have one of the best equipped air forces in the world. But I defy those hon. members to stand up in their places to-day and laugh at that-or say it is a joke.
The people do not know what the government want them to do. The other day the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) told us that we should save. Everyone is advocating a 'belt-tightening process, just like the hon. member for Yale. What does he mean by belt-tightening? There is no policy laid down. The people are given no guidance. If you say to the people, "We do not want you to buy cars," I venture to say that there will not be a new car sold. But if you do not want them to buy cars the proper thing to do is to say to the manufacturers, " Do not make any more cars; we want your machine shops to produce war materials." Why attempt to advocate these things by a process of undue taxation and then have new cars in the show windows advertised at reduced prices or with the slogan, " Buy a car before Christmas to satisfy your wife."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles Edward Johnston: I hope
my wife does not read that. But the thing is so ridiculous. On the one hand we have the manufacturers trying to encourage people to buy; the people are told to "buy before Christmas, fifty cents down and a dollar when we catch you." Anything to get them to buy before Christmas. On the other hand, we have the government stealing in with their taxation and taking the money away from the people. Will such a course lead to unity and satisfaction? Certainly not. If you do not want our women to buy new fur coats, the thing to do is to stop the manufacture of fur coats. If these manufacturing facilities are needed for war purposes, why not be man enough to say so? If you want more aeroplanes, be man enough to say so. Come out and face the facts; do not try to hide behind political seclusion.
See what happened to France. It was the financial policy that ruined France. France was sold out not by those whom we generally refer to as fifth columnists in the rank and file of the people, but by those in higher places. We must guard against this, or we shall have trouble in Canada. I am sure the people are only too anxious to do what they can, if they only knew what was needed.
The government must give guidance to the people. If that is done, I am sure they will respond.
I do not intend to dwell at any great length this afternoon on our war effort; I shall deal with it at a later time. I desire to speak more particularly about our farmers. The hon. member for New Westminster said that he did not know what was causing dissatisfaction among our people, but if he looks in our agricultural field he will find plenty of cause for dissatisfaction. There are no more patriotic people in the world than our agriculturists. As the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said the other day-he is gone again; he is not in his seat; he is the busiest man I ever saw; he flutters around and does not do a thing; our farmers have been contributing a great deal to the war effort. Yet there is no industry in Canada which has been treated so unfairly. Is it expected that that will be a basis for unity? You cannot get unity with that type of treatment.
Our farmers are at a loss to know what to do. Again the government is lacking in providing the necessary guidance. About a year ago the Minister of Agriculture advocated the increased production of bacon, and immediately the farmers gave it to him because he had asked for something definite. They said: If it is bacon the British empire wants, we will give it to them. Then what happened? There was an influx of bacon from the United States; the price dropped and the farmers got stung. The country wanted wheat and the farmers went ahead and produced wheat. What has happened? They are starving to death on the farms. Again there has been a lack of guidance.
Either the government do not know what they want, or they are deceiving the people. In either case they have no right to be leading this country during war time unless they have something better than that to offer. If the government will decide what they want. I am convinced that the farming people of this country will be only too ready to share the burden. It seems to me that every time the Minister of Agriculture gets in a jam, if he cannot pass it on to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) he looks ahead to the future. He seems to be most optimistic about the future. He can look ahead and say that in five years we will be short 50,000,000 bushels of wheat.


Mr. MacNICOL:: He is counting on a couple of years of drought.


Charles Edward Johnston: He is waiting for Santa Claus. If we are going to be short 50,000,000 bushels of wheat in five years, which is not very long, then we should not be
370	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
greatly concerned over our wheat problem. The only thing lacking is the money. The other day the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said that whatever was physically possible would be made financially possible. I do not know whether he meant that; the government have said so many things they did not mean. It is hard to tell just what they want. I do not think there is any danger to us in our present large supply of wheat. In fact, I think it is one of the most beneficial things we could have at the present time. We have no assurance that we are not going to have a drought in the west next year, or the year after. If that were to happen, then what would be the position of the British empire? It might prove to be one the greatest calamities for this country or the empire.
I should like to refer briefly to a pamphlet entitled "Wheat and War," and containing an address by George S. Mathieson, president of the Winnipeg grain exchange. Here is what this experienced grain man has to say in regard to our supplies of wheat:
The maintenance of this substantial reserve of wheat can well be one of Canada's contributions to the empire war requirements.
There is definite guidance for the farmer. He is being encouraged by an experienced grain man to raise wheat. Mr. Mathieson continues:
The price ultimately to be paid for it is a matter to be determined by world conditions when the demand comes. The picture, which envisages Canada with so much wheat that she does not know what to do with it, ignores the necessity of abundant reserves against contingencies. The wheat board, fully aware of this situation, need not be expected to offer for sale any more wheat than is actually wanted.
That is good advice. I think we are unduly concerned about the vast amount of wheat that we have on hand. We should be tickled to death with it. But the fact that we happen to have am abundance of wheat is no reason why we should force our farmers to starve to death. There is one thing which neither this nor any other government can control, and that is the future climatic conditions. The big cry goes up from the government, where shall we find the money? But there has never been any question about money when it comes to the war industries. The war industries get what profit they want. I recall that we passed legislation limiting profits to five per cent, but that legislation was rescinded and you do not know what profit is allowed now. They are getting what they want. The farmer, however, is definitely making no profit, and when you come to the point where you are making no profit but are going behind on every bushel of wheat you raise, it is time to take stock of things. I think a little consideration should be given to this subject.

As I said a moment ago, the Minister of Agriculture can always find some nice excuse out, and sometimes a fine speech is about all he has to offer. I have a clipping here from the Albertan of September 10, 1940. The Minister of Agriculture was speaking at Toronto, and these were his words of encouragement to the farmers:
Giving his address at the live stock day luncheon at the Canadian National Exhibition, Mr. Gardiner addressed his preliminary remarks to farmers and said he had "unpopular" statements to make.
The first was that "this is not the time for the farmer to increase his expenditures and hence not the time for business to be booming in agricultural areas."
If he was seeking to imply that business was booming in agricultural areas he does not know his agriculture, although he may have had a farm given to him by the Saskatchewan government and may go out there for his vacations. If business is booming for the farmer the minister certainly does not know agriculture, because business has never been booming for the farmer. But the minister went on to say this, which appears under the heading " Sees tough winter ahead " -and here again he is a prophet:
Experience had shown that farmers never enjoyed prosperity in the first two years of a war and "this "winter and possibly the next will be the toughest the farmers are likely to experience during this war period."
That is not a pleasant prospect. Farmers all over the west found it pretty hard this year to make ends meet, let alone pay their debts, and the only consolation the Minister of Agriculture has to give them is that next winter is going to be still worse. More of the belt-tightening process, and he expects by that to develop unity across Canada!
But the minister had a little more advice to give to the farmers. I have here a clipping from the Albertan of September 14, 1940, in which the minister is reported as follows:
World wheat marketing conditions may change between now and November 1. Agriculture Minister J. G. Gardiner to-day told a press conference-
November is come and gone and conditions are still the same, but the minister hoped they would be better before November 1. The report goes on:
-and it is possible the government may delay until the end of October-
So he put it off again!
[DOT]-its decision on how to help the wheat farmer who cannot turn his crop into cash because of lack of elevator space.
He finds himself in a difficulty and so he tries to wriggle out of it by putting the onus on the provinces, thereby satisfying his own

The Address-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
conscience. So lie brings up this obstacle, and I thought this was rather good. Under the heading "Law's a barrier", the report goes
on:
Provincial law's, Mr. Gardiner explained to-day, regulate the deductions wdien loans are made on w'heat on farms. The threshing bill, the year's taxes, the accounts for repairs and for necessities of life must all be taken care of.
In this article the Minister of Agriculture complains that because of these obstacles the government cannot make loans to the farmers on wheat stored on the farms. I looked at the article again and I thought, what more would he want in there? There is provision in the provincial laws with respect to the threshing bill, the year's taxes, the accounts to be paid for repairs, and the necessities of life. The only things missings are the machine companies and the banks. The only objection the minister can have is that the banks and the mortgage companies were not protected by provincial legislation, and so provincial legislation should be changed. Well, Mr. Speaker, when we take the attitude that the farmer is not entitled to a decent standard of living I think the Minister of Agriculture who implies such a thing should be taken from agriculture and put into another office. He goes on and says:
I w'as told the law was so and so, and I replied that some laws could be changed by calling legislatures.
Why w'ould you want to call the legislatures together to change such a law? Legislatures w'ould not be worthy of the name if they assembled in the different provinces and took away from the farmers that measure of protection which is so necessary.
But the Minister of Agriculture has a rather soft spot in his heart, I was pleased to see. I was reading Hansard the other day and what he said was so touching that, knowing him as I do, I think I should read it to the house. He said, as reported at page 95 of Hansard:
I shall continue to fight the battles of the farmers of Canada. No adding to or taking away from duties or prestige will remove my life-long association with and love for farmers and farming.
That love for the farmers was so very touching, Mr. Speaker, that I thought then we should advise the Prime Minister to relieve the Minister of Agriculture of his many portfolios and give him another one entitling him to be called the minister of romance, because he has such a loving heart.


Mr. BRADETTE:: That is not even witty.


Charles Edward Johnston: It does
not seem witty to the farmers who are living out there in poverty and starvation to have that sort of stuff put up to them as a policy.
I agree one hundred per cent that that certainly would not appeal to the farmers in the situation they are faced with now. Is it any wonder that-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I mean that you are not witty.


Charles Edward Johnston: You do not need to put yourself up as a wit.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: How about the social credit dividend?


Charles Edward Johnston: The government will have to come to the social credit policy before very long. Make no mistake about that.
Then we have another beautiful picture with reference to the storage problem. I bring this question up, not for the purpose of saying something which has already been said, but because I believe we are going to have a more acute storage problem on our hands next year than we have now. I can see quite clearly from the government's handling of the storage problem this year that we are heading into a very dangerous situation.
This problem of storage came up in the house last session. The whole question was thoroughly threshed over, but the government had no policy to offer, no solution to propose. They went blindly on until they came up against the situation we now face. The farmers were promised storage. Assurance was given that some sort of storage would be given to the farmers. The farmer himself was asked, probably indirectly, to provide some storage for his grain and the farmers in my own community deserve a great deal of credit for the way in which they attempted to provide as best they could their own storage facilities. Some of them even used parts of their homes as granaries. Others went out and constructed a rude type of granary with wire and sheaves, and others just had to pile it on the ground, it was left there and the rains came and a great deal of it was spoiled. But they did their share, anyway.
To add to the difficulties of the farmers in regard to storage of the 1939 crop, the price of lumber-most unfairly, I think-went up considerably. I admit that there was a scarcity of lumber because the government needed it for their war effort, but there was no need or justification for the increase in the price. If an article is scarce, the obvious thing to do is set the price; but that was not done, and the farmer was put to a greater expense in order to meet the requirements of the government, because it was the government that asked the farmers to provide storage.
372	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
Another unfair aspect of the thing was that, while the elevator companies were given their storage right away, the farmers did not receive their storage until three weeks afterwards. One would almost be tempted to think that this government was working for the interests of the elevator companies and the big concerns and disregarding the farmers. I read not so long ago an article in which it was stated that the elevators were guaranteed storage for eighteen months. The farmer never has been guaranteed his storage on the 1939 crop; in fact he is not going to be allowed to get very much storage, because no advance payment is to be made on the wheat. So that if he wants cash-and he is very badly in need of cash-he has to take his grain to the elevator. By this process the elevator companies will keep their elevators filled to the roof, and they are guaranteed the storage for the length of time mentioned. We all know that last year they made something like $15,000,000 from storage. Some of that $15,000,000 would have been a fine contribution to the farmers if it could have come to them this year.
Remember, too, that though the farmer was not given storage, the elevator companies are guaranteed storage, so they are going to keep their elevators filled and they will make as much money out of storage this year as they did last year.
I was looking the other day at the issue of Monetary Times for October 26, 1940, and I ran across this:
On the other hand, there is a large grain crop and carryover which the banks have been financing. From August to November, 1939, current loans were up $147,000,000 mainly on this account.
I want you to notice the next statement:
As long as the elevators remain full, this branch of the banks' business will not suffer.
So that there are two reasons why the elevators will be kept filled: first, that the banks shall make a profit; second that the elevator companies shall get again this year profits of $15,000,000. That is no way to treat the farming community, and it is no way to assure unity in this country. You play directly into the hands of the big concerns and let the little fellow go.
What will be the situation so far as next year's crop is concerned? I can quite well see that when the elevators are filled next year and there is another crop coming on, this government will appeal to the farmers to build granaries, though they will have lost the storage for 1939 and a share of the 1940 crop. Is that fair dealing? The elevators will have been filled by that time; they will remain full right through the period of the

war, and the obligation will again be thrown upon the farmer to provide the storage, although he will have no guarantee that he is going to make anything out of it. If that is conducive to unity and patriotism, I cannot see it.
Last year there was some talk here about advancing payment to the farmer for his crop held in storage, but nothing was done about it. It was not an oversight; the Minister of Trade and Commerce knew at that time that this situation was going to arise; for he said this, as reported in Hansard, 1940, page 2252:
Unless something is done to make available to the farmer more money than, owing to elevator capacity conditions, he can obtain from his first deliveries, there will be widespread suffering, and there would be widespread necessity for relief.
The minister is to be commended at least for his foresight. He knew that that condition was coming. So did the, rest of the cabinet know; they could not help but know it. Yet what was done? Always procrastination; always leaving until tomorrow what should be done to-day; no policy; no direction. Here was the situation, quite clearly known to at least one cabinet minister last year, but nothing was done. Apparently the whole thing fell down because there was no money.
Quite amusing things happen when one speaks of this question of money. I recall when the wheat committee of the cabinet was sitting here last year after the house closed, the government called in the experts to handle this wheat situation. Among the experts whom they called were bankers, and quite properly so. If you want grain raised you go to the farmers. If you want lumber you go to the lumbermen. If you want money you go to the bankers. They claim they are controlling money; they should be the ones to provide it. On this point I want to read an extract from the address of Mr. G. S. Mathieson, president of the grain exchange:
The problem of providing funds, where necessary, for the erection of storage buildings on the farm and to make loans against grain stored on the farm, would appear _ primarily to be a responsibility of the Canadian banks, whose business it is, under certain limitations, to lend money.
So the government did right in calling in the bankers. But what did the bankers tell them? They said, "Well now, listen; you fellows have got us all wrong. We did not come here to give you money; we came to give you only advice." So they were turned away and again the farmer was left to shift for himself.
We come now, Mr. Speaker, to the matter of next year's crop. I think we should be given
NOVEMBER 25, 1940	. d
The Address-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
guidance 'by this government as to their policy in relation to the coming crop. This is necessary, it seems to me, if for nothing more than to attempt to ensure unity throughout the country. The prospects of the farmer are very poor indeed. The Minister of Agriculture's great love for th-e people is not going to get them food to eat next year, nor will it put clothes on the children's backs; and I am sure that the minister has no intention of doing either of those things.
We have suggested that the government take over the storage; in fact we have on the order paper a resolution which reads:
Whereas the system of wheat storage on the farms is quite inadequate and will not prove efficient in the years to come;
And whereas it is quite inequitable to ask the farmers to build or provide their own storage facilities:
Therefore be it resolved,-That, in the opinion of this house, the federal government itself be urged to make provision by the erection and/or purchase of storage facilities and accept delivery of wheat when tendered.
Now is the time when the government should be concerning themselves about storage for next year's crop. If they do not they are going to have the same difficulty they are finding this year, and there will not be any more satisfactory solution, because they will not be ready. What is the use of waiting until next year to start this enterprise of building up storage? Are we going to wait and pay the elevator companies another $15,000,000? Why not use that money to construct storage facilities? I can well remember the Minister of Agriculture making the remark a year or so ago that if the government were going into the wheat business and the wheat board were going to handle all the wheat, they would have to take over the storage facilities, and I think he was right. Then why does he not do something about the matter? There is no use in making these statements and then doing nothing about it.
The question of price has been raised. We have on the order paper another resolution dealing with the price of wheat. I want to put it on Hansard at this point in order to show what our attitude is. It reads:
Whereas the prices of farm machinery, all costs of living and farm wages have increased due to the war:
Therefore be it resolved,-that, in the opinion of this house, parliament should immediately take such steps as are necessary to ensure the farmers of Canada a fixed price of not less than one dollar per bushel for number one (1) northern wheat at their local elevator, on at least the first 2,000 bushels of the 1941 crop.
There is quite a variety of opinion on this question of price. I am glad to see that, as each session goes by, the government comes
to the conclusion that the resolutions which we have put on the order paper have been almost right as to price. At the 1938 session we had a resolution at that time asking for a price of 95 cents a bushel at the local elevator, and the Minister of Agriculture made a great oration-he is wonderful at that anyway-pointing out that farmers should not get 95 cents a bushel for their wheat because the cost of production was 30 to 40 cents. On page 2623 of Hansard for April 5, 1939, the Minister of Agriculture had this to say with regard to price:
It has been proven over and over again that twenty bushels to the acre of wheat can be produced at a cost of from 30 to 40 cents a bushel.
Then I asked him:
What is the basis of that estimate of from 30 to 40 cents a bushel as the cost ot production?
Mr. Gardiner: Estimates have been made by authorities in Saskatchewan university, and there are also the figures submitted by the Saskatchewan government to the Howell commission.
So the minister was quite convinced at that time that 30 to 40 cents was the right price. But he had to change his mind. On page 102 of Hansard for November 14, 1940, he is reported as saying, and I should like the house to note this particularly:
It is generally admitted that 70 cents advance at Fort William, which nets the farmer about 50 cents a bushel, does not cover his total costs of production and therefore does not maintain him as a contented producer.
That is, a return of fifty cents a bushel on the farm does not cover the cost of production, yet in 1939 the minister said that 30 to 40 cents was adequate.
Why then does the minister not do something about the matter? Surely he does not expect farmers to raise wheat at 50 cents a bushel at their local elevators when there is no profit in doing so. Manufacturers of war supplies do not work on that basis; members of parliament do not; no one else in the country does, yet he is asking the farmer to raise wheat at less than the cost of production. First it was 30 cents, then 50 cents; would it not be a grand thing if the Minister of Agriculture would make up his mind?
This question has been discussed on many occasions and the government have frankly admitted that they are at a loss to know how to settle it. They have travelled all over the country trying to get suggestions. But they never got an answer to their difficulty until they went to Alberta. When they were in Alberta the provincial cabinet met the committee and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) when he was
4	, ,	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
there with regard to this question, and gave him a written submission setting out how to handle the wheat problem. I have it here; it was reported in To-day and To-morrow in its issue of September 19 last. I read the last paragraph to show that one government at least has offered to help this government, but that offer was rejected;
Jn Persistently pressing for early action the Alberta government wishes to express once again its complete readiness to cooperate with the federal government in every possible way in dealing with the situation. Also, once more, the Alberta government reiterates its willingness to deal with the situation-
That is the wheat situation.
-in this province along effective lines if the federal government, for its part, will undertake not to interfere with such action and, where it is necessary to invoke federal powers, to extend full facilities and cooperation to the Alberta government.
That is to say, the Alberta government has said to this government:	We will handle
the wheat situation ourselves if you will just give us the necessary cooperation. It is not an impossible situation, although the Minister of Agriculture may think it is. As he has handled it, it would appear so.
Just consider the difference in attitude between 'the Alberta government and the bankers when they met with the wheat committee in Ottawa. The bankers said to the government: We will give you nothing but advice. But this government out in Alberta, that has been so greatly criticized and run down, especially by this federal government say:	We will take this wheat right off
your hands if you will give the necessary cooperation. One would think that at a time like this, with the government faced with this wheat problem, this offer of cooperation for maximum war effort by the Alberta government would have been welcomed. But what did the federal government answer? Nothing. The farmers are not getting any money; the government have no policy for next year's crop; what a pleasant outlook! People are asking, "What do you want us to do? Tell us and we will do it."
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) said the other day that in his province they are paying a dollar a bushel for ho. 5 wheat for chicken feed. Yet the people in Alberta cannot sell their wheat, or when they do they get less than fifty cents a bushel for No. 1. Obviously there is something wrong. The people in British Columbia have apples; we in Alberta and Saskatchewan have no apples. How willingly we would trade wheat for apples. Yet we 
cannot do it. This is war time; people are starving; in Alberta and Saskatchewan people are suffering.
If we cannot settle these interprovincial troubles, how can we expect to settle the world problem? Let us start at home, rectify these wrongs, set our own house in order, and then it will be time to look for something bigger to solve. This problem can be solved if the government will only look to the basic cause of all their difficulties, namely, the financial trouble. But that is the one thing they overlook. I do hope the government will take this question seriously and see that this condition does not exist next year. I am sure it can be disposed of if they just make up their minds to do so.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Mr. Speaker, since coming to this house I have tried to listen with an open mind to the arguments of our social credit friends. I have even gone so far as to read their literature, including the book written by their leader in this house, but this afternoon I have come to the conclusion that I have listened and read with a mind too open, simply drifting along. I am going to adopt the same attitude with regard to the anti-Gardiner speech to which we have just listened.
I think most of the people of Canada recognize the value to this country of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), and will take the same position.
For two and a half weeks now we have been telling the world what we have been doing in connection with our war effort. I do not believe I would add to the discussion but for the fact that there never was a time in our history when there was so much to do and so little time in which to do it.
First, I wish to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne upon their fine speeches, because they set an example to the rest of us by keeping the discussion on a high plane. I believe that their example has been followed and that, for the most part, members on both sides of the house have tried to be constructive in what they have had to say.
I should like to refer particularly to the hon. gentleman who seconded the address (Mr. Jutras), and his appeal for understanding in dealing with the situation of the farmers in western Canada. I am interested, as all westerners are, in the success of western Canada. I have watched the growth of the west probably for longer than most members in this house; I have seen many of the sites now occupied bv towns

The Address-Mr. Mayhew
and cities, when they were bald-headed prairie.
I know the people; I know something of what they have to put up with in carrying on farming, and I know that their success means the success of the rest of Canada. But, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the wheat problem can be solved, or that the situation of agriculture generally can be improved, by any bonusing proposition. If you bonus wheat and raise the price, you only make it more difficult to produce some of the other commodities that should be raised from the wheat.
I think we can best assist the farmer, and in doing so assist ourselves as well, by doing what any business man does; that is, by deciding how much we need for ourselves and to meet the requirements of our best customers. To-day Canada has only one customer left-Great Britain. Her requirements, together with our own consumption, are estimated at approximately 275,000,000 bushels. Therefore I think Canada should buy, at a good price, and store the 275,000,000 bushels necessary to look after herself and her best customer. We have at the present time an obligation to look after the people of Great Britain. But I think it is the obligation of the farmer to look after the remainder of the wheat. I have always found that the safest man to trust for assistance is yourself. Neither the government nor your neighbour will look after you as well as you can look after yourself. I was born and brought up on a farm, and I think it would be good business and good farming practice to keep your own grain in your own granaries under your own control. Then you would be greatly tempted to feed some of that surplus grain to your own stock and thus convert your wheat into butter, eggs, bacon and live stock, thereby greatly increasing our own consumption.
If I may refer for a moment to a local matter, I should like to express our appreciation of the visits of four members of the cabinet to our riding during the recess. The invasion was led by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). We never lacked confidence in him or in his ability, but that confidence was greatly increased after his short visit. Then we had a visit by the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power). That was really too much of a flying visit, but we have heard him speak and have seen him before, and our memories in that regard are still fresh. Then we had a visit from the newly appointed Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald), who wins confidence and friends wherever he goes. I believe it was only his second visit to the Pacific coast, but it was
a timely and much appreciated visit. The fourth minister to visit us was our own Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), who comes and goes quite frequently.
I should like now to extend to another member of the cabinet, the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) an invitation to visit our city. The people of Victoria feel that they owe the minister a great debt because of the way in which he has kept Canada a unit. He interprets our viewpoint to the people of Quebec and interprets to us the viewpoint of that province, and only through a visit by him can we really show our appreciation of his great efforts.
Recently the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) paid a visit to eastern Canada. We 'hope he will be kind enough to visit western Canada and the city of Victoria. I think he will be surprised at what his ministers have accomplished for him and for Canada in the way of protection on the western coast. While he is there we may point out some possible improvements, because there are always improvements that may be made; but I assure you, Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the many things that have been done.
I should like to refer briefly, if I may, to the speech made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson). While my parliamentary experience may not be equal to his, possibly he will not object if I make reference to his observations because, after all, I do not believe there is much difference in the number of years we have served Canada. My observations, however, will not be critical; on the contrarjr I wish to compliment him on a statement which I suggest is to his credit and one with which I believe the people of Canada have been greatly pleased. He reached the high light in his address when he rededicated himself and his party to the support of the government's war effort. If there ever was a time when the people of Canada have been looking for those who were willing to forget party lines, to forget criticism and to offer constructive suggestions, surely that time is the present. My only regret is that he did not continue in his observations with an outline of his own programme for the prosecution of the war, so that we might have contrasted his suggestions with the effort which the government is now making. No doubt he will avail himself of an opportunity at some later time to present his suggestions.
May I refer to the speech, or possibly I should say the report of the Minister of Agriculture respecting his trip to the old country. We were greatly heartened when listening to what he had to say with regard to what is
The Address-Mr. Mayhew

happening in Great Britain, and we were encouraged by his description of how the people in England are standing up under the terrific strain they are now being forced to endure. We were particularly interested in his attitude. He did not go to England with a price tag on our commodities-our wheat, our bacon, our cheese or our butter. Had he gone there with price tags he would have failed to appreciate the sentiments of the people of Canada. He did, however, go with a determination to find out how much of certain commodities the people of Great Britain wanted from Canada, and he left it for them to say what they were willing to pay. If that money is not sufficient to pay the farmer a reasonable price for his products, then I suggest that the difference should be made up by the general taxpayers throughout the country.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has a heavy burden indeed. The time is not yet ripe to say whether he is making a real success of his undertaking, but I should say he has made a splendid start, and would seem to be on the road to success. I should like to compliment him upon one action he has taken, namely, that of making it possible for people to pay their income tax over a period of eight months. He has instituted an arrangement whereby one-third of the income tax may be paid in the first four months, and the remaining two-thirds in the last four. That is an arrangement which I hope may be repeated on future occasions.
The government and the people should remember that profits are not always liquid. They are liquid only in an industry or a business that is in a state of semi-decay. If a business is progressive it can pay only out of it profits. As the profits are made they are placed back in the business. I am sure the Minister of Finance does not want to harm the development of industry, nor is he willing to accept in lieu of cash the products of any business. He must therefore exercise great care so as to avoid destroying entirely the goose that is laying the golden egg.
I know that the minister is going to look for more money, and that he must have it. I believe there are ways by which he can get it. I would suggest to him that he adopt a more vigorous campaign in connection with the sale of war savings stamps. In the purchase of war savings stamps we have in essence a programme of superannuation. We now have a plan whereby one may buy a superannuation certificate, but the handling of that plan costs a great deal of money. I suggest that through the purchase of war savings stamps there would be no unnecessary expense. May I suggest to the minister that instead of having

the whole sum mature at the end of a seven-year period, he give the option of having the date of maturity set at the end of five, ten, fifteen or twenty years. Under such circumstances one might buy a superannuation certificate to suit his own requirements. I believe that a little encouragement, promotion and* persuasion would induce many employers to purchase the first stamp, and possibly the last one, in order to help their employees.
With the exception of the necessity of running errands for our constituents, hon. members have not had very much of a practical nature to do in connection with the war effort. Here is a job, however, which might be undertaken by them. I believe that in our respective districts we might organize so as to produce much more than is now being derived from the sale of war savings stamps, and at the same time we might promote the idea of superannuation funds for everybody.
I have a further suggestion to make, that the minister continue the home improvement plan. While that plan has not obliterated the slums from our cities, I think it has prevented other districts from becoming slums. It has given our people an opportunity to own their own homes. After all, our home life is the corner-stone of our country. There are also rumours that he may discontinue the national housing scheme, but I hope they are not true. I hope he will make an announcement at an early date that this scheme will be continued, either in its present form or in some modified way which will be acceptable to the people. In the belief that this scheme is to be discontinued the people of Canada, particularly of western Canada, have been rushing to get their homes built in order to come under the plan. This has created in many districts a shortage of labour which is wholly unnecessary.
I have one other suggestion to make to the Minister of Finance. He seems to have an abundance of auditors going through the country. An auditor is a fine man to check on what has been done, but it is generally too late. I suggest that the minister adopt a policy of having more inspectors going round to prevent things from happening, rather than of having the details put down on paper after they have happened. I do not offer these suggestions in a critical way; I offer them from the observations I have made in my travels.
I consider that the address delivered the other day by the Prime Minister was a masterpiece. While he was at times optimistic, I read into his remarks a definite warning to the people of Canada that theTe was a terrific struggle ahead. He pictured the territory in the enemy's hands, all the shore line from the

The Address-Mr. Mayhew
northern tip of Norway to Spain. He described what was back of that shore line, the resources of practically all of Europe with its generations of experience in engineering and manufacturing, all ready to attempt to wipe Great Britain off the map. Surely such a statement is not likely to lull one into a sense of false security; it was a definite warning to the people that they must bend themselves to greater effort.
I believe that the people of Canada should be told the truth at all times, no matter how black it may be. They should be told the truth without varnish. Only by being told the truth can we adjust our minds to the problem and our shoulders to the task and carry it through to completion. Canadians are not cowards. Canadians have faced difficult tasks in days gone by, and they are ready to face difficult tasks in the future. But they must know where they have to go.
During the recent election and during this session we have been told by our Prime Minister and other members of the government on more than one occasion that Canada's effort would be the utmost in human and material resources. I wonder whether we have reached that point? I compliment most sincerely the ministers of the different departments upon what they have accomplished. Recently I travelled from Victoria to Halifax; I visited many of the camps and the aeroplane fields;
I saw both naval yards, and I inspected some of our industrial plants. With all that the ministers have told us, they have not yet conveyed to the people of Canada the complete picture of what has been accomplished. I shall not attempt in my feeble way to do what they have not done. I feel that the accomplishments are beyond the ability of any one to picture, but we have still a road to travel before we have put the utmost of our human and material resources into the defence of Great Britain.
So long as there are idle people in our communities; so long as there are idle machines in any part of Canada; so long as there are shipbuilding ways which are wholly or partly idle, we in Canada cannot say that we have thrown our utmost into this struggle. It was the most natural thing for the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), when he was in a hurry to get what he wanted, to go to the centre of industry to ask them for what he needed. I do not think anyone can find any fault with that, nor do I think anyone can find fault with the length of time it has taken the minister to tell industry what he wanted. I am satisfied that when the picture is put before us more clearly than it has been up to the present time, we shall be most proud of him. But the back-bone of the
immediate need has been broken, and rather than have these activities centralized they should be spread through the whole country in order to give everyone an opportunity to express his patriotism in action.
As I speak, I think of the 75,000 tons of scrapiron now lying in the yards of British Columbia at a time when Beverley Baxter can describe in an article in a magazine how they came along and took the iron fence from in front of his place. Surely there ought to be some way of turning that scrap-iron, and the 50,000 tons which will be produced annually in years to come, into steel to help in the prosecution of this war.
Speaking in this house last year, I said that I thought Canada should build at least fifty merchant ships in order that we might be able to take the products of this country to any part of the world. That suggestion did not raise even a ruffle in the house, but I am glad that it raised a little ruffle outside. I understand that Great Britain to-day is buj -ing or having built in Canada eighteen such boats. We read that Lord Lothian when he landed in New York the other day said that Britain was drawing on all her resources and that her financial standing was becoming weak. But Canada, Mr. Speaker, has no debt owing to the United States; we are not in default. We can borrow money from the United States; we can lend it to Great Britain if we wish to, and we can produce the boats. The United States legislation does not apply to Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Their
neutrality act prohibits it.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I was referring to the Johnson act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is one act, 'but there is the neutrality act.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Where there's a will there's a way.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree with that.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I say that we in Canada should immediately take steps to build not only the eighteen boats Britain is asking us to build, but another thirty-two along with them, making the fifty originally mentioned in this house. Then we should be in quite a different position. To-day we are like a wheelbarrow without a wheel. We cannot transport our goods across the ocean. We grow our grain and make our munitions, and then we leave them on our doorstep and ask Britain to come and get them. That is not good enough. It is time that Canada stood on her own feet. Surely we have enough

The Address-Mr. Mayhew
resources -to do this. Only when we are doing our utmost can we truthfully say to our people that we have gone the limit.
This has been a comfortable war so far for us. Labour is better off, working longer hours and for better wages. Our merchants have never in years had as good a turn-over as they have had this year, and our manufacturers 'have never had a better year for keeping their plants going. It is the farmers and those who have lost their sons and daughters who have been doing most of the suffering. But our day will come, and it should come very shortly.
I speak now for the people of my own constituency, people who are predominantly British, people who belong to the oldest cities in Canada. Those who are Canadian-born may speak of the people in the homeland with a certain amount of sentiment, but when the people in my riding speak of the homeland they are thinking of their sons and their daughters and probably their fathers and mothers who -are in Britain now suffering under the daily bombardment, and it is hard for the people in my riding to stand idly by and not be able to express their feelings in action.
I want to say just a word or two about our troops. I think the only thing is to treat our boys as humanely as possible. The best that you can spend on help is not merely the wages that you pay a man. It is the small things that you do afterwards which bring you and the man together as human beings. These are the things that produce results. So I say, to put it on the lowest possible basis, we should, if only for the sake of a better morale in our Canadian forces, see to it, if it is at all possible, that our soldiers are given at least one trip home before they embark for overseas.
I see that my time is about up, and I shall take the few minutes left to refer briefly to the forthcoming conference of premiers of the provinces to consider the Sirois report.
I do not believe that these -men who hold the confidence of the people of Canada are going to come to Ottawa with the case prejudged, having decided that they are not going to do this and that they are not going to do that. I think that as men of experience in public life they will sit down and consider on what points they agree, and that upon the points on which they cannot agree they will try to straighten out their differences in order to give us something definite, because on that report hangs a long-term policy for Canada, and it is time that we had a policy that was longer than any policy that has been given to us yet for the development of this country. fMr. Mayhew.]
I should like to see sitting, at the same time as the conference or before, another committee of reliable citizens of Canada to study what we can do for the rehabilitation of the boys who come back from the war and for the rehabilitation of those who have not been to the war and are unable to find employment. We must first of all have a clear understanding of what we can do and what we cannot do, and I think it is time that serious consideration be given to this question and that definite steps be taken so that the people will know just what is being done to meet the situation which is bound to arise. I know what it is, Mr. Speaker, to work in the lumber camps of Ontario. I know what it is to drive logs down the river. I know what it is to work on the railways. I know what it is to be without a job and [DOT] without a nickel; and while, as I said before, and say again, the first one to depend on is yourself, I think it is time that we should now have a definite programme for the development of Canada.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. ANTHONY HLYNKA (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, since the outbreak of the present war the problem of Canadian unity has been a subject of many discussions, but in my opinion it still remains a topic which warrants further consideration on our part at this time.
The mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Claxton), the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson),' and more particularly the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Picard), have made brief references to the part which Canadians of nonAnglo-Saxon origin play in our national life. I propose to discuss, further, other important phases of this subject which so far have hardly been mentioned.
There are two prevalent views on this subject of Canadian unity. There are those who feel that there is greater unity in Canada to-day than there has ever been before, and there are also those who view the whole situation with suspicion and doubt. I am inclined to agree, at least in part, with the former, that the present war has unified our people more than ever before. Nevertheless there are some prevalent viewpoints which

The Address-Mr. Hlynka
in my opinion deserve the immediate attention of this house, and the sooner the situation is remedied, the better it shall be for all concerned.
Sir Norman Angell, world-renowned analyst of national and international affairs, has recently discussed, in his two articles published in the Financial Post, some of the reasons why he thinks Hitler has been successful in overrunning several European countries. He maintains that Hitler has used the age-old weapon of "divide and conquer" in the most masterly and subtle way. In the first place, he used this weapon to get control of Germany. He then proceeded to unify his own forces at home, and at the same time set out to create disunity and distrust among the democratic countries of the world. Having done that, he concentrated upon dividing the people internally, in countries he set out to conquer, by cleverly scheming and creating class and racial disharmony. One has little choice but to agree with Sir Norman's analysis in the light of what has happened in Europe. Alas, the unscrupulous fifth-column tactics are too well known as an integral part of the blitzkrieg machine which is threatening to destroy the very existence of our democratic institutions in the world. Let us make sure, then, Mr. Speaker, that there is, no room in Canada for those who would seek to create disunity among our people by playing upon racial differences or racial superiority in our midst.
It is a well-recognized fact that there exists a greater unity to-day among all the peoples of the British commonwealth of nations than there has ever existed in the entire history of the British people. Since 1931, when by the statute of Westminster all the British dominions were granted equal sovereign rights, united only by their common allegiance to the crown, and each functioning as an independent unit, the bonds of unity have strengthened among all the dominions. They are now united on a voluntary basis. The British commonwealth of nations to-day is the greatest democratic unit in existence. This has been made possible only by the wise and tolerant British colonial policy towards its people of many racial origins and creeds. The British people to-day constitute, chiefly for this reason, one of the greatest powers the world has ever seen.
But our responsibility lies specifically here within Canada-we are assembled here for that purpose. The question before us is, how can we give maximum aid to Britain and at the same time be well prepared for our own home defence? At the moment I shall not discuss the material side of the question,
because that has well been done by others on previous occasions. My chief purpose to-night is to discuss the question of our Canadian unity.
I believe we are all of opinion that Canada must be united to the utmost if she is to be effective in her aid to Britain and if she is to be prepared for her own home defence. The people within the borders of Canada must assume equal responsibilities as well as share equal rights and privileges. We must have only one purpose in mind; that^ is victory. In answer to all agents of disunity, let me say that we must eradicate all possibilities of disharmony and check all those influences which tend to cause disunion and build racial barriers within Canada. Then, and only then, will Canada be looked upon as a powerful nation.
But to our regret, Mr. Speaker, we find that certain individuals who hold responsible positions in our public life make loose and ill-advised statements which may easily be misconstrued and made use of as the basis or cause for disunity.
In the first place, let me make a passing reference to a rather loose statement made by the Conservative leader in the British Columbia legislature. While speaking in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne he said, as reported in the Edmonton Journal of November 1:
Planning for the period of readjustment which will follow the war and a vigorous stand against the "furtherance of foreign language or foreign creed in this country" were urged in the provincial legislature Thursday by R. L. Maitland, K.C., leader of the Conservative opposition.
And further it reads:
Mr. Maitland deplored the existence of foreign language schools in Canada. . . .
There may be several interpretations of what the hon. gentleman had in mind, but my chief objection is to the fact that utterances of this kind throw an unfair suspicion upon our loyal Canadian citizens who happen not to be of Anglo-Saxon extraction. This may and does create disunity at a time when unity is most imperative.
Secondly, I should like to refer to an item appearing in the Edmonton Bulletin, in its issue of November 4. I quote:
With the stress of war causing a widening of activities in the force, 500 new constables are being enrolled by the R.C.M.P. throughout the dominion.
Because of rigid requirements in the way of both mental and physical qualifications, few as yet have been accepted.
Applicants must be single of British racial origin.
3S0
The Address-Mr. Hlynka

Here again, the meaning of the words "of British racial origin" is vague. When interpreted broadly, it would appear to mean that any person born in any British dominion is eligible for enrolment, be he of Anglo-Saxon or any other racial extraction. But interpreted in a narrower sense, it would simply rule out the eligibility of all those not of Anglo-Saxon origin. Unfortunately, this narrower interpretation is being used by minor officials for the purpose of racial discrimination. I suggest that in future when the government is putting out circulars of this type, that a more specific choice of words be made.
Lastly, I should like to draw the attention of the house to a much more serious statement which appeared in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of October 8. Mr. G. W. Parker, relief officer of Saskatoon, commenting on the administration of relief, is reported to have made this assertion. I quote in part:
There should be two scales of relief, one for central Europeans and one for " white people."
This, I submit, Mr. Speaker, is a vile form of racial discrimination. I challenge the authority upon which Mr. Parker bases his classification of people, in saying that central Europeans do not belong to the white race. I also question the mentality of those who would propose a higher scale of relief for one group of our citizens and a lower scale for another.
Probably the most notorious example of this same attitude of racial discrimination as well as higher and lower rations is exemplified in Hitlerian philosophy. We all know what that attitude of mind has brought upon us; let us, then, not have anything to do with it in Canada. No one who takes the attitude that this man does is fit to hold public office. In our country, where approximately half the population is of non-Anglo-Saxon extraction, ideas of this kind and at this time of national crisis should not be tolerated. It is about time some of our public men realized that they are nothing more than public servants hired to serve the people. I suggest that the defence of Canada regulations should also be made to apply to individuals who deliberately make malicious statements which cause dissension among our people.
I am happy, however, to be able to reply to the above and other would-be critics, on the authority of some of our eminent public men. Fortunately the great majority of our public men are much more broad-minded. It is gratifying to find that sincere efforts are being made by this government to bring about among all our people, of whatever racial 
origin they may be, a better understanding and singleness of purpose.
Some members on this side of the house have criticized the bureau of public information for being too partisan. I think that criticism is well founded. But so far as unity of our people of different racial origins is concerned, I believe that this bureau is rendering an invaluable service by publishing from time to time translations of articles appearing in the non-English press in Canada. I do not know of a better way of passing on to our Canadian public material which appears in Ukrainian, Czech, German and other publications. It helps to clear up a great deal of misunderstanding which may exist with regard to the stand these groups have taken in connection with the war. It is to be hoped that in future the press will take a greater advantage of this fine service.
I have not the time to quote many of these translations; let it suffice to give the house one short extract. But before doing so, let me quote the head-note by the director of public information, Mr. G. H. Lash, introducing one of these articles:
Note to editors: In view of the misunderstanding which seems to exist in some parts of Canada respecting the attitude of the foreignspeaking sections of our population towards Canada's war effort and our war aims, the following translation of an editorial which appeared ... in the German language newspaper Der Nordwesten is interesting. Nobody recognizes better than myself how precious newspaper space is these days, but if you could find room to reprint or to comment upon this editorial and others which I hope to send you from time to time from other foreign-language newspapers of Canada I think you would be making a fine contribution towards the development of national unity.
The following quotation from the above-mentioned newspaper was translated and reprinted in the circular of public information in the issue of October 10:
The war has created the spirit of unity among Canadians of every race and creed such as this country has not known. The full meaning of our Canadian citizenship is better understood, and if there be the few -who do not value its privileges, it must be apparent to them that this land has no place for them.
The people of Canada of whatever racial origin have one supreme duty-the winning of the war, and to that end there must be a complete unity in our land, and a determination to give and to sacrifice. And from the grave situation which has been thrust upon us by those who would destroy our way of life, we shall emerge a better people and a greater Canada.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a sample of material which is being translated and reprinted in these circulars. From that I would judge that there is a good-will on the part of all our

The Address-Mr. Hlynka
Canadian citizens, regardless of racial origin, towards a common understanding and national unity.
While discussing the subject of Canadian unity, I feel that I would not be doing justice to the topic if I did not refer to Doctor Watson Kirkconnell, who is undoubtely Canada's greatest authority on our population of non-Anglo-Saxon extraction. Doctor Kirkconnell has been for many years a keen student of all our racial groups. It is only to be regretted that this government has not, as far as I know, used Doctor Kirkconnell's exceptional talent in the interest of our national unity. I would recommend to hon. members to read, for example, Doctor Kirk-connell's recent booklet, entitled "The Canadian Ukrainians and the War". It is well worth reading.
Here is an interesting extract from the London Free Press reprinted in the Ottawa Citizen of October 31, regarding Doctor Kirk-connell's contribution.	To me it is an
encouraging bit of information.
According to Doctor Watson Kirkconnell of McMaster university, who is Canada's greatest authority on our foreign population, Herr Hitler lias done more than any other man to draw Canada together and to unite the dominion. Despite intensive propaganda which was carried on in Canada by Berlin, Moscow and Rome, Doctor Kirkconnell says that more than ninety-eight per cent of the peoples of alien birth are loyal to Canada to-day, and are enthusiastically lined up behind the British effort. ...	.
In most cases the nazis overran their home countries, while they realize that the freedom and liberty which they came to this country to seek will be lost if Hitler wins. Doctor Kirkconnell gave as one example the Ukrainians. He pointed out that in Saskatchewan they form ten per cent of the population, yet over ten per cent of the enlistments in that province are from peoples of Ukrainian stock. The war has brought English and French closer together, and it is optimistic to learn that it is making for national unity among those who are not of French or Anglo-Saxon origin.
In closing, may I sum up the whole problem of our national unity by quoting from one of Canada's greatest statesmen, who was a friend of all the Canadian people. He worked hard for Canadian unity and was a man who understood even the simplest soul in our land. I speak of Lord Tweedsmuir.
While addressing a large Ukrainian gathering of 1,500 people on September 21, 1936, at Fraserwood, Manitoba, Lord Tweedsmuir spoke in such a way that even to this day those who heard him hold sacred the ideas he expressed. On that happy occasion the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) was present. I crave the indulgence of hon. members while I read a part of that great statesman's short message. I would suggest that
they follow this masterpiece. Many hon. members find themselves at a loss at times, when they have to address a gathering of people of some other racial extraction. This is a wonderful example of an address to such a gathering, and is one of the most interesting short speeches I have ever read. These were the words uttered by Lord Tweedsmuir:
I thank you most warmly for the way you have received me to-day. I do not think that anywhere I have gone in Canada I have been welcomed with a more beautiful ceremony; your escort, your national ceremony of presenting me with bread and salt, and if I may be allowed to say so the beautiful and well chosen words of your address.
I realize that my welcome is due to the fact that I represent your king, and it will be my pleasure to convey to the king the cordial greetings of the Ukrainian people in Canada.
I am very happy to be among you to-day.
I am among people who have behind them a long historical tradition, for it was your race which for centuries held the south eastern gate of Europe against the attacks from the east.
I can well imagine that this country is home to you, for these wide prairies are very like the great plains of south eastern Europe from which you came. During my tour of the prairies I have come across many of your people, and I am glad to see that in a short time you have come to be a vital element in the Canadian nation. You played your part in the great war. To-day I find your sons in the permanent and non-permanent militia.
Wherever I go I hear high praise of your industry and hardihood and enterprise even under the most difficult conditions. You have become good Canadians.
Every Briton and especially every Scotsman must believe that the strongest nations are those that are made up of different racial elements. The Ukrainian element is a very valuable element to our new Canada. I wish to say one thing to you. You have accepted the duties and loyalties as you have acquired the privileges of Canadian citizens, but I want you also to remember your old Ukrainian traditions-your beautiful handicrafts, your folk songs and your folk legends. I do not believe that any people can be strong unless they remember and keep in touch with all their past. Your traditions are all valuable contributions toward our Canadian culture which cannot be a copy of any old thing-it must be a new thing created by the contribution of all the elements that make up a nation.
That was the outlook of a great man who understood the people. I think it would be worth while to compare utterances such as I quoted in the first part of my address with the sentiments to which I have just referred.
Let me say, then, that in this crucial and historic moment every Canadian, whatever may be his racial origin, must hold dear the principles for which the British flag stands, namely liberty, without which there is no true life; justice, so essential to all people, and fair play, which makes life worth
The Address-Mr. Tucker

living. In the name of all these things, Mr. Speaker, let us unite and work in harmony for the good of Canada and a brighter future for all our Canadian people, regardless of racial origin.


Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthem):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to extend my congratulations to the young member (Mr. Hlynka) who has just taken his seat. As a Canadian of British origin I should like to express my support and appreciation of what he has just said and what he represents to Canadian life to-day. I have been told by people who accompanied their majesties across Canada that the most moving episode of the whole trip was the welcome they received at Melville, where practically everyone was of other than French or English-speaking origin. I suppose those of Polish, Ukrainian and German origin predominated, and I am told that there the outpouring of affection for the head of our country and our commonwealth was such that it moved even the most staid and cynical newspaperman. Many people had come there, after a journey of perhaps a day, to look at their sovereign, and it was said that there was such an evident spirit of affection that among those humble people many had tears in their eyes that they should have the privilege of meeting their king and1 queen.
Then we hear of such utterances of racial hatred and discrimination as were quoted by the hon. member for Vegreville. We try to think those who are guilty of these things are endeavouring to be good citizens. The gentleman, Mr. Parker, mentioned by the hon. member is a returned soldier who served in the last war. I am certain he wants to be a good citizen and do his best for Canada, but I am at a loss to understand the psychology of such a man. Here are people who have left their own country, who glory in the freedom they find here, who intend to live and die in Canada, who expect to bring up their children to be good Canadian citizens, who to-day in Saskatchewan are enlist. ing for the defence of their country to a greater extent than might be expected from the portion of the population they represent.
In fact, of the first two young men from my constituency to give their lives in this war in the service of their country, in the sinking of the Fraser, one was of Ukrainian origin. Then, in almost the same issue of the newspaper that announced his death, we had the statement referring to these people of Ukrainian origin as not being "white". That Ukrainian mother laid her most precious possession upon the altar of freedom; then, after making that sacrifice she had to hear that statement made by a fellow-Canadian of British origin. It [Mr. Hlynka.)
was cruel. So with all my heart I support what the hon. member for Vegreville has said to-night; that sort of thing should have no place in Canadian public life.
As I have said, I have no doubt that this gentleman, Mr. Parker, meant well. He served his countiy in the last war. To him and to all other Canadians of English and French origin who want to serve their country, as I know every returned soldier does, I say that he Should consider whether he is really serving his country in giving utterance to such ideas. In the constituency of Rosthem, as I have said before, there is a large number of people of the Mennonite faith. They are partly of Swiss and German origin, but predominantly of Dutch extraction. There is a tendency on the part of a few returned soldiers to suggest that these people should be barred from the normal life of this country.
When people were being named to look after the national registration, a protest was made to Ottawa that too many Mennonites were being made registrars at a place called Aberdeen, where the people are entirely of that persuasion. I had the matter looked into, and this is what I found. I found that in that whole Mennonite district where the recommendations were made by Mennonite people they respected the claims of returned soldiers. Wherever there was a returned soldier in the district able or willing to do the work, he got the job. But there was one district in which there was no returned soldier who could be procured to get the work, and so a fine Mennonite citizen was named to do the work there. He was the only Mennonite in the whole district named to act as a registrar; his oldest son is serving in the Canadian active service force. I say: Who are these patriots who think they best serve their country by pointing the finger at a man who is appointed to take charge of this work, a man whose eldest son is in the fighting services? He was the only Mennonite in that district actually named to act as a registrar, and yet one or two thought they were doing right by attacking me because I believed that all people, regardless of racial origin, should be treated on the same basis.
I took the attitude that a mistake was made at the time of the last war when Canada said to these people that they should not have the vote, and thereby were not treated as citizens. As a result they naturally did not feel under the same obligation to serve their country. The attitude I have taken at this time is that every Canadian, every man, no matter what his racial origin may be, shall be regarded as a good Canadian and shall be expected to make his contribution to the country's great cause.

The Address-Mr. Tucker
The question respecting Mennonites serving in the armed forces of their country is one with which I probably should deal at this time. As we know, it is against their religion to bear arms. I do not believe there is one member in the house who would say that we should interfere with people's religion. In the regulations it has been stipulated that the training of Mennonites and Doukhobors shall be indefinitely postponed. But there was no suggestion that they should be deprived of the vote; they were to be treated as full-fledged citizens.
What do we find to-day? We find that within the last ten days representatives of the Mennonites of western Canada, the Mennonites of Ontario, the Quakers in Canada and the Tunkers came to Ottawa to interview the ministry of national war services to say to that department that while they do not believe in bearing arms, they are prepared to go into any branch of the service of their country where they could help to save life, where they could help the wounded, and for other services of that kind. It did not matter to them whether it was dangerous work or otherwise. All they ask is that they shall not be asked to bear arms; and -they have asked, too, that their operations should be under civilian auspices. So long, however, as they serve humanity, they do not care whether their work be dangerous or otherwise.
They appreciate the rights of citizenship in Canada. They wanted to show their appreciation, and they were not trying to get out of doing their full share. All this was done after the government had exempted them from military service. The people represented by this delegation do not want to be exempted from doing their share. Here we have a group of non-English-speaking and non-Frenchspeaking origin, a group which wishes to act as a group of good citizens. They are ready to serve their country, even to the extent of risking their lives. Is it not wise statesmanship, and good business, if nothing else, to let those people know and feel that they are accepted as full-fledged citizens?
I have in mind, for example, those people in western Canada who are of German origin. I claim-I am absolutely satisfied-that the overwhelming majority of those people are absolutely loyal to Canada and the British empire. But if people are going to suggest continually that they should be deprived of their rights, that they should be discriminated against and treated as if they are something less than citizens, what will the effect be?
Hitler teaches to the German people that they never will be accepted as full-fledged citizens in any country not under the German reich, and that the only way whereby in
America or elsewhere they may be treated as full-fledged citizens is by their backing of his government, so that Germany may rule every country. He points out that it is only by that method that they may become full-fledged citizens. Well, if by mistreatment and discrimination we bring about a condition whereby, even if they have lived in this country for one, two or three generations, the fact that they happen to have German names will preclude them from obtaining full citizenship, I suggest that we are playing right into the hands of Hitler, and substantiating his teachings and propaganda. So I say to my returned soldier friends and colleagues. Realize that if you attack a people who want to be loyal, a people who are loyal, just because they have German-sounding names or names of non-French or non-English origin, you are tending to make an enemy of those who want desperately to be friends. And today in this crisis of the world we need every friend we can get. You are not strengthening our cause by trying to treat as enemies those who want to be friends and loyal citizens.
These observations bring up another point with which I believe I should deal at this time. I am afraid I shall not be able to touch on all the matters with which I had intended to deal, but I shall proceed to discuss this one because it is along similar lines. It has to do with our fellow Canadians, our French-speaking Canadians. I have noticed a tendency on the part of many English-speaking Canadians to admit only grudgingly outside of Quebec the rights of French-speaking Canadians.
By the pact of confederation it was laid down that there should be two official languages in Canada-not only in Quebec, but throughout the country. This is a bilingual country, and I am satisfied that we will not get real unity if we, after making a deal, as we did at the time of confederation, try to whittle it down and to back out of it. Sometimes I have marvelled at the toleration and the willingness of French-speaking Canadians to forgive and forget the continual attempt on the part of some English-speaking Canadians to whittle down the rights the former obtained under the pact of confederation. I suggest it is of the very genius of the British people that, having first of all made a deal, they should live up to it one hundred per cent, and that above all they tolerate and respect the wishes and just rights of minorities-especially when those minorities, through fair days and foul, have shown themselves to be loyal, to their hearts' cores.
Why is Canada British to-day? That is a question which has been asked on the floor of this chamber. When the Marquis de Lafayette came over to assist in the fight for independence of the United States, and sent
The Address-Mr. Tucker

his delegate to see the French-Canadians who only recently had passed under British rule, he was told that they were well content to remain under British rule, and had no desire whatever to join the revolting colonies to the south. Had they been disloyal at that time and had they regarded lightly their allegiance to their sovereign, they had their chance then to show their lack of allegiance; but they did not take it.
Again in 1812 had they gone against the British crown, this country would have been lost to the British empire. We then come to the revolution of 1837. That was a fight for responsible government, and there was no more desire in lower Canada to get away from the British crown than there was in upper Canada. Then we come down to the days of the great war, when, in spite of provocation French Canada stood' behind the war effort of this country, and sent some of her best sons to give their blood for Canada on the soil of France; and there they lie to-day.
In this war there has been unity such as has gladdened the heart of every true Canadian. Bearing all that in mind, let us show these fellow citizens of ours who speak a Canadian language just as we do, that we do not want to take away from them some of their rights, that we respect them fully and that we are prepared to go half way to meet them in carrying out fairly the pact of confederation.
In this connection I should like to deal for a moment with the question of radio broadcasting. When a suggestion is made, many of us are apt to say that we agree with it, but when it comes down to actually agreeing to carry out the proposal, there is often a tendency to hang back. It is with that tendency that I wish to deal to-night. One of the things I should like to see accomplished is the setting up in Canada of one of the most powerful shortwave radio broadcasting stations in the world. Over one of the wave-lengths controlled by that station I should like to see broadcast the best programmes from Quebec so that they could be heard by our French-speaking fellow citizens in western Canada. They are entitled to hear programmes in their own language. These programmes would also be heard in occupied and unoccupied France.
Not long ago I had the privilege of listening to a speech delivered over the radio by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). I was thrilled and proud to think that he was a fellow citizen of mine. But that speech was broadcast only once. We all know the dangers faced by the citizens of France when they try to listen to foreign broadcasts. Naturally the nazis knew that this speech was being broadcast, and it would have been particularly

dangerous for any French citizen to have listened to it. If we had had a powerful shortwave station, this speech could have been broadcast nine or ten times in order to be sure that every Frenchman on the continent of Europe could have an opportunity to hear this call to fight for freedom. What would be spent on such a shortwave station would be of far more value than ten times the amount spent upon arms.
Let us face the fact that Hitler has gained his victories largely by the use of propaganda. We should be able to send appeals from the French-Canadians on north American soil to Frenchmen in Europe. No one will ever know but what the appeal of the Minister of Justice to Marshal Petain may have had something to do with the breaking down of the scheme to get France under the control of Germany. If that is so, then that speech was worth almost a whole army corps. I ask the government to consider this, to realize the power we would have of heartening the French people, of calling on them to be of good cheer, of telling them that we know that France will yet rise again in all the glory of freedom, that it is not her destiny to languish forever under the nazi heel.
There was another speech delivered not long ago which I wish every Frenchman could have heard. This was delivered by that great Canadian statesman, the premier of Quebec. How his words would have thrilled the French people and heartened them against the dark days yet to come! He said:
To France, French-Canadians would say: " Mother, thou art not dead. You live in our blood and in our minds. And you live in the minds of those who understand you. We all know that the hordes of Hitler and Mussolini have not been able to tear out your soul and that you but await our victory, the victory of the British nations and their allies, to again take your place amongst the nations who are bearers of light."
Would it not have been a fine thing to have broadcast that speech several times each day for two or three days so that every Frenchman in France might have had an opportunity of hearing it and knowing that here in Canada were people who intended to stand by France until once more she was free?
Such a radio station would help our foreign exchange position. It is intended to send people to South America in order to encourage the people of those countries to come to Canada for a visit-to trade with Canada. For every man that such delegates will meet, a shortwave station would reach thousands. Over such a station it could be broadcast that although we are at war there are no difficulties about travelling in this country. In the past many of these people have spent their money upon travel in Europe, but we

The Address-Air. Tucker
should endeavour to encourage them to come to see Canada. We should be able to build up a tremendous tourist trade, and I have no doubt that the money made from such a trade would pay for the shortwave broadcasting station in one year.
There is the question of trade with the United States and the tourist traffic from that country. We know that last year Germany tried to destroy our tourist trade. W'e fought against this as best we could, but we should have been telling the people of the United States over a shortwave station all about the attempts that were being made to sabotage our war effort by destroying our tourist trade. I see my time is passing and I have used nearly all my allotment in dealing with this one subject. I think, however, its importance justifies my doing so.
For a moment I should like to refer to station CBK, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation transmitter for western Canada. This station broadcasts a total of 115 hours a week. The length of the bilingual programmes is three and one-sixth hours, while the French part of the bilingual programmes occupy only one-third of an hour, or twenty minutes. The time spent in broadcasting French programmes for the whole week is only three hours, out of the 115 hours, or 2-6 per cent. If there are English-speaking people who do not want to listen to more French than this, if more were put over, they can tune in on some other station like CKCK. They should not contend that there should not be more French broadcasts over CBK, because they do not have to listen if they do not want to. This would give our Frenchspeaking fellow citizens a chance to hear a little bit more, a fairer amount of broadcasting in their own language.
Here is something which is most important. The time spent daily in broadcasting news in English over CBK is 158 minutes, whereas the time spent in broadcasting the news in French is only five minutes. The English news is broadcast seven days in the week while the French news is broadcast only five days in the week. An increased use of the French language over this station should be made to meet the wish of our French-speaking fellow citizens. I think the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should be asked to look into the situation. I do not think they are treating our French-speaking citizens in western Canada quite fairly when they give them only that proportion of the total time on CBK.
There is another matter. While a shortwave broadcasting station would be a good thing, there are in western Canada a good many people who cannot afford a radio 14873-25
of any kind whatsoever, and even less a shortwave receiving set. This means that if you are going to reach many of our people you have to put the programme over from the ordinary broadcasting station. I think the work that has been done in enlightening our English-speaking people on matters connected with the war and how we are carrying out our part in the war has been exceptionally good. But there are many people in western Canada who do not understand English very well. Yet they are good citizens, anxious to help in the war. They have been subjected, the people, for example, of German-speaking origin, to consistent nazi propaganda before the war.
The Deutsches Zeitung fuer Kanada, subsidized directly from Germany, was sent out from Winnipeg to mailing lists all over western Canada, and our people there, not being very well off and not being able to afford very much in the way of reading material, were subjected to this lying propaganda week after week, and yet they did not succumb to it. Here we are putting over to the English speaking people of the west the story of our war effort and the justice of our cause, but there seems to be the feeling in the minds of some of those in charge of the broadcasting corporation that if you put over a broadcast in German, somehow it is going to do some harm. Because of that, great chances to enlighten some of our people have been missed.
We had German refugees from Czechoslovakia, German refugees from Austria and from Germany itself who should have been put on the radio and permitted to tell their story in German to people of German origin in western Canada-the whole story of nazi oppression in Europe in all its horror. Would that not have been worth while? Would that not have been reaching people that it is important to reach? They are fellow-citizens and it is important that they should see the justice of the cause in which we are engaged. I submit that while we should, of course, carry on our programme of reaching our English-speaking citizens, we should take some steps to do a measure of justice to our French-speaking citizens, and then for the sake of promoting unity in Canada we should put over broadcasts in other than French or English to explain to those who are not French- or Englishspeaking citizens of Canada what is happening over in Europe.
There are people in the town of Rosthern who have not been very long in this country and who do not understand English very well. The only way in which they can

The Address-Mr. Tucker

hear German over the radio is if they manage to tune in on a German programme from London or Berlin. I venture to say that there are probably ten times as many people of German-speaking origin in Canada as there are in England, yet in England they do not think it is going to harm the British empire to put over the air speeches in German from the British broadcasting headquarters. How much more important for the unity of Canada that we should realize that it would be in the interests of Canadian unity to put over from time to time some speeches from good Canadians in German, Polish, Ukrainian and so on!
There is one matter which perhaps I did not make plain and which I should like to make very plain at this time with respect to what I have said about people like Mr. Parker and other returned soldiers. I am always ready to realize that they, like all of us at times since the war started, have been so worried about the very existence of our country and about the existence of the British empire in this time of peril, that, not understanding the true loyalty of our people who are not of English or French origin, they have been inclined to suspect them. I know that these gentlemen are acting with the best of intentions, and that is one of the reasons why I have spoken as I have to-night, to beg and beseech them not to play into the hands of Hitler, but to recognize these people as good Canadian citizens and to hold out the hand of friendship to them rather than throw suspicion on them.
There were many subjects with which I wished to deal to-night, but perhaps in this time of stress the question of Canadian unity is more important than almost any other. There is, however, one further matter with which being a pseudo-financial expert, I shall take a minute or two to deal.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) dealt with two things in particular, to which I should like to refer. I should like to read what he said:
I believe that the tax programme of the government has been and will continue to be such that some additional financing of a shortterm character, accompanied by some increase in total bank deposits, will not under the circumstances have inflationary results, and will, I believe, avoid undue stringency in the monetary field at a time when the working capital requirements of industry are increasing because of expanding business activity due to war orders.
That bears out what I and what many other Canadians have been contending for ever since the war started, that there should not be too stringent taxation or too stringent

borrowing until we get our economic machinery running at full blast, and then it can more easily carry the burden of taxation necessary to finance the war. I think it was for this reason also that the last war loan did not go over as well as it might have done. It was because we did not permit our whole economic machine to expand to full capacity before we began to crack down on it. It is not going to increase our strength as a nation to close up, for example, our automobile industry if we are not prepared to put all those people at work making munitions of war; in fact it is going to hurt our economic machine by throwing thousands out of work. The matter must be so handled that we build up our economic activity to its full height and then gradually, as needed, turn over our industrial machine to the task of making munitions of war.
I am glad to see that it is proposed to embark on a policy of some credit inflation in order to enable this nation better to bear the war burden.
There is another point in the address of the Minister of Finance with which I wish to deal briefly. I shall read what the Minister of Finance said about it because it is a matter of grave importance. He said:
In deciding to undertake some additional short-term financing, the government also had in mind the fact that the major portion of the new money which will have to be borrowed prior to next summer will be required for the activities of the foreign exchange control board. It has been decided that the board will finance the repatriation programme to a greater extent than it has in the past, and additional funds will be necessary for this purpose. You will recall that the process of repatriation involves the temporary accumulation of sterling balances by the foreign exchange control board, and these balances are later used to acquire Canadian securities held in the United Kingdom.
As I understand what is proposed there and what is actually happening to-day, it is that through the repatriation of Canadian securities money in the form of purchasing power in Canadian dollars is made available to Great Britain to purchase goods in Canada. Great Britain has caused the people of that country to turn over to the British government the Canadian securities they hold in order that Great Britain can turn round and sell these Canadian securities in Canada and with the proceeds pay in Canadian dollars for what she purchases in Canada.
So far as I understand it, the only purchases so far that we permit Britain to make in Canada are those which she is financially able to make through the exchange available to her by virtue of the goods she has shipped to Canada and the securities which have been repatriated in the manner I have

The Address-Mr. Tucker
described. If that is all that has been done, have we treated Great Britain in any different way from the way in which she has been treated by the United States, or the Argentine, or any other foreign country? While she has had the proceeds of her exports with which to buy in Canada, we have sold to her. While she has had the securities with which to procure Canadian dollars, we have sold to her.
We are now told by the Minister of Finance that, pending the disposal of her Canadian securities in Canada, the operation will be financed for the time being through this short-term credit programme. I am glad of that, that Great Britain is not going to be prevented by a lack of Canadian dollars from buying in Canada. But apparently all we are doing is lending, temporarily financing; we are not doing any more. That is quite a bit short, Mr. Speaker, of what was done by Great Britain for France before France's downfall. Great Britain put at the disposal of France all the pounds sterling that she needed to make any purchases which she required in the British isles. France did the same in francs in France with Great Britain, and they agreed that there would be a settlement after the war. This meant that money did not stand in the way of Britain helping France or France helping Britain. And I ask this, that consideration be given by our government to some similar policy. We must not be told that the limit of our assistance to Great Britain is what Great Britain is able to buy with her goods and her securities. Surely we are not going to stop at any such limited degree of assistance.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the British government, having taken over the securities, sends them here. They will have to be disposed of in Canada to realize Canadian dollars to the credit of the British government in order that they can make purchases in Canada. As a member of the banking and commerce committee I should like to know how these Canadian securities are being disposed of, or to be disposed of. In this time of crisis, are the needs of the British government such that they are being forced to sacrifice Canadian securities because they need the money? There is only a small group of Canadian financiers who have the money necessary to buy those securities. To what extent are we protecting or do we intend to protect the British investor or the British government by seeing to it that a small group of Canadian investors are not making a big profit at the expense of Great Britain?
I am not saying that this is or is not the case. But I do say this, that all too little use is being made of the private members of this H873-25i
parliament. When I consider the speeches made in this house, led off by the hon. member who moved the address in reply (Mr. Claxton), seconded by my young friend, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras); when I reflect upon the high-class speeches which they made on that occasion, their clearness of mind and their all-round ability; when I observe, as I get to know hon. members of the various parties, the ability represented in this chamber and their competence to serve their country in this time of crisis, I ask myself, is that ability being harnessed? We feel that what is happening is this. Experts-so called-are being called in to advise the members of the government. Sometimes they are experts and sometimes they are not. In that connection we have heard the definition of an expert as a man who does not know very much, far away from home. A policy having been decided upon, with the assistance of those experts, it is brought down to this house, and hon. members-well, I will not say what they have to do.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Swallow it.


Walter Adam Tucker: I submit that parliament
would be discharging its functions if, for example, in connection with this question of finance, the banking and commerce committee were asked to sit and the report of the Bank of Canada referred to it for examination, with all other matters having to do with the financing of this country's war effort and the financing of assistance to Great Britain -all these things laid before- that committee, with the right to call experts and to decide, in the light of the evidence given by those experts and the views of hon. members representing all parties in the house, as to the best way that the financial resources of this country could be harnessed. That, Mr. Speaker, would be true functioning of democratic government. The members of parliament would be given a chance to judge and advise the government as to whether those experts were really expert or whether they were, in- their opinion, fakes. I should like to see the banking and commerce committee given a chance to examine as to what is being done with the securities which are being taken from the British people in their hour of need and sold here in Canada. Does any single hon. member on the floor of this house know how these securities are being disposed of? Does any hon. member know whether the British investor and the British government are getting a completely square deal? We hope so, but do not know. Is my time up?


Jean-François Pouliot: No. Go on. Good stuff I
3SS
The Address-Mr. Tucker


Walter Adam Tucker: I suppose, Mr. Speaker,
you will call "time" when it is up. I have lost track, of my time.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carry on.


Walter Adam Tucker: I suggest that the Bank
of Canada should make available all the Canadian money needed to pay a decent price for the securities in which the people of Great Britain have invested in. the past; that these securities, instead of being thrown on the market-I suppose they try to get the best price possible for them, but this is not a good time to dispose of securities of that kind-should be dealt with in this way. A credit should be granted by the Bank of Canada to the British government, representing a fair price for those securities, which would become the property of the bank. Somebody may say, "If you pay out Canadian dollars from the Bank of Canada in the sums necessary to buy those securities, you are going to expand the basis of your credit structure to that extent and inflation will follow." My answer to that is that I am satisfied, and I feel it cannot be contradicted-I should like to get the experts in front of the banking and commerce committee and see if they can controvert it-that as you put out more and more Canadian money to re-vest those securities in the people of Canada, to whom they should belong, at the end of the war, you could gradually increase your reserve requirements, if you saw that it was resulting in inflation.
To-day by law the banks are required to have on hand SI in Bank of Canada notes or Bank of Canada deposits for every $20 they owe their depositors. As a matter of practice the Bank of Canada require them to have on hand $1 for every $10 they owe their depositors; they ask them to have twice as much on hand as the law requires. There is nothing wrong with that. But if the Bank of Canada can require them to have on hand twice as much as the law requires, what is to prevent the Bank of Canada, if they saw any sign of inflation, saying to the banks: We require you to have on hand not $1 for every $10 but $1.10, or $1.15, or even $2 or more, for every $10.
In other words, they can absolutely control the situation. They can gradually increase the cash base for the commercial banking system of this country. They have a tremendous leeway. Until we get to one hundred per cent credit base, the Bank of Canada can put out well over a billion dollars. If that were done, and carefully watched by the Bank of Canada, as it could be watched, at the end of this war, instead of private investors in this country buying up Canadian securities

that were once the property of Britishers who had faith in the future of this dominion and invested in it, and perhaps getting those securities for less than they are worth, the Bank of Canada, representing the people of Canada, would own about a billion dollars' worth of Canadian securities on which it would earn interest and for which Britain had been paid a fair price.
Perhaps some hon. members may say that is impossible. When a great refunding transaction like that is going on, if we are to do our duty by the Canadian people we as members of parliament have a right to ask our financiers what is going on and ask them why this cannot be done. So in all earnestness I ask that the banking and commerce committee be set up to examine into the financial transactions that are taking place in this country. WTio has more right to look into those transactions than the members of that committee, representing the common people of Canada? AVe still have selfgovernment in Canada, thank God. We are not ruled by the financiers, we are not ruled by the manufacturers.
In any particular sphere this house is entitled to full information through its committees. So I suggest to t'he government that the banking and commerce committee be called together as soon as this house reconvenes, with full power to examine into that field of finance and the financial transactions that are taking place. Representing as it does the people of all parts of Canada, labouring people, farmers and so on, representing all parties in the country, if it was able in times past to arrive at good solutions, in this day of crisis, when every member of this parliament is anxious to do all he can for his country, it will get together in a non-partisan spirit and among the fifty members of that committee there may be at least one who will have an idea that is worth putting up to Mr. Towers and his expert advisers. At any rate it will give a chance to everyone on that committee to make suggestions as to the conduct of the financial policy of Canada. It is the right of this House of Commons to ask for that, and I ask for it to-night.
There are other matters I wanted to deal with, but I realize that my time is up. Before concluding, however, I should also like to ask that a committee be set up to examine the wheat problem. That problem should be referred to the agriculture committee which can have experts brought before it to make their suggestions and have them examined by hon. members from all sections of the house, and the committee can then report its conclusions to the government.

The Address-Mr. Fraser (Peterborough)
Let me say that I would not want anyone to think that I am dissatisfied in any way with the successful manner in which the government have organized this country for its war effort. I am proud of the way in which our ministers of national defence, all three of them, have directed our war effort. I glory in the way in which our Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) has organized the arming of our nation for war. But there again I make a suggestion. Various people have been put in important positions in which they control the whole industrial and economic life of this dominion. There should be a committee of this House of Commons to look into what is being done in that sphere and satisfy itself that it is being done properly. In other words, I ask that the members of this House of Commons be permitted to go to work to help the government win this war. We were elected to help run this country, not someone called in from Vancouver and someone else from Halifax. Some of them, I understand, could not get elected to this house no matter how they tried. They are all right-good men have been chosen-in their place as advisers, but this house has the right to see if they are as expert as they are supposed to be and to advise the government as to their work.
There are many other members of the government of whom I could say how much I think of their work, but I shall conclude with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself. I believe that his work in the realm of external affairs of this country will go down in history as the finest ever done by any prime minister. He has made an enormous contribution to the safety and security of British commonwealth of nations. To win this war it was all-important that we should have the help of the United States of America. In acting as interpreter and bridge between the United States of America and Great Britain, and helping to bring them together, our Prime Minister has done a work that this generation probably is not able to appreciate; but when history comes to appraise it, the Prime Minister will take a very high place and be greatly deserving of his country's undying gratitude.
The Ogdensburg agreement that he negotiated with the President of the United States was the culmination of a sustained effort. I happen to have seven children; I am proud of them; when I heard that the Prime Minister had made an agreement with the president of the great republic to the south that if Canada were attacked we could rely on the resources of the United States to help us in driving back the invader and protecting our homes, when I went to bed that night I
thanked God that that agreement had been brought into existence by the Prime Minister and the President, because I felt that my children were safer in our home than they otherwise would have been.
As I listened at this session to the declaration of the Prime Minister as to our war aims and the way in which Canada intends to meet the crisis, I say in all humility I thought it was the finest declaration of war aims and the noblest statement of the spirit in which our people should go forth to meet this present challenge to us and to civilization and freedom to which I had yet listened.


Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, this debate has brought out many constructive ideas, and I sincerely hope the government will act upon them. The hon. member who just took his seat (Mr. Tucker) made one or two very good suggestions. I think he rather spoiled his speech with his last few remarks, but the first part was excellent. As a member of the banking and commerce committee I agree that this committee should take up the question of the sale of securities when the house meets again after the recess.
The hon. gentleman also mentioned radio broadcasting. I have tried to obtain a copy of a speech which was made in the British House of Commons with regard to broadcasting. I have not been able to secure that speech, but I know its contents. It was stated that Hitler first used the radio to lower the morale of the people of the countries he wanted to invade. At the present time I understand that he has under his control over 170 Shortwave stations, including those of Norway, Sweden and Denmark, some of which broadcast in English twenty-four hours a day in an endeavour to break down the morale of the English people, but that will not be broken. Speaking of radio, I wonder whether something could not be done to prevent a certain German commentator from broadcasting to this country. Even some of our Canadian stations are carrying these broadcasts, and we do not know but what in those broadcasts there may be hidden code messages to his fifth columnists in this country or in the United States, because every word this'man says is first checked by the greatest double-crosser of all times, Hitler himself.
I have some questions which I should like to ask the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner), who lam sorry is not in the house at the moment. First, I should like to ask if any complaints have been received with regard to employers not taking back into their employ men who had to go to training camps; and, if so, what action has been taken.
390	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Fraser (Peterborough)
Then I should like to protest to this government because of the manner in which they have drawn up the rules and regulations concerning the trainees. In England there was an act passed concerning conscription, and that matter was fully debated in the house. 3 honestly believe that the question of training our men should be debated here. As the previous speaker said, we do get some good ideas here in the house. Give the members a chance to discuss these matters, instead of putting them through by order in council. In the United States the whole procedure in regard to training camps is laid down in their act.
I should also like to ask the minister whether, in the event of the training period being extended to four months, the men called up in the first three classes are liable to be called up again. Finally, what action will be taken with regard to those men, something like 1,500, who were called up for training and given transportation but who did not show up?
I should also like to know whether any complaints have been received by the Department of National War Services concerning the seizure of chattels belonging to men who have been called up for training, I mean chattels purchased under lien or conditional sale agreements. I am informed that in Chatham a seizure was made by a finance company. That matter is covered in the United States regulations; a short-term moratorium is declared, so that the soldier undergoing training is not liable for suit, debt, mortgage foreclosure, repossession proceedings and so on. I realize that the United States man is called up for twelve months and that at present the Canadian boy is called up for only one month, but I really believe something should be done at once with regard to this matter.
Then I should like to refer to the public information bureau. Every week we receive reams of mimeographed sheets, though I knowr for a fact that not half this material is ever read. As a matter of fact I saw one newspaper man throw one of these envelopes into the waste-paper basket without even opening it. He said, " Why read that stuff? I had that information a week ago." I rather think some of this material is of a political nature, because on the first page of one article I see the words "free speech." We do not even have free speech in this house.


Mr. McNEVIN:: Why?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The other day the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) called down the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson).


Thomas Bruce McNevin: That does not mean anything; maybe he deserved it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes; that means we have not free speech. The other day the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said he felt the awful seriousness of the war. If that is so, I wonder why he has not tried to keep up the morale of the soldiers who are training in this country, many of them without proper equipment, by giving free transportation on the railways. In any event they should be given free transportation on their own railway. They have been paying for that railway ever since they were knee high to a grasshopper; every time they bought a stick of candy they helped pay for it, and even though they are in training they are helping to pay for it to-day. There is no reason under the sun why those men should not have free transportation. Of course such transportation would have to be within limits; it might be only on authorized passes and perhaps only three or four times a year, but they should have it. I do not think one hon. member would be opposed to that, or is there one who might be? I do not think so. I think all hon. members are for the soldier, and I am glad they are.
I have before me clippings from papers and magazines concerning free transportation. I shall not read them all, because I know that most hon. members have received some of them. There is one, however, I should like to read, and it is as follows:
In response to an appeal that soldiers in active service ranks be given free transportation on railways the Hon. J. L. Ralston, Defence Minister, has replied that this is without precedent. Even Mr. Ralston must know that this is a most feeble excuse for refusing the enlisted men, whose pay does not permit such luxuries as travel on the people's railway.
In this statement he is not entirely correct, for in Britain leave for soldiers is accompanied by free transportation to their destination. If precedent must be followed, here is precedent.
We do not recall any precedent for Lieutenant Robert Davies and his engineering squad which removes time bombs at the danger of being blown to bits at any moment. Nor is there an established precedent for a mad rush to air raid shelters when enemy planes come overhead with their cargoes of death.
I have here an advertisement paid for by the Liberal government in Ontario, and at the bottom I find these words:
Special request to motorists.^ When driving along highways these increasingly cold days and nights, give our soldier boys a ride.
Red tape can be cut. All that is necessary is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) give the word. The soldiers throughout the country are waiting for that word,

The Address-Mr. Fraser (Peterborough)
and I sincerely hope that they get it before Christmas. I mentioned this matter in the house on June 28 and again on July 22. This is November 25; I wonder how much longer the men will have to wait.
Then, I believe we should do something in regard to insurance for the enlisted men. Perhaps we should have a committee of the whole house, or a select committee which would have the duty of dealing with the matter. Possibly the committee on banking and commerce could do it. One suggestion put forth is that five per cent be taken out of dependents' allowances and assigned pay, then the government put in the same amount, and that an insurance company or a group of insurance companies be given the duty of handling the insurance. After Great Britain has won the war and the soldiers return, they would have nest-eggs with which to begin life again. They would have something in the bank with which to start up business.
I am pleased to note that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has accepted a suggestion from this part of the house-in fact, he has accepted a number of them. I refer to the one whereby the income tax may be paid on the instalment plan. This suggestion was made during the last session, and I know it will be a great help to the taxpayer. In fact at the present time throughout Canada people are opening savings deposit accounts so that they may be in a position to pay their income taxes when due.
The Minister of Finance was good enough to accept that suggestion. I sincerely hope he will accept others which may be passed on to him not only at this session but during the recess. One suggestion I would make at this time is that tax-free bonds be issued bearing an interest rate of not more than one and a quarter per cent. In that way I believe we would collect large sums of money.
In moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) suggested that the estimates to improve the tourist trade should be increased from 8500,000 to $1,000,000 this year. I agree with him, but would suggest that we set up a committee to deal with the matter, and that the committee have the services of the director of tourist traffic, Mr. D. Leo Dolan, a most capable man, and one who will see that every dollar spent will bring back $100 or $150 in United States funds.
I find that $311,695 was spent last year by the bureau. The sum is now raised to a million dollars, and the increase may seem rather heavy. We must remember, however,
that we need United States dollars, and we know that the people in that country want to visit Canada. We can get United States dollars and we can get United States tourists; all we have to do is go after them. They want to be friendly with us, and we want to be friendly with them. Yes, we want to be friendly with them even in a business way.
Our business with other nations should be carried on in a businesslike manner. Especially is that true of the Department of Agriculture. At the head of that department, however, we have one who is not a business man. Therefore our transactions with other countries have been to their benefit, and not to that of Canada. In fact the trade agreements made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) have set the farmer back, instead of sending him forward. In fact the plight of the farmer and the price he receives for his products remind me of a verse which was handed to me on the occasion of my starting in business about thirty years ago. The two lines of the verse are as follows:
Count that day lost whose low descending sun See prices shot to flinders and business done for fun.
The farmer in Canada has long passed the point where he sees the funny side of it. He wants to know where he goes from here. I am asking the Minister of Agriculture what the farmer is to do; I doubt if the minister knows.
The following newspaper clipping I should like to place on Hansard:
Seattle, Nov. 3.-A telegram received here from Paul H. Appleby, United States undersecretary of agriculture, advised apple growers in the Wenatchee region of Washington state that the department of agriculture has sent two representatives to Ottawa to consult on steps to safeguard any injury to the U.S. market for domestic fruit.
I sincerely hope the deputation was received in a friendly manner, that no concessions were given away and that Canada got just as much as she gave.
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gibson) has said that Canada spent $24,000,000 in the United States on foreign fruits and vegetables. We would not spend that much if our trade agreement had been better drawn. I have described the Ontario farmer as the forgotten man, and I believe I am right. He has been forgotten ever since this government took office. But the Department of Agriculture has not been forgotten, so far as estimates are concerned. In 1935 estimates for that department stood at $7,121210.24, and in that sum was included $500,000 for the operation of the Natural Products Marketing Act. This year they have been cut down from the
392	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Fraser (Peterborough)
816,000,000 of last year to 813,254,323.09. But this year the salaries alone of that department amount to almost $7,000,000. That is not helping the farmer of Ontario, of the west or of the east one bit. The farmer has not a chance. The Minister of Agriculture has said that this government is doing more for the farmers of Canada than any other government ever did. I quite agree with him. This government is doing more for the farmer, more to put him in the hole, more to make him mortgage his farm, more to put him in the red. The farmer to-day merely exists; he does not live. One farmer said that he had a full pocket-book. In that pocket-book he had a copy of his mortgage and the stubs of notes that he owed at the bank, but no money.
Last session one hon. member said that the west did all the talking; apparently the squeaky wheel got the most grease and he thought he would rise in his place and talk to see if he could not get a little grease. Personally I feel that the west and the east get the grease, but Ontario pays for it. As I said before, the Ontario farmer is the forgotten man. His markets have been taken away from 'him and foreign farm products are being dumped on his doorstep. Hothouse businesses have been put out of business because they have been given no protection. The hog growers have got it in the neck, and they are still getting it. In the last month the price of shorts, middlings and bran have jumped as much as $4 a ton. I believe this is due to the miller just handing it right back to the farmer. The farmer raises the wheat, the miller processes it and the farmer pays for it. As I say, the farmer has no chance at all. In most sections of Ontario the potatoes have been quite poor this year because of heavy rains and a cold fall. In the Port Hope-Peterborough section tomatoes were two weeks late in ripening and then heavy frosts killed off sixty per cent of the crop.
An hon. member to my left referred to the distilling of spirits from wheat. The United States has been doing this for a few years and Canada will eventually have to do the same. Every day England is requiring more high-octane spirits for aeroplanes and Canada should be the country that supplies it. We are adding to our air force every day and we do not know when the supply of oil from south and central America will be cut off. We should be considering new means of obtaining motor spirits. It has been said that it would cost fifty cents a gallon to manufacture these spirits, but I understand that the government is paying more than fifty cents a gallon for high-octane gasoline.
[Mr. G. K. Fraser. 1
This year in our district we were unable to obtain a decent cob of table corn because the com borer had got it all. One would have thought that the Minister of Agriculture with the many millions that he has to spend would have tried to check the ravages of this borer, but I did not see any checking in our part of the country. In fact, the situation is such now that the farmers have given up hope. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) has suggested that this house should sit as a committee of the whole to discuss the wheat question. We should discuss the problems of the Ontario farmer at the same time.


An hon. MEMBER:: Disgusted.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: An hon. member over here says " disgusted." Yes, the Ontario farmer is disgusted. The Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner) made a statement which, as I said before, proves that he is no business man. You, Mr. Speaker, and every hon. member know that the manufacturers and workmen of Canada are ready and willing to produce and will produce if given a chance. I know this statement has been brought up before, but I think it should be again brought to the attention of the minister. He said:
Factory managers who contend they cannot produce to capacity without interfering with the training of men may have to be told by someone that they as factory managers are not good enough for war time.
Suppose the housekeeper of this House of Commons went to the charwomen when they were cleaning up and handed one of them a brush having only half the necessary bristles and asked her to do as good a job as another woman who had a brush with all the bristles; there likely would be a kick. Factory managers have resented that statement of the minister very much. The factories will produce if they are given the necessary man-power. They are crippled by their need of skilled labour. Some years ago this government was warned that labour should be trained. We are short to-day even of unskilled labour. Our manufacturers are losing men all the time to the different arms of the service. They are glad to see them go, but the fact is that many managers, storekeepers and other employers are working eighteen hours a day, and some of them almost twenty-four hours trying to keep things going. I saw one storekeeper delivering goods at six o'clock in the morning because he could not get a messenger. All I say to the Minister of National War Services is that he will have to play ball. The manufacturers and workers are ready to play ball,

The Address-Mr. Fraser (Peterborough)
but they must have a man in the pitching box who knows how to pitch. These manufacturers cannot be bulldozed.
I feel, and I believe everyone in Canada feels that small war contracts should be checked just as closely as the large ones. Hundreds of feet of fire hose were sent to the airfield at Brantford and not one coupling would fit the hydrants. Ninety-eight fire axes were sent to another training camp. I do not know whether that camp was near an Indian reservation because it is possible the person who sent them thought they could be used as tomahawks. But a mistake was made and apparently the shipment was not thoroughly checked. I do not blame the Minister of National War Services for this because this is a matter having to do with the Department of Munitions and Supply. How many more blunders have been made you, Mr. Speaker, do not know and I do not know, but what I say is, check first. The hose and axes could have waited a few days which would have permitted a thorough check-up by an expert to see that everything was all right. If a mistake was made, even if only $3,000 a day, that would amount to over $1,000,000 a year. Money does not grow on trees, as the leader of the social credit party seems to think.
On June 17 of this year I asked, this question in the house:
Has the government stopped the export of iron, steel and scrapiron?
Mr. Howe: We have appointed a steel controller who has complete charge of the import and export of any iron or steel product, and he is now in control of the situation.
I have here a copy of P.C. 2742, dated June 24, 1940, the order in council appointing the steel controller. In other words, he was appointed one week after the minister said he was appointed. I do not think I would go slow in a matter of this kind. If they have to appoint a steel controller, they should jump to it.
I would also suggest to hon. members that they read the debates of the British House of Commons of October 10, 1940, at page 479, with respect to the shipping of oil. I have the volume here.
I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister announce that we are going to have a representative in Brazil and one in the Argentine. I was also pleased to hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) say that he was going down to south America and was going to visit both the west and the east coast. I sincerely hope that when we are choosing representatives of Canada for Brazil
and the Argentine extreme care will be taken in picking the right men because the south Americans are a very proud people, and they have a great deal to be proud of. They had universities many years before there was one in any part of Canada or the United States, and one has to be extremely careful with regard to their customs and traditions. I would suggest that we send to south America someone who has been in that country before and knows the customs of the people.
Our director of tourist traffic, Mr. D. Leo Dolan, is at present chairman of the PanAmerican Highway Congress Association, having been appointed in San Francisco two years ago. The Pan-American union I believe would be pleased if Canada would join up with them. The people of central and south America are friendly, and for the benefit of hon. members I would suggest that they all subscribe to the monthly bulletin of the Pan-American union. They can get it in English, Spanish or Portuguese, although I imagine not many in the house speak Portuguese. I know that hon. members who subscribe to the bulletin will be more than repaid.
On the west coast of south America two men could do all the work that would be required because Spanish is spoken in all those countries, but they would have to be men used to flying because that is how they would have to travel from place to place, although they have in south America about three thousand miles of paved road.
Mention has been made in this house on more than one occasion of leadership with regard to women's activities. I understand that the Minister of National War Services has appointed a man to take charge of that work. I think that is all wrong, and the women will very much resent it. An outstanding woman who is known to be a leader should have been selected. In the city of Peterborough the women's war service auxiliary corps is over two hundred strong, and takes drills and lectures once a week. In the same city we have also a women's service committee doing good work.
In closing, I should like to say that we Canadians should have faith that right is might and that right will be victorious. Let us be thankful, all of us who are privileged to live as citizens of a free country where liberty and justice continue in a world tom by suffering. Let us pray that peace, prosperity and friendship among all the peoples of our war-weary earth may soon materialize and live forever. Let us continue to love our country, respeot its democratic institutions and honour its flag. Let us thank God for Canada.

The Address-Mr. Weir


Mr. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald):: Mr. Speaker, the thoughts of everyone in this house and in Canada are concerned with our war effort, and also with the efforts that will have to be made at the close of the war to reestablish not only those now engaged in military operations but also those engaged in the manufacture of munitions and the implements of war. It is even difficult in a debate of this kind to interject any other matter because our thoughts are with the British people and the heroic fight they are putting up. Our minds turn to the women and children of the old land who day and night are bravely enduring bombardment. Our minds can hardly visualize those scenes. We in this country are fortunate when we picture what can take place in this machine-age war. Perhaps we do not fully realize how fortunate we are, for we can only dimly picture the destruction that is taking place in the old country.
Our hats go off at this time to Greece for the gallant effort she is making in defending her independence and halting unprovoked aggression of her borders by another country. Her heroic stand is an encouragement not only to us but to other countries that pride themselves on their nationhood, not to allow themselves to be subjected to ruthless aggression by foreign invaders.
Our thoughts go out, too, to our gallant Canadian soldiers who have 'taken their place in the line with such outstanding credit to themselves and to Canada. They have taken their places on the sea, in the air, and on the land, with valour unsurpassed. We must constantly keep before us, as people on the home front, the ever-increasing problem of knowing what we can do towards making their efforts more effective.
We have already heard statements from the various ministers of the crown pertaining to particular phases of Canada's war effort. They have shown a record of achievement and accomplishment which is phenomenal. This country, normally a calm, peaceful nation, has been changed from its ordinary peace-time pursuits into a gigantic war machine, capable of great expansion in the course of a few months. What has been accomplished in this regard stands as a creditable contribution on the part of the Canadian people of well-directed effort to the common cause.
With full recognition and appreciation of what this nation has done and can do towards assisting the mother country in her war effort, I believe many if not all Canadians will agree with me 'that the part this country has played in developing friendly relationships with the great republic of the United States may prove to be one of her most important contributions towards the defence and maintenance of

democracy in the old land and throughout the world. We look at this accomplishment with gratification and pleasure. The credit for bringing about the understanding and goodwill which exists between our country and the United States must go to the present Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King), who throughout his life has paid particular attention to that one necessary object of human endeavour, namely the creation of good-will among men and between nations.
Much as one would like to discuss further the country's war effort, there are of course other items of interest to discuss. Various hon. members who have taken part in this debate have discussed the war activities of the departments much more intelligently than, I feel, I could do at this time. I propose therefore to discuss one or two other matters. The address in reply to the speech from the throne provides that opportunity; it is a part of our parliamentary procedure designed for that purpose. Its importance, however, in influencing government policy may not be so great to-day as it was in days gone by. I can believe that when we did not have the radio, the daily press, the telephone and telegraph services, the gathering together of 245 members of parliament from all over Canada, bringing to this assembly their different points of view, proved of particular value in expressing to the government of the day the interests of the people throughout the country, and that the government would probably pay heed to such views in developing its policies. Nevertheless, that function of parliament, though possibly somewhat less important at the present time, is fundamentally unchanged. Contributions are made by the various hon. members to the formulation of governmental policy.
I have this feeling, and it is somewhat in line with a suggestion made by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), that the debate we carry on upon the address in reply to the speech from the throne may be a little too formal. More might be gained by a debate in committee, where each question as it was brought up could be answered and cleared up at once. That is not possible in a debate of this kind. Opportunity is provided, of course, for committee debate when the estimates of the various departments are under consideration. Nevertheless, it seems to me that there is much to be gained through discussions in committee, and particularly, if the course were followed of referring more items to special committees or to standing committees. I do not refer necessarily to military items; I refer as well to items which

The Address-Mr. Weir
are of general interest to the country and to which members of the house could make their contributions. I suggest this for another reason, having regard to departmental activities. It would have the effect, if civil servants were called before those committees, of bringing the civil service more in contact with members of the House of Commons. By this means they would, come more closely in contact with the people of this country, and I believe that that would be all to the good.
Referring again to the speech from the throne, we from western Canada are particularly pleased to note that the government is prepared to proceed with implementing the report of the commission on dominion-provincial relations. This, next to the successful prosecution of Canada's war effort, will be the most important item considered by this parliament. I trust that when the delegates are called together they will approach and consider this report as Canadians, recognizing that the men who made the inquiry and prepared the report were representative citizens, who were not interested in any particular section, but who gave their best efforts towards developing a policy in the interests of Canada as a whole. It would seem only reasonable, therefore, to conclude that their point of view was rational and impartial, having regard to the circumstances of all parts of the country. If the representatives of the provincial governments who are called together to consider this report will consider it in the same manner, we can hopefully look forward to something worth-while being accomplished as a result of these deliberations.
There is an opportunity of making this report the basis of a new pact of confederation. What comes from it will probably be the determining factor in cementing the far-flung sections of Canada into a closer harmony and a greater unity of purpose. The policy of the government in deciding to call together the representatives of the provinces is a proper step to take. Let us hope that these representatives will proceed earnestly and sincerely with their deliberations, and that those features of the report upon which there is agreement will be implemented without undue delay.
I wish now to talk of another matter, of more particular interest to western Canada. Coming as I do from western Canada it is to be expected that I should say a word or two with respect to the wheat situation, including some references to the general agricultural situation as I see it. In so doing, may I say to the farm people of other parts of Canada that we in the west are not unmindful of the circumstances of
not only the farmers but also other primary producers in other parts of the country. We are not unmindful of the situation as it affects the fishermen of the maritime provinces or the tobacco growers of certain sections or the fruit growers in other parts of Canada. These all have their problems; likewise we have a problem in western Canada. The chief difference is that our problem happens to loom a little larger in the general economy of the country.	As
far as the individual is concerned, perhaps the effect on the one is no greater than it is on the other.
I have noticed that in discussions in this house so far regarding the present situation in western Canada the approach to the problem has been much more realistic and more reasonable. There may be some who may feel that we from Manitoba should not be as much concerned in this matter as those in other parts of the west, for the reason that our production is largely diversified. Even with the low price of wheat last year, only one-third of the gross-return from agriculture in the province of Manitoba came from wheat. Nevertheless, to those who are growing wheat the problem is equally as important as it is to farmers in other parts of the country.
Wheat did not carry our province last year. It will not carry it this year at fifty cents a bushel net to the farmer, and at that price it never will.
In what I have to say this evening regarding the marketing of wheat I do not propose to offer a solution. I may offer some suggestions, as others have, in the hope that they may be of assistance to the government in formulating a policy for the future.
There is no doubt that so far as the country's war efforts are concerned at this time, our wheat industry appears to be one of the first casualties. We are facing not only low price but increased production and fewer markets. Nevertheless, in spite of those difficulties confronting us at present, I am not unduly pessimistic over the wheat situation. Like the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and also like my friend the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), I think this thing will work itself out. What is essential is a little reason and care in attempting to see that the problem is properly handled.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) in his statement the other day placed on the record a great deal of valuable information which will help to bring about a proper understanding of the wheat situation, particularly with regard to
14873-26*

The Address-Mr. Weir
the manner in which wheat was marketed during the past year. I was particularly pleased-and this is a point I wish to emphasize-that he mentioned that a policy for the coming year could be expected to be announced early in February when this house reassembles. I hope that will be so. There has been criticism of the government because of the delay last year in announcing a wheat policy. There were good reasons for delaying the announcement of policy last year. The same reasons, however, do not exist at this time.
Last year there were many uncertainties to be considered. For example, France and also the low countries were still possible purchasers of Canadian wheat. These countries are now pretty certain not to purchase Canadian wheat. Moreover we did not know by any means the size of the crop we would have or the amount of storage required. These factors are now known, or will be known by the end of this crop year. One thing that is certain from the evidence we have at present is that our storage capacity will be completely filled by the end of the crop year. That being so, it is essential for the government to take into consideration at an early date the matter of providing additional storage to house next year's crop if it is going to be marketed at all.
I want now to say a word regarding compulsory reduction of wheat acreage. Those who think we can materially reduce wheat acreage, I am afraid fail to recognize all that is involved. We can reduce our wheat acreage but, in so doing, we must of necessity turn to something else. It is not as easy as it would appear. Nature plays too great a part. As indication of the uncertainty that existed even last year with respect to the size of the wheat crop, I think it is safe to say that had we experienced another week or ten days of the kind of weather that we had during the last two weeks of July and the first week of August, we might easily have had 150,000,000 bushels less wheat, with practically a failure in coarse grains. .
Let me put it another way. Had we had last year a reduction of five bushels to the acre in yield of wheat, there would have been 135,000,000 bushels less produced, which would have largely done away with our storage problem. Had there been no increase in acreage, we would have had 35,000,000 bushels less wheat. If the yield in Alberta, for example, had been the same as it was a year ago, we would have had 34,000,000 bushels less. Or had Alberta had the same crop as she did last year, we would have had
40,000,000 bushels less. I am not picking out Alberta except to illustrate the point that

we cannot hope to control this matter of production. We are glad that Alberta was fortunate in having a very good crop this year-.
I wish to couple what I have to say with respect to wheat with something in respect of coarse grains. I want to link up in part the live stock industry in this country and indicate the extent to which western Canada is engaged in mixed farming. There are many who think that we should further expand the development of mixed farming in western Canada. I hope that before I close I may at least indicate that we are pretty well on the way as far as mixed farming is concerned.
I should like to go back to point out one or two things that I see in the picture as far as the coarse grain situation is concerned. I do this because of the live stock population we have in Canada and more particularly because of the agreements which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has entered into with the British government to supply that country with bacon, cheese and other dairy products. I know we want to see these agreements carried out. That being so, then we require a high production of feed grains in order to maintain our live stock.
Just by way of illustration I should like to Show the situation at the present time with regard to coarse grains. The estimated production of oats, barley and rye for 1940 is 501,000,000 bushels, while the estimated consumption for the same year is 473,000,000 bushels, leaving a surplus of 28,000,000 bushels. I point out, just to indicate what might happen in this respect-, that a reduction of only two bushels to the acre on the coarse grain acreage of western Canada would give us an actual shortage of 8,000,000 bushels in these grains to carry the live stock population of this country this year. From 1939 to 1940 our hog population increased by 37 per cent. The sows to farrow this fall have increased by 27 per cent compared with last year. Cattle production is up one per cent and sheep production two per cent. To-day hog production stands higher than ever before in Canada; this year the figure is 5,882,000 compared with 4,294,000 last year. Here again I would point out to my eastern friends that this year the hog population of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta is estimated at
2,640,000,	while the hog population of Ontario and Quebec stands at 2,935,000. Therefore it will be seen that as far as hogs are concerned western Canada is pretty well into that business.
Figures with regard to the hog population show that this year Ontario increased hog production by 29 per cent while Manitoba increased hog production by 60 per cent; Saskatchewan, by 68 per cent, and Alberta,

The Address-Mr. Weir
by 38 per cent. These figures again indicate the extent to which we in the west are already engaged in mixed farming, as well as the possibility of expanding that branch of agriculture. I could go on and say a word or two with regard to the feed situation as computed on a unit basis of live stock, compared with the unit basis of feed requirements, but I shall defer that until another time.
I think we should face this cereal production situation in Canada from a practical point of view. It is no longer a western problem only. It is a problem for all Canada, a problem for the municipalities as well as for the provincial governments. We should approach it on that basis. In that connection I think the government might well take more closely into their negotiations the producers and those primarily interested in this problem in formulating future policy, not only for wheat but as well for all other branches of agriculture.
With regard to wheat, I feel the government can now say that it knows the actual situation. It knows that at the beginning of the next crop year the storage facilities of this country will be completely occupied. The farmer knows that the government cannot be expected to continue to take a 500,000,000 bushel wheat crop year after year. Knowing these things, then, I think the government should be prepared fo call to a conference the people actually producing grain along with those concerned with handling wheat, and ask them to assist in formulating a policy which they will be prepared to follow.
Just at this point may I say that I believe the farmers of western Canada are prepared to follow any reasonable lead the government will give them. They are waiting for that lead, and when it is given I believe the response will be remarkable. I suggest, therefore, that in dealing with this matter for next year, and also for future years, the government should take into consideration the advisability of referring this matter to a committee of this house to which those interested could be called. Such a committee might sit even during the recess and before it the representatives of various organizations concerned with agriculture, from eastern as well as western Canada, might appear and advance their suggestions. Following that an attempt could be made to formulate a policy to which all would adhere for the marketing of next year's crop.
A moment ago I mentioned the question of storage. I do not think there is any doubt that the government will have to assist in providing additional storage in order that next year's crop may be marketed. I think in the marketing of last year's crop we have
gained some experience that will be of value to us in formulating a policy for next year. The quota system has worked with reasonable satisfaction, and I think should be continued. Perhaps certain restrictions should be introduced to deal with the man who has a large acreage. The government might at the beginning limit deliveries under the quota to five bushels to the acre for those with up to 300 acres, and then reduce the quota for the man with more than that acreage. I think farm storage should be continued. It seems only reasonable that if the farmers are to be required to store their grain at home and attempt to finance on it, they should be entitled to a storage earning equal to that of the elevator companies.
The question of credit on this farm stored grain is one of the important matters that must be considered. I am hopeful that if the grain cannot be all marketed and paid for, the government will be able to work out some arrangement under which either the banks or the elevator companies will assist in providing loans on grain that may not be delivered. The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) suggested the summer fallowing of one-third of the acreage of western Canada and that the government should pay the farmer $5 an acre for the land summer fallowed. The cost of such a policy would be $60,000,000 or $70,000,000. I do not believe that summer fallowing on a large scale such as is suggested, is the solution to this problem. Summer fallowing, as it is done in western Canada, has many hazards and drawbacks. Certainly it does not improve the soil; as a matter of fact it may increase the yield, and it may actually encourage another period of soil drifting, which we have been trying to avoid.
So far as Manitoba is concerned, other methods than that of summer fallowing can be followed. The growing of corn now has become pretty general in the southern part of Manitoba, and can be extended. Other row crops might be introduced.
With regard to the suggestion that bonuses might be paid for summer fallowing in order to cut down wheat production, I would much prefer to see any bonus paid for grass seed, thus assisting the farmers to get a greater portion of this land back into grass.
This leads me to say a word or two with respect to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. I hope this year the government will be able to see its way clear to increase the amount of money available for this work. I think this is one branch of agricultural policy that can do a great deal toward stabilizing western agriculture.
I would particularly urge the development of community pastures, and providing adequate
The Address-Mr. Weir


Mr. M. E. McGARRY (Inverness-Rich-mond):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended
taking part in the debate, but my reason for departing from that well-intentioned purpose is that I wish to refer to a few features of the government's war preparedness to which little reference has been made by hon. members on either side of the house who have spoken.
I wish first to refer to the war-time prices and trade board which was so wisely and so promptly appointed by the government at the very outset of the war. In that connection I would congratulate the government upon its wisdom, vigilance and foresight. This measure has offered a most effective resistance to what I might describe as internal aggression in the form of the profiteer and the hoarder. This is the element which during the last war was permitted to run an unbridled and relentless course across this dominion, a course which not only had an ill effect upon the prosecution of the war but left in its trail a period of depression and deflation from which this country had not fully recovered at the onset of the present war.
I believe that this measure not only expedited and enhanced the war effort of this dominion, but showed wise planning on the part of the government for the aftermath of the war. Some people may argue that any consideration given to the aftermath of this war is premature, but with that argument I cannot agree. While I believe that the thoughts and efforts of this nation should be concentrated upon the successful prosecution of this war, it shows wisdom on the part of this government when they give serious consideration to the day when this downpour of red rain will have ceased, when this tragedy of carnage is ended, when the men who to-day are employed in the manufacture of implements of war and destruction will have reverted to their ordinary pursuits in civil life and when trade and industry shall have toppled from the dizzy and precipitous heights of war time to the more stable economic levels of peace. This forethought
at the very beginning of this war has been beneficial to the producer, to the consumer, to the wage-earner, indeed to every citizen. It has added considerably to that unity of sentiment which is so necessary in a total war effort.
While our people are tolerant of the claims that are made upon them; while they are ready to bear the expenses of this war; while our men are overseas, armed against the forces of the tyrannical aggressors, there is no individual, no corporation, no element in this dominion growing fat on the sacrifices and the needs of this nation. Military contributions alone are not sufficient if we are to resist successfully the onslaughts of the dictators.
I congratulate the government upon their vigilance and activity in dealing with the subversive fifth column. Canada, being rich in resources and so sparsely populated, provides a perfect ground for exploitation by fifth columnists. I exhort the government to continue to exercise this vigilance against this enemy in whatever form it may show its head.
I do not intend to go into the details of our military preparations which have been made so expeditiously and so adequately. I have tried to gather information along this line from the most authentic and authoritative sources, and I am glad to say that the factual recitations of the different ministers correspond absolutely with the information I have gleaned. I do not think anyone in this dominion can say that Canada is not contributing adequately, especially when he reads the pronouncements of the great statesmen of England and of other men who have to deal directly with this war effort, of men who have jurisdiction over the forces that are standing between tyranny and democracy. All these men express not only surprise but admiration, and render plaudits at the expeditious manner in which this contribution has been made. Surely this should be sufficient to make everyone confident that this government and this country are doing their bit, contributing not only the full commitments, but in many instances being far ahead of schedule.
I should like to refer to one other matter which may be regarded as being to some extent localized, or it may savour somewhat of criticism. If it was my intention to criticize, I do not know just where I should direct my criticism. I refer to what I regard as the maldistribution of our military projects. I understand that the selection of military sites is left to our war experts and that such selections are made with due con-
The Address-Mr. McGarry

sideration to the economic and strategic importance of the site chosen. Unfortunately certain sections of the dominion feel that they have been more or less penalized, and such is the case with the constituency which I represent.
The citizenship of my constituency is descended from French and Scotch forbears, with just enough Irish to make the racial mixture sparkle. In my constituency are to be found men who are as loyal as any in this great dominion. We have people just as ardent in furthering our war effort as any others, just as tolerant of the taxation burden. It may be because we are not economically and strategically located, but the fact is that we have had but a small part of the industrial projects having to do with our war contribution. I want to bring this matter to the attention of the responsible departments.
The people of my constituency are usually employed in fishing and farming, but last year the fisheries were a failure. To aggravate that economic condition, two mines, one a gypsum mine employing 100 men and the other a coal mine employing 200 men, were closed down for some reason or another. This left our people in a rather serious economic condition. If it were not for their pride and tolerance, I believe we would have to have in certain sections of my county what could be characterized as a relief measure.
At Port Hawkesbury the town owns a ten-acre field upon which aeroplanes have landed in emergencies. Adjoining that wide-open space are acres and acres of level land. It overlooks the strait of Canso, which should warrant its strategic importance. The town of Hawkesbury is willing to give this field to the government gratis. I feel that this is one proposal which should be brought to the attention of the experts in charge of the selection of sites, and if they should decide that it would not be suitable for a landing field, why not put up a large barracks there to house from 9,000 to 10,000 soldiers? It would make a splendid training ground for the troops, and even if the government did not want to train troops there, it would be a splendid place for the soldiers to play football and run foot races, which would be much better for them than being around the cities in beer parlours and such like. I bring this matter to the attention of the minister concerned and I ask the government of Canada to look into it and see if something cannot be done to allow our good people to participate in at least a fractional way in some of this war work.

As I said before, our people are tolerant, and I think the civilian population of Canada as a whole is tolerant. I believe that they know what the results of war will be. I believe that they regard war as I do and as every sensible man does, that they look upon it as the greatest crucible in the world into which is cast all the organized institutions of civilization and all the established institutions of national politics. They realize that no nation will be the same after this war, that the changes which will take place in the belligerent countries will obtain identically in the neutral countries. They do not know what the end of this war will be. They do not blame Britain or Canada for going into this war. There was nothing else for Britain to do. If she had offered no resistance to the fiendish and infamous programme of the dictatorial tyrants; if she had stood idly by and allowed them to run their fiendish course, the honour of Britain would have been betrayed and the trust of our dominions in her would have been put to shame. If Hitler and his hordes proved triumphant, our day of sorrow would soon follow and we would have nobody to assist us and very few to lament our fate.
So I say that our people to-day are tolerant and. their hearts are in this cause. They are looking upon this conflict not as one of flesh against flesh but as one between two ideologies. On the one hand we have democracy, which accords to our people the prerogatives of freedom of the press, freedom of thought, freedom of action, freedom of assembly and the right to live decently. On the other we have dictatorship, which denies these prerogatives to the people.. The purpose of the dictators is to trample down civilization and to destroy everything that is spiritual in man. That is the crisis we are up against. That is the crisis which the people realize that we are up against, and they are meeting it with the proper attitude. They are looking upon it as the greatest tragedy of carnage that ever obtained in this world., and the very ghost of that tragedy hovers over our own homes. Is it any wonder, then, that we Canadians who have enjoyed the prerogatives of democracy are calling up every reserve of strength and courage, of faith and fervour, in order to combat the tyrannical aggression of these satanic hordes who have gone mad with the lust for world domination? We who are Christians know that the Creator of all

Mounted Police-Qualifications
things is still in His realm and that He will see to it that eventually, although possibly not in our way, all will be well with the world.
In closing, I make reference to one matter which the previous speaker (Mr. Weir) mentioned, namely, free transportation for our soldiers. I am in favour of free transportation for our soldiers on long leave, such as Christmas leave, or, say one leave a year. When a soldier leaves his home he sacrifices his job, his civil liberties and the comforts of home. He goes out for what purpose? To see that we shall not be molested but that we shall remain free. We have men who are engaged on the railroads, who remain at home; they are not sacrificing their homes or their jobs or any of the liberties they have always enjoyed, but they are entitled to free railway passes not only for themselves but for their wives. This government has to contribute financial support to the railways, and I would say to the government, let the railways pay for their keep, and let us transport our soldiers home on long leave free of charge.
On motion of Mr. Abbott the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 10.58 p.m.
Tuesday, November 26, 1940.