1940-11-26

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: I would ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) if to-morrow he would be good enough to facilitate the answering of questions and the passing of formal motions for the production of papers, as he did a week ago.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I think it can be arranged for to-morrow.



TRAFFIC CONTROL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: May I direct the attention of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin), who unfortunately is not here at the moment, to the danger, to pedestrians passing along the
esplanade in front of these buildings, from, shall I say, thoughtless motorists. I had an experience of this kind to-day, and I have heard of others. If it is necessary to put a policeman on that esplanade to prevent people from driving too fast, let us do it; but I think something will have to be done. One of the senators was seriously injured the other evening, though at that time of course visibility was very poor. The incident to-day, however, was in broad daylight and I am not as agile as I once was. I should like to ask the minister if he will do something about this.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: During the course of the debate yesterday at page 379, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka) drew attention to an item appearing in the Edmonton Bulletin with regard to the recruiting of constables for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, containing these words:
Applicants must be single, of British racial origin.
Since this matter already has been commented upon by a section of the press I desire to make a statement concerning it.
Section 34 of the rules and regulations of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police reads as follows:
All candidates must be British subjects.
I desire to state that any British subject who has the other necessary qualifications may be enlisted in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, whatever may have been the racial characteristics of his forefathers. The commissioner, whose attention has been called to this item, is investigating as to who is responsible for the phraseology which appeared in the newspaper, which certainly is equivocal.
I may add that regulation 34, which requires that applicants must be British subjects, has been in the regulations since the inception of the force.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, November 25, 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. Blackmore.
The Address-Mr. Abbott
Mr. D. C. ABBOTT (St. Antoine-West-mount):: Mr. Speaker, it is now some two
weeks since we listened to the speeches of the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Already they have received well-merited congratulations from all sides of the house, but for two reasons I should like to add my word of congratulation as well.
The first reason is that both speeches were of an exceptionally high order. The second reason is a more personal one. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton), who moved the address, is an old personal friend of mine and a former classmate at McGill University. We were both members of what we at any rate considered the famous class of law 1921; and in addition to some other outstanding characteristics; over three-quarters of that class consisted of men who had just returned from serving in the last war. Hon. members may not be aware of the fact that the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George was the only member of our class who held the Distinguished Conduct Medal, awarded to him for gallantry' while serving overseas. In addition to providing two new members for this House of Commons that class had a further distinction, in that it furnished the first governor of the Bank of Canada in the person of Mr. Graham Towers. I would hasten to add that even twenty years ago Mr. Towers showed the sound judgment which has characterized his subsequent career when he decided at the end of his first year in law to abandon the hurly-burly of the legal profession for the more dignified calling of banking and finance.
As hon. members are aware I represent a constituency which is predominantly Englishspeaking. I should like to associate myself with the views expressed so eloquently by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George in respect to the attitude of the province of Quebec in the present war. I have lived in Quebec all my life. My father, my grandfather and my great grandfather lived there before me. I think I know the people of that province, and I could not do better than echo the words of my hon. friend when he said that there is no group in Canada who are more loyal Canadians, no group in Canada more loyal British subjects than the people of French Canada.
During the course of his remarks he touched briefly upon some of the problems of war finance, and it is with that subject I should like to deal briefly to-day.
In his admirable - speech last Thursday the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) outlined the principles of war finance of the present government. He said that those principles

had received the overwhelming approval of the Canadian people, so far as there can be said to exist a public opinion on principles of war finance. I feel that this is an exceedingly important question, and one concerning which there should be discussion. In the last few days various hon. members have dealt with the subject. I shall deal with it from a viewpoint perhaps slightly different from that of hon. members who sit in the far corner of the house.
We all realize that money does not win wars. Wars are won by men and by the production of materials, and in modern warfare, while men are no less important than they ever were, I think it is fair to say that materials and machinery have become more important. War machines are not created by money; they are created by the joint application of labour and capital, in this instance represented by plant and equipment, applied to raw material.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Without money?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I said that money did not create them. I was going on to say that if men and materials do not exist no amount of money in the world can bring them into existence. So that it follows, if I am correct in my reasoning, that money and finance must take second place to men and materials.
Nevertheless, 'while finance must take second place, it plays a very important part in the productive process upon which the effective prosecution of a war depends. If it is clumsily or unwisely handled it can seriously impair that productive process, and set up strains not only during war days but after the war is over. The problem therefore of war finance is not that of winning the war but rather that of seeing to it that the war is paid for by methods which cause a minimum of disruption and distress both during and after the war.
At various places in the press and elsewhere I have noticed references to the policy of pas'-as-you-go, and one would be led to believe that that policy was deliberately chosen and that there was an alternative. Mr. Speaker, except to the extent that we may have foreign assets on which we may realize ' or obtain foreign credits, we must pay as we go. It is entirely automatic. The choice which we have lies only in the way in which the burden is imposed and distributed among the different groups of the community. The choice therefore between methods of war finance is not a choice between a greater or a lesser burden of sacrifice on the nation as a whole. That burden is fixed-not by finance, but by the number of men and the quantity of material required to fight the war.

The Address-Mr. Abbott
In spite of all that has been said by hon. members in the far corner of the house, I believe, in fact I am certain, that the total output of a nation necessarily has a limit. Of course that output may be increased by improved organization and efficiency; nevertheless the limit exists. In peace time we are accustomed to a level of production which is below capacity. We all recognize that, and we have seen it over the last ten years. It is difficult to adjust our views now to a different situation. I assume however that in war time we will raise our production to the maximum which our resources and our organization will permit. We will export all we can spare, and we will import what we must have. Then if from our total production and the amount of our imports we take away our exports and the requirements for war purposes, it is obvious that what is left is the amount available for civilian consumption.
Therefore as I see it the problem is one of apportioning the available things, and the labour to make them, between war needs and civilian needs. And our war effort should never be described as a maximum effort so long as we are taking it easy on the civilian side. If we are to divert to war purposes the maximum amount of our production we must cut down civilian consumption. That seems to me unanswerable. It is just as clear as the case of a man who spends a substantial part of his income to build an air raid shelter. He may save his life and that of his family, but he must do without the comforts and luxuries he might otherwise have.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. SPEAKER:: The question may be permitted only with the permission of the hon. member who has the floor.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Would the hon. member enumerate the commodities on which we must cut down?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am coming to that later.


Ernest Lapointe: Let him make his speech.


Douglas Charles Abbott: In the matter of distributing the burden, the government or the state can be only the directive agency. It is not a fairy godmother, as so many people seem to think. And, if I may paraphrase Mr. Lincoln's words, wars are fought by the people and for the people. Every person in this country must realize that he is receiving part of his wages and part of his salary in the form of armaments and national defence. The man who does not reduce his purchasing power,
or who increases it, is simply obtaining something for nothing at the expense of somebody else in the community.
The task confronting the Minister of Finance is that of transferring civilian resources and civilian production to war purposes, and to choose between the different methods of distributing the burden among the different classes of the community. As the minister pointed out in his admirable speech, there are three main methods of distributing that burden. The first is taxation, the second is borrowing from genuine savings, and the third is inflation. All three are means whereby the citizen who has purchasing power in his pocket or in his bank account is compelled or induced to part with a portion of it to the government for war purposes.
Taxation of course takes purchasing power once and for all. Borrowing takes away a certain amount of purchasing power, but it leaves the lender with the expectation that he will be able to exercise that purchasing porver at a later date, perhaps at the expense of some other group in the community which has not saved during the war.
The third method, namely inflation, as we all know permits the citizen to spend as much as he did before, but sees to it that he does not get so much for what he spends. The Minister of Finance must balance the proportions of taxation and borrowing. I think it is recognized that in a war of this kind it is not practicable to raise the entire cost by taxation as we go along. But whatever method he adopts, whatever proportion he decides should prevail as between taxation and borrowing, the difference between the national income in the hands of the public and the amount of goods available for civilian consumption must be made good, either voluntarily or by the enforced renunciation of spending.
May I illustrate with a concrete example. The figures which I shall give are purely arbitrary, although they do bear some relation to the actual facts. Let us assume for the purposes of argument that the national output of goods and services has a value in terms of dollars and cents of $4 billion. The other day my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) said that he thought $44 billion was too high. I think it is too low, but I have taken S4 billion knowing that it will not alter the principle of the example which I intend to give. We have a total output of $4 billion, and the government takes $1| billion of that for war and ordinary administrative purposes. By the process of simple subtraction, this leaves available for civilian consumption. S2J billion.
The Address-Mr. Abbott

For the purposes of my illustration I shall eliminate the question of external assets, because we are not, generally speaking, a creditor nation. The national income will be the same as the national output, $4 billion. Assume that the government takes $1 billion in the form of taxation; then we have left S3 billion. We have S3 billion in the pockets or the bank accounts of the public, with available goods and services to the value of $2J billion to meet it. If the public refrains from trying to spend this extra $500 million and saves it, of course the problem is solved, but if it does not, if it insists on spending it, the law of supply and demand will operate and prices will rise. In the case of the example I have given, the increase will be 20 per cent; if the public saves half, prices would rise 10 per cent. But in any case prices will rise until the money in the hands of the public equals the value of the goods available for purchase or consumption.
This initial rise no doubt would cause little disturbance. Generally speaking, the resultant profits from such a rise would go to a restricted class of people, the manufacturers, traders and so on, and it would probably be fairly easy to get at least a substantial part of that back by taxing that restricted class. But the increased prices are bound to result in a demand for increased wages. Such a demand is bound to be successful in part, although it will never catch up with the increase in prices. This in turn will result in the necessity for further increases in order to maintain equilibrium. It must be remembered that the government will have to continue to make its purchases of materials and war supplies at the higher prices. This will mean in turn more money in the hands of the public.
Of course the government, which has control of the banking and currency system, can always find the cash with which to pay for these purchases of internally produced goods. So the inflationary process goes on. Everyone agrees that inflation is the most disastrous method of financing a war. By the process of inflation governments can secretly and unobserved confiscate a substantial portion of the income of its citizens. While such a process impoverishes many, it may enrich or increase the wealth of some. Lenin is supposed to have said that the best way to destroy the capitalistic system was to debauch the currency. I do not know whether he actually said that, but I am sure that if he did, he was right.
Perhaps one of the most serious results of inflationary finance is the fact that those who have to bear the heaviest burden are impoverished, and quite naturally as a result they entertain serious and dangerous feelings

of grievance. I do not think it is unfair to say that the rise of the nazi regime in Germany was due, in part at least, to the violent hatred engendered among large classes of the population against the Jews who were alleged to have been the profiteers of the German inflationary period. It is interesting in passing to note that the nazis are using an inflationary technique in the occupied countries of Europe. Instead of carrying on the outright theft of foodstuffs and raw materials which they find in these countries, they are practising a form of looting by paying for these materials with a paper currency which will have a less than doubtful value in the future. This would seem to be a modern method of debauching the conquered.
Against all the disadvantages of inflation, there is one outstanding advantage, or perhaps I should say temptation. Inflation is politically easy. No one has to take any responsibility for it and no one ever takes any responsibility. It never appears in any budget resolution and parliaments are never asked to approve it. It is nature's remedy and, as Mr. Keynes says, if nothing else is done, it just happens.
In a long, costly war the restricting of civilian consumption by taxation and by borrowing is both unpleasant and distasteful. But it must be realized by the public that it is the war itself and not the method of financing the war which determines the price which must be paid by the community as a whole. There is no magic way of making such payment. If we choose inflation, we should do it with a knowledge of the grave risks we are running. We should do it with the knowledge that we are still making the same sacrifice, but are running the risk of incurring all the evils which inflation is bound to bring and which inflation has always brought in its wake.


Mr. JAQUES:: What about deflation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The ideal thing would be to have neither inflation nor deflation but stability, and that is what we have. What I have been saying is not, of course, of such importance, nor will its truth perhaps be apparent in the early stages of this war before all our unemployed men and resources have been absorbed. But when that time arrives, and in my opinion it is arriving very rapidly, then it will become of vital importance. While statesmen or politicians can give leadership in these things, in t'he final analysis, under our democratic system, it is public opinion and the people that must prevail. In order to avoid inflation we must practise the old-fashioned virtue of thrift; we must eliminate luxurious non-essentials in order that we can release as much of our production

The Address-Mr. Abbott
as possible for war purposes. We must avoid all expenditures, both public and private, which are not directly connected with winning the war, with keeping our economic machine functioning or with maintaining the health, skill and strength of our people.


Norman Jaques: You have been saying thait for twenty years.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We will probably keep on saying it for another twenty years. We must be ready to pay just taxes gladly. We must buy government bonds and war savings certificates. Some people- believe that it is possible to control public spending by a system of rationing and price-fixing. The Minister of Finance dealt with that very fully, and in my view at least, very satisfactorily the other day.
The principal objections to a form of general rationing-perhaps I should interject that some form of rationing and price-fixing may well form part of a plan of war financing-lie in the great diversity of the needs and tastes of the individual. In the case of certain articles, such as bread, bacon, tea or sugar, rationing may not cause great hardship, although even in those things the needs and tastes of the individual vary very considerably. But when you go down the list of the thousand and one things that people use and buy-clothing, shoes, dental and medical services, etc., it is obvious that not only the tastes but the needs of individuals vary considerably and that it would be absurd to issue a ration ticket to each individual for identical quantities of a particular commodity or service. It would require in addition an enormous police force, involving an enormous waste of man or woman power, to see that such a plan was enforced. It would have to be tied in with a policy of price fixing; but general price fixing unaccompanied by restriction of purchasing power would undoubtedly have the effect of increasing the pressure of consumption and facilitating the conversion of money income into the use and depletion of valuable resources, and if the supply for civilian consumption were restricted it is almost certain that shortages and unfairness of distribution would result.
It is highly improbable, Mr. Speaker, that wealthy individuals or corporations will become any wealthier in this war. If there are any such cases they will be very rare indeed. I think we can take it for granted that those, both individuals and corporations, in the medium and higher income brackets will be taxed to the highest possible extent, and I for one hope that they will. To me the major issue is going to be whether the mass of the people make their sacrifice by
savings and lending to the government or whether they have their purchasing power taken away from them by inflation. In my view at any rate, as compared with the orderly limitation of spending by taxation, according to accepted standards, and by borrowing from genuine savings, either voluntary or enforced, the unregulated impact of currency inflation inflicts hardships all the greater because their consequences cannot be calculated and because they are unfair in their incidence.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition, in his speech two weeks ago, charged the government with imposing tremendously heavy and oppressive taxation, and he went on to say that there was no equality of sacrifice in the 1940 budget. He did not elaborate that theme, although I recall that he and all his supporters voted in favour of the amendment to impose a 100 per cent excess profits tax. But whatever he may have meant, to me in the sort of war which we are fighting to-day it seems sheer nonsense to say that the taxes imposed in the 1940 budget are oppressive.
I listened the other day to the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) describing conditions in his part of the country, and I heard the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) a little later describing similar conditions. I have heard it, of course, from western members on all sides of the house, and while I may and do disagree with some of those members as to the causes of those conditions and where the blame should attach, none of us I think will deny that those conditions exist. Surely my hon. friend does not believe that people who are living under those conditions can be expected to make further sacrifices and be further taxed for the costs of our war effort. I think it is fair to say, in view of the abnormally low prices of primary products and the tendency to fix those prices which exists, I gather, from the report the other day of the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner), that the farming community of this country are already paying a substantial amount of unrecorded taxation. I do not see how we can ask them, nor should they be asked, to make further sacrifices.
Taxes must follow the direction in which expenditure is flowing, and we all know that war expenditure is flowing largely in the form of salaries and wages in the industrial centres. I am convinced that it is from that class of our population that we must expect to get the main portion of our tax revenue and the main portion of our savings and borrowings by the government, whether those savings are, as I said before, voluntary or compulsory.
The Address-Mr. Abbott

So far we seem to have got along very satisfactorily. I have no desire to assume the role of a prophet, but I cannot help feeling that if this war lasts as long as I believe it will, and if we are required to make the sacrifices that I believe we shall have to make, we may have to resort to a system of enforced saving such as that suggested by the well-known economist J. M. Keynes. If we do, I hope and I believe that the people of the country will accept it and accept it willingly as a part of the sacrifice and the contribution which we must make in order to win this war.
In his magnificent speech delivered in this house two weeks ago to-night the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) reminded the house that the only limitations the government was prepared to place on Canada's war effort were those imposed by the extent of our resources, both human and material, and by our capacity for sacrifice. Everyone in this country must realize, Mr. Speaker, that this war cannot be won without sacrifices, and that means sacrifices on the part of all the people of this country, not on the part of some alone. I am not one of those who believe that inflation, the most unfair method of financing the war, is inevitable. I believe that we can, that we must and will take the hard way.
Moreover, I am not unduly apprehensive as to what our position will be after the war is over. We shall still have our fertile soil, we shall still have our forests and our mines. We shall still have our skilled workers, and our productive facilities will presumably be largely expanded. I cannot believe that it is beyond the ability and the character of the Canadian people to see that the post-war Canada will be both a better and a happier place in which to live.
Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln) :	Mr. Speaker, referring first to the
hon. members who moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne, may I content myself with merely observing that I believe they have now been sufficiently eulogized in this house for their addresses, and I will just say "amen" to what has been said.
In examining what was contained in the speech from the throne, we noticed that there were no particular suggestions to which we could direct our observations and our criticisms; consequently we were in the difficult position of having to wait until the ministers made their statements, or, as they have sometimes^ been called, their essays, to this house.
It is the right of every member to make observations and criticisms, and no one relishes the inference that in so doing he is actuated

by any particular bias. We are here to represent the Canadian people as a whole. We must accept the statements which have been presented up to the present time to this house, and presumably we are supposed to be satisfied with the limited information which we have been given. We hope that we shall receive also a statement from the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty). In part, or, let me say, to the greater extent, I myself am not satisfied with what we have been told.
We have been informed of the vast expenditures which, as all the people know, are evident on all sides. But the public are still without the more definite information for which they supposed this parliament had been called. If we were able to get more definite information, and if this house were to continue to sit until we got it, the public would have considerably more confidence than they feel at the present time. To the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) let me say that every one of us realizes the tremendous responsibility which he carries, but our desire is to share that responsibility with him, and considerable regret has been expressed across Canada that he has not followed in this regard more in the footsteps of Britain's man of the hour, Winston Churchill. It has been said that the statement made by our Prime Minister savours too much of lip service. Perhaps that is true, perhaps it is not; but in this hour of crisis he seems to have left most of the burden to rest upon the war committee of the cabinet and other members of his government.
I deem it my duty to point out briefly some of these deficiencies as I see them. I do not do so as a carping critic, and I hope they will be accepted in the constructive spirit in which I am presenting them. Our desire, and I am sure it is shared by all the people of Canada, is to stop the aggressor and drive the enemy ultimately to cover. We desire to join together all the forces which we can assemble to set free the peoples of the world, to give them liberty to worship and to speak as they will.
In the brief time at my disposal I intend to make a few references to some statements which have been given to this house. My first reference will be to certain remarks of the minister who combines the portfolios of agriculture and national war services (Mr. Gardiner). If his speech is carefully read it will be seen that it is divided into three parts. I prefer to deal with them in the reverse order to that in which he presented them.
We all were proud and pleased to have the first-hand information which he gave the Canadian people, telling of the heroic fortitude of the people in the motherland, who are our kith and kin. We rejoice at their courage.

The Address-Mr. Lockhart
We heard also a report of the minister's activities and contacts with the government of the United Kingdom so far as the sale of Canadian products is concerned. It is quite evident that they desire to purchase from us. I was quite pleased to hear the hon. member who just preceded me (Mr. Abbott) emphasize the fact that already our farmers have made a tremendous sacrifice. It is about time, if we are to believe that this house, in particular in these days of war, is not a partisan body, that members of all parties rose and expressed their opinions as freely as the previous speaker has done.
Great Britain desires to purchase from us. We wish to do business with her. There has been briefly outlined in this house the financial strain to which Britain is going to be subjected. Already we see references to it in the press. As a Canadian, I say that the time lias come when, if they cannot pay, we have got to give. We have to find every possible way to meet this emergency, even though, as I have said, we have to provide from our own funds. Great Britain has long kept open the channels of the seas. To that achievement we, in spite of what has been said by the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald), have contributed but the widow's mite. We must do more in that respect.
As regards the third portion of the minister's remarks, I believe it would have been better left unsaid. Somebody remarked in days long ago, whether writing in prose or poetry I do not know, "Use what language we will, we cannot make ourselves anything more than we are". I did not like the political references made by the minister at the beginning of his remarks; it seemed to me that they cast a cloud, so to speak, over the rest of his speech. Canada must have more vision at this time. At the beginning of the session the Prime Minister assured us that there would be no partisanship, and I think we are all agreed that partisanship should not form any part of our war effort at this time. I urge upon the Minister of National War Services that he be very careful not to cast any doubt upon the ability of industry to do its part in this war. A rather damaging inference has gone across the country. I have already received information as ito the results of it, and I urge upon him to be careful and to take steps to see that it does not occur again.
I further ask the minister not to discredit in any way the ability of our workers to do their share in this conflict. There is an inference throughout the country in pegging of wages of our workers. I say to the minister, "Peg costs in Canada before you start to peg what the man is earning by the sweat of his brow". I think we might direct to the minister's attention some of the references that are just off the press, printed in the Canadian Corigress Journal, under the editorship of Tom Moore, a man who is recognized for his ability. I commend these references to the minister and ask him to read them carefully and inwardly digest them.
I have received many letters, and other members of the house have no doubt received such letters, with respect to the cost of administration in Ottawa at the present time. I therefore urge upon the minister, before he allows any reflections to be cast upon the industrialists or workers or anyone else, that he make sure that his house here is set. in order.
The minister has told us of the continuing reduction in prices to the farmers of Canada. This subject was referred to a few minutes ago by another speaker. We all desire to sell as cheaply as possible to Britain; undoubtedly Britain needs our aid in every respect. But our farmers must exist, the same as any other class in the country, and as Minister of Agriculture the hon. gentleman should see to it that our farmers receive eveiry possible consideration at this time. I wish to associate myself, in part at least, indeed, with all that was said by my deskmate the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). In the approach that is being made to the farmers they find that they are not receiving proper consideration. This has been referred to in the house on previous occasions by many speakers. The pegging of prices continues and multiplies. The announcement made in connection with bacon will have to be accepted by the Canadian farmer, but these same farmers cannot understand why ait this time the cost of bran, shorts, middlings and other feed products for their live stock continues to climb, with the country full of wheat, and with the price of wheat pegged. These are things that the farmer cannot understand.
If I were to take time to read one of the comments from a farmer who shows me distinctly that his actual profit on ten acres of wheat is $35.12-and it is worked out in a very careful way-the minister would realize the difficulty which the farmer faces. The payrolls of industrial workers are reaching high level's, and we know that they are working for it. Raw materials and finished products are climbing. When the farmer goes to buy his implements for farming, what does he pay? He is between two fires, and it is high time that something definite be done to relieve the situation.
We are told thait the British government does not want our fresh fruits and vegetables, and properly so. Perhaps they are not a requisite over there at the present time. Perhaps they will take only a limited quantity
The Address-Mr. Lockhart

of canned fruits and vegetables and basic products of the farm. I associate myself not only with what the hon. member for Peel has said, but with the remarks of the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling), who points out the position of the fruit and vegetable growers of Canada. They are between two fires; sales are limited in the United Kingdom, and yet, as the hon, member for Peel has said, we are allowing something like $18,000,000 worth of fruit and vegetables to come in from the United States. Hansard will give the exact figures, but I believe that is the quantity that has come in thus far.


An hon. MEMBER:: Twenty-four millions.


Mr. LOCKHART:: An hon. member corrects me. At any rate, it is many millions. I wish to impress upon the Minister of Agriculture the position of the Canadian farmer. I repeat, he is between two fires: no market over there, for obvious reasons, while at the same time this great influx of commodities into Canada is permitted. The possibility of a market in the United Kingdom is limited, and the home market is taken away to this extent. One of the first duties of the minister is to continue his efforts, because under the special provisions of the trade agreement with the United States there is no reason in the world why the situation cannot be frankly laid before the government of that country; and, judging from their attitude in every other respect, I do not see why great things cannot be accomplished ait this time for the benefit of the farmers and producers.


Mr. HOMUTH:: He is not a Minister of Agriculture but Minister of War Services.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Well, I want the
Minister of Agriculture and of War Services, and of all other departments with which he is associated, to do the best he can in this matter. He represents the Minister of Trade and Commerce in Great Britain in some respects. I suggest that he take the Minister of National Revenue, or some other authority, to the United States with him, as apparently he did when he went to the old land.
There is something else he might do under the authority of the Minister of National Revenue. He could not only give some protection to the Canadian farmer but, in conjunction with the Minister of National Revenue as his proxy, he could see what might be done about keeping some $6,500,000 worth of United States periodicals out of Canada. Our foreign exchange must be protected, and I fail to see that all these periodicals now being admitted into this country are an essential service. So I direct the attention of the minister to this possibility of saving exchange.

Now I pass on to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), who I am sorry is not in the house. I appreciate, however, that he is away giving even greater service to our cause. I congratulate the minister on his frank admission of some of the deficiencies in our war effort. He has told us that many things are lacking, and has promised that this situation will be remedied as quickly as possible. Yesterday I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) rush to defend the withholding of information concerning Bren guns. Well, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding anything the hon. member may say, the general public expected the minister to give us complete information in regard to this important matter, without any explanations from any other hon. member of this house. The minister referred to certain units that had been enlisted as machine gun units. After many, many months of delay they were demoted, as they called it, and made into infantry units. They did not enlist as infantry units, and they are continuing to beg for machine guns with which to train. The minister has made it clear that not a great deal of this equipment is available, but his words will give some encouragement to these men, who now hope that some day they may be placed back in their original category.
Then I come to the question of the thirty day training, though I do not want to say very much about it. I 'have given rides to many scores of soldiers on our highways, and only last Saturday one chap said to me in this regard, "Well, at last that joker has been taken from the pack, anyway." Certainly we want trained soldiers, and I commend the minister on his statement that now these men are to be given training that will fit them to take their places beside our other soldiers in the main line of defence, which is across the sea.
Then I would ask the Minister of National Defence, or his associate, who I believe is acting in his place, to look into the food rations being issued to some of these units. I would also ask the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner), who seems able to handle a great many jobs, to take on the task of seeing that properly trained cooks are supplied to these units. I could give some specific instances if I wished, but it is only necessary to go into these training centres and hear what the men are saying in order to learn the situation. I could give some glaring instances, but I would prefer to give them in private to those in authority.

The Address-Mr. Lockhart
The Minister of National War Services has a real job to do, and I will ask him either to do the work seriously himself or to find someone who is competent to help him.
Then there is the question of free transportation for soldiers, which rests squarely on the shoulders of the Minister of National Defence. This matter has been referred to many times in this house, and I should like to add my word as well. Surely if we want the highest possible esprit de corps among the limited number of men who have been enlisted so far we should try to make this Christmas and New Year's the happiest possible occasion by giving them some form of free transportation in order that they may get home to their loved ones; some of them, perhaps, for the last time. So that with all the sincerity I possess, I urge upon the minister that he give this suggestion his very earnest attention.
The announcement made by the Minister of National Defence that in future all officers will have to come from the ranks will create more good feeling, I believe, than he may conceive at the moment. Many of the ordinary soldiers will tell you what they have been up against in this regard. I hope that what I am about to say does not apply to any hon. member in this house; but if any hon. member has used his influence to have incompetent young men in their teens put in charge of some of our real volunteer soldiers; if he has used his influence to get preference for these young men, openly and before the world I say to him, "Shame." I have heard that charge made on more than one occasion, but now the minister has made it abundantly clear that if this practice existed in the past it will not be tolerated in future.
There is just one other mystery upon which I should like to comment. Who will stand in his place in this house and say that to-day our front line trenches are not on the English channel and along the shores of the Mediterranean? No one even thinks otherwise, but I want to recall a statement that was made in this house not so very long ago, in which we were told that the Canadian parliament would decide to what extent, if any, Canada would participate in this war. I think all hon. members will recall that statement. Then if we turn to page 200 of Hansard for this session we find a question which was asked and answered; hon. members can look it up for themselves. And the minister hastened -yes, hastened-in reply to the question asked, to assure some unseen minority, a handful of men, wherever they may be in Canada, men who were once described as those who wanted to run to the bush in the event of an emergency, that notwithstanding anything connected with the extension of the training period they would not have to serve outside of Canada. I have no thought but to condemn anybody who does not recognize that our front line of trenches is on the English channel and in the Mediterranean. I have no apologies to offer when I make that statement. Consequently I regret the minister's taking so much trouble, as recorded in Hansard, to bring out so clearly the point in question. I wonder how our volunteers, who, for reasons which I am not at liberty to express at the moment, are discontented, would take such utterances.
Then, we find another echo in another chamber of this building. From that chamber we are told that we were doing all England expected us to do. Mr. Speaker, I happen to come of British stock, and I believe I share that characteristic, one of which I am justly proud, with most other hon. members in the chamber. Members of my family have gone to south Africa, Australia and New Zealand, the same, I am sure, as the relatives and friends of other hon. members have done. The -world knows it, the people in other countries know it, the people of our sister dominions know it, the people in Canada know it-and I believe I could produce correspondence to prove that England made no effort to restrain them. Therefore I cannot understand why the voice of this government echoes in another chamber the statement that there was a limitation placed upon Canada.
Some day history will reveal the facts. Some day the excuse given in this chamber that it is not in the best interests of Canada that we be told anything will be exploded, and at last the information will be forthcoming. Historians will then write the history of Canada, and at that time I believe it will be found that the Canadian people, not through any fault of their own, were retarded in their efforts to defend the empire. I believe it will be shown that this country had the same opportunity -as the sister dominions had to do its work, and that it would have done that work had it been given the opportunity to do so. The communications I receive from friends and relatives in those countries, and what I learn from personal conversations, do not fit in with the reports which have been given the house, and which continue to be echoed. Yet we cannot get official information. Some day we will get it. Some day the historians will record the actual position in which Canada found herself.
I must hurry on. Hon. members appreciate the observations of the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power). We appreciate his observations respecting the air training plan-retarded again, perhaps, for reasons which we do not yet know. Nevertheless a
The Address-Mr. Lockhart

valiant effort is being and has been made, one which has accomplished great things in the development of the air training scheme. We know that the gallant behaviour of the small number of Canadian airmen who so far have gone overseas will be reflected manyfold in the work of the men being turned out in the Royal Canadian Air Force. Hon. members on this side of the house encourage all that work. We are behind the minister in his efforts. I do not think there is a Canadian citizen who is not proud of what has been done up to the present time, or who would refuse in the future to do anything within his power.
Apparently the time 'has come when we may speak of our navy in terms other than those of ratings and officers. While in the limited opportunity they have had, our seamen have accomplished much, still greater things are looked for, and it is our hope that we may take our rightful position alongside the motherland in sweeping the seas clear of enemy craft. But I did not like the press comments of a few days ago, one in which the political inference crept in. An attempt has been made to explain it away, but the Canadian public are still smarting under the inference, and their annoyance is felt at a time when the nation is pressing for realities.
May I say a word respecting the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). Hon. members appreciated his extensive statement in which he outlined the huge expenditures whidh have been made. We have to win the war, and we have to find money to finance it. We have to provide our men with the necessary equipment. However I would suggest that the minister would do well to read an article appearing in the Canadian Unionist of October, 1940, in which we find the following statement:
One hundred Canadian industries are being financed by the government in order that they may engage in war production.
These are the words of workers. It continues:
Twenty-five of these plants are new. These one hundred industries are financed from the public treasury; they are nominally owned by the state, but not one of them is operated by the government.
That procedure 'has been explained. Then, it continues:
All of them are operated by private companies for private profit under contractual conditions.
Labour is just a little disturbed. Labour expected that at this session we would have more information as to how those contracts were developed, and how they are to be operated. We still have no information, although labour is asking for it. The people

of Canada are still asking for it; yet we have almost reached the stage of adjournment, and we have not received it.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but before he leaves the question of war services may I ask him if he has made a statement to the effect that in some way the effort of Canada has been retarded? I did not quite follow him.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: That is the impression which has gone abroad. If the minister will permit me to say so, that is the general impression throughout Canada. The general impression is that the progress of Canada's war effort has been retarded for some reason or another-some reason we cannot find. We cannot get the information, and for that reason labour, industry and everyone else is still seeking information. Yet, we have not got it, despite the fact that we are drawing close to the time for adjournment. That is the inference I want to make.
There is another aspect of this matter to which I should like to refer. Only a few days ago a soldier and a gentleman stood up in this House of Commons to offer criticism of the government and make certain statements. I repeat that he is a soldier and a gentleman, and anyone who heard him speak will acknowledge that he is. While it is true that certain words which were used have been deleted from Hansard, I think someone owes this courteous gentleman and soldier an apology for allowing this language to be broadcast through the country and in the press. I associate myself with what the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) had to say. From first-hand knowledge I know that many of his statements are true. Some day we will foe able to get information about those matters which were touched upon briefly by the hon. member.
It is to be hoped that the Minister of Munitions and Supply some day will give us more information about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We are hoping that that will happen, and1 the Canadian people are hoping that that will happen. Someone says that perhaps it is a pious hope. Some day when we are able to get answers to the questions we may ask we will be able to learn why the minister has so persistently hung on to this particular branch of service to Canada.
The Minister of Finance made a very careful statement to this house, and we appreciate what he said. It has been said that it took a Churchill to awaken England, and I think the facts presented by the Minister of Finance will awaken the Canadian people to a realization of what they are up

The Address

Mr. Lockhart
against. We are hoping-it may be a pious hope-that when the estimates come down we will find that the Minister of Finance has seen fit to eliminate all unnecessary services and the payment of salaries to men about whom we can obtain very little information. Such expenditures dhould be eliminated. Economy in administration at this time will give the people more confidence-I assure the minister that that is the feeling abroad1- than anything else he can do in this emergency.
I join with the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) in his remarks about organizations being quite willing to help in our war effort. I know of service clubs ;by the tens, of men's and women's organizations which are looking for some leadership. They are floundering around looking for something to keep them busy, and I urge upon the government the wisdom of utilizing their services.
Last year we heard insults 'thrown across the floor of the house at the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) in connection with the construction of tanks. Surely any hon. member who is not politically biased will admit now that every statement made by the horn, member in that connection has been proved to be true. The evidence is here, because we are now producing tanks. Let us face the facts. Let us be fair to Canada at this time. I urge all hon. members to get up and express their own opinions.
I want to associate myself with the references which have been made to housing. The housing situation is urgent, and not only in the military centres. There is an article in the Canadian Congress Journal entitled "Housing in War-time" which I direct to the attention of the minister. We are informed that home improvement loans have been discontinued. There are scores of young married men and older men who are just recently in receipt of permanent pay envelopes. Many of them are ready to make the necessary improvements to their homes, but they have no facilities to borrow from private enterprise. They are not able to borrow from the government. There is also the inference in the press that the National Housing Act is to be further limited in its scope.


Georges Parent: I am sorry to have to inform the hon. member that his time has elapsed.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: May I have a minute to complete my remarks?


Georges Parent: With the unanimous consent of the house.


Ernest Lapointe: We have been consenting for ten minutes now.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Does the Minister of Justice object?


Ernest Lapointe: Far from it. I simply said that we had been waiting ten minutes already.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Housing is urgently
needed in many centres, as has been stated by labour men. There are a number of middle-aged carpenters and mechanics who could give service in this connection, but in no other way. I urge upon the minister the utilization of every opportunity of assisting in the construction of homes and thus preparing for peace. Home owners constitute the greatest asset that Canada will ever have in times of peace. We all hope that peace will ultimately come; it must come. Surely we have not forgotten the effort and sacrifice of the last war, and I believe we are all fully conscious of what effort and sacrifice will be necessary in this war. Surely the bloodshed and sacrifices of the past, surely the sacrifices that will have to be made in the future will make us decide that, God giving us grace, we should bend our energies towards seeking a perpetual peace. If we strive for peace in the true spirit we will find that the rewards of peace are eminently greater than those of war.
Canada needs leadership, and I urge upon the Prime Minister and the war committee of the cabinet the necessity for seeking out what lesser Churchills there may be in Canada to-da3r. There are many of them. I believe that our Prime Minister is sincere. We all remember his words at the beginning of this session of parliament. I know that he is not seeking epitaphs, but he may not live to see the end of this war, though we all hope that God will spare him to see it. But we have observed the leadership in the motherland, and our Prime Minister has a war-time duty to perform. When history is written we trust that the same words will be said of our Prime Minister and his war cabinet as were said by Dorothy Thompson of Churchill in one of her broadcasts. I think her words should be spread on Hansard, Mr. Speaker, if I may have permission to read them. In her "Salute to Churchill" she said:
But around you, Winston Churchill, is a gallant company of ghosts. Elizabeth is there, and sweetest Shakespeare, the man who made the English renaissance the world's renaissance. Drake is there, and Raleigh, and Wellington; Burke is there, and Walpole, and Pitt. Byron is there, and Wordsworth and Shelley. Yes, and I think Washington is there, and Hamilton, two men of English blood, whom gallant Englishmen defended in your parliament. And Jefferson is there who died again, the other day, in France. All the makers of a world of freedom and of law are there, and among them
The Address-Mr. Martin

is the Shropshire lad, to whom his ghostly author calls again: Get ye the men your fathers got, and God will save the queen.
And when you speak, Churchill, brave men's hearts everywhere rush out to you. There are no neutral hearts, Winston Churchill, except those that have stopped beating. There are no neutral prayers. Our hearts and our prayers say, "God give you strength, God bless you." May you live to cultivate your garden, in a free world liberated from terror and persecution, war and fear.
I urge upon, the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, that he consider no partisan views in the selection of his men but that he give us Churchills in Canada to-day.


Mr. PAUL MARTIN (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, the membership of this house, it seems to me, while it has not an equality in function, certainly has an equality in responsibility. Whether it be the Prime Minister or members sitting in the remotest parts of this chamber, all of us, representing as we do definite areas of our population, have a definite responsibility to express not only our own views but at a time like this the views of those whom we represent in this house. Therefore I offer no apology for taking part at this late date in the debate.
We have heard it said by hon. members opposite, particularly those sitting in the middle of the groups to your left, Mr. Speaker, both during this session and lasL-and there has been a reflection of it throughout the country, not so much at the present time but still articulate enough in certain quarters-that because we are at war this country should have a national government, that because we are at war the Prime Minister should go outside this house and enrich his cabinet with men of extraordinary ability. Mr. Speaker, a government can never be too strong, but I wish also to say to this house that an opposition can be too weak. The crying need in Canada to-day is for a strong opposition, and if I may respectfully suggest it to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) in the same vein in which he made his suggestion to us on this side of the house, if we can stand enrichment by importations from the outside I think, without making any personal references, that the opposition too could stand importations from the outside.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: But you need it much more.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have no doubt that my suggestion will not meet with agreement on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite because when a similar suggestion was made from the other side of the house it did not meet with agreement here.

In his address to the house last night, while I do not agree with everything he said, the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), speaking as he did as a private member, did give expression to ideas which I share. I know it is difficult for the ministry at this time, when it is deeply engaged in the tremendous task that faces it, to carry out a greater division of work among all members; nevertheless I do feel that the membership of this house, and the members themselves can lead in that respect somewhat, might be put to more advantageous use than we seem to be at the present time. Committees of the house might well be given the opportunity of considering measures which do not require the immediate decision of the executive.
I propose to-day not to make an omnibus speech but to confine myself to one or two points which I think are important and which I believe have thus far been overlooked. But before coming to these I think I should say that so far as I can judge public opinion in the part of the province from which I come there is a strong demand, or shall I say a strong desire, that those in our armed forces should upon proper conditions be given free transportation. There is also I think a strong demand that the men in our armed forces, not only those in the Canadian active service force but those who are serving in Canada, should not in respect of their military income find themselves taxable for income tax purposes; and the same applies, it seems to me, to the defence tax.
Having said these things I should like to come to the serious indictment made yesterday by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) in his speech to the house-and we should recall that he is the chief critic, of the government in defence matters. His speech was characterized by his usual good temper, but it did not lay the government open to any serious charge excepting in one particular. He said:
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.
That is a serious indictment, and I do not think it should be allowed to go without comment. Associated with that observation was the statement of the hon. member that since the government is the brain of our war effort it must accept responsibility for the difference between the present intensification of our war effort and that of say the first six months of the war. I could say to him with equal justification, although I offer it only because he has raised the question, that

The Address-Mr. Martin
if during the period from 1930 to 1935 the air force of this country had not been seriously cut by a wave of economy, our air force would be in a stronger position than it now is.
Lord Barnby spoke in the House of Lords on July 31, 1040, in respect of the indictment to which the hon. member for Yale has given expression. He said:
There is no point in recrimination or in reviewing the past except, as the Prime Minister said, with the object of fortifying us in our determination for the future. Comparisons are odious in so far as they are made with other parts of the empire, but it is certain that, had the United Kingdom followed the policy of making a greater call, at an earlier date, on Canada's productive capacity, it would have been answered and it would have inspired the Canadian people and impelled the Canadian government to make efforts on their own part much greater than they did, instead of being lulled into an appearance of inaction by the meagre demands which this country made upon them.
Those words, coming from members of the administration of the day, surely should be placed on Hansard along with the words contained in the indictment of the hon. member for Yale.
Again, consider the words of Viscount Caldecote, uttered the same day and in the same debate:
I repeat that the very fullest use is now being made of every possible capacity that there is in Canada, whether it is existing capacity or capacity that must be created, that can come into production before January, 1942.
Surely those two statements serve as an extenuating circumstance in respect 'to that indictment and are a direct lie to the observation of the last speaker that this government, for some reason or another, when the world finds itself facing the greatest test of all time, is retarding our war effort.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Is this an excuse or an apology? How about 1937?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Now, Mr. Speaker, after that echo from the Rocky mountains I should like to come to another point.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) spoke in Fredericton on October 9, and I have before me a clipping of his speech as reported in the Saint John Telegraph Journal of that date. He was talking about his speech at Toronto, to which I shall make no reference other than to what I think he owes this house in respect of that speech and the three other speeches to which I intend to refer. He said, according to this report:
I have not a word to take back in connection with my Labour day speech at the Canadian National Exhibition at Toronto. I wanted to warn the Canadian people that the Ogdensburg
meeting was just blatant publicity for something which had been going on for three years before Mr. King came into power. The Conservative government previous to 1935 had sent military aides to the United States, but the conversations had been kept secret.
In respect of that statement, one should attach to it the query put by the hon. gentleman, that in respect of the Ogdensburg conversations the Prime Minister owed the country the obligation of stating what commitments had arisen out of those conversations. One could equally ask, what commitments arose out of the informal relations between our military officers and those of the United States before 1935 in respect of the very same matter?
Somewhat along the same line but with a special variance, in the Halifax Herald of October 10, the leader of the opposition is reported as follows:
. . . the "Ogdensburg conversations" with the United States in which much had been made of defence plans for the two countries. Those plans were not new, but had been developed several years ago in great secrecy and had been pigeon-holed by Mr. King after he had taken office.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Someone says, "hear, hear." I do not know what is the justification for saying that the results of these informal meetings were pigeon-holed, but I do not believe that that was the case. And then, to come to the crux of the matter, the hon. gentleman said in this house, when he spoke on this address in this debate:
Now I turn to our relations with the United States. After the Ogdensburg meeting there was set up a joint defence committee and, to say the least, it has been functioning with great publicity. I have never condemned the Ogdensburg conversations. In the speech I made in Toronto I said it was capable of a high and noble purpose, and I believe so yet. But I thought I should sound a note of warning to the Canadian people that what was transpiring at Ogdensburg with great and blatant publicity had been carried on before with profound secrecy.
And then he adds:
And my colleague (Mr. Stirling) told that to the Prime Minister when we visited him on August 20.
The leader of the opposition is an older man than I am, and I trust that he will not think me impertinent if I suggest to him that, if these quotations really represent his true view in respect of the Ogdensburg conversations, the deep implications of that accord and these discussions he has yet failed fully to appreciate. Why should we not tell the world that this country and the United States entered into a joint defence agreement? Hitler and Mussolini, and their ally in the far east-
The Address-Mr. Martin


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the hon. member allow me a moment? Will he be good enough to tell this country if there were any commitments as the result of Ogdens-burg? Because I tell him I cannot find out whether there are or not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, obviously I can only take the words of the Prime Minister.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What did he siay?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know whether
there are or not, but I do abide by the words of the Prime Minister. And I will come to that in a moment. Why should we not tell the world? At Havana the American republics met and agreed in the face of the totalitarian adventure upon a certain programme. That was announced to the world. Why should we not announce it to the world, as indeed the British Prime Minister took occasion to refer specifically to it in the British house, that Canada in her fight against totalitarianism, in her intimate relations with the United States, has been able at this time to bring the United States closer and closer to Britain? Why should we not tell the world that the United States and ourselves, in consultation with Britain, are prepared to resist in so far as we can here at home any aggression on their part? And then, to say that the collaboration with the United States is of no value to Britain at this time is to misinterpret the full significance of the conversations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did I ever say that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am suggesting that the
hon. gentleman has misinterpreted the implications of these conversations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
just the hon. member's interpretation, not my interpretation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, because of the statement of the hon. gentleman that what was concluded at Ogdensburg was no more than a confirmation of what had been going on in secret for years, and that certainly, I suggest, was not the case. I suggest to him that the Ogdensburg conversations go away beyond the old type of staff conversations to which he had reference. I suggest to him further that the extensive coordination of defence between these two countries involves important political implications, certainly a circumstance which was not present in the conversations which were conducted before 1935. I suggest also to him that the accord brings home to Canada the implications of the new continental plan put forward at Havana and intended as a bulwark against

the dictatorship countries. Is this accord not a corollary of the determination of the United States to integrate her policies with those of other American states in the face of the present world emergency? Does not the accord involve, now or later, the outlet for Canadian wheat and other produce deprived of former markets?
I suggest that defence and economic policies are inseparable. Furthermore, it seems to me that this accord brings home to us the need of our maintaining our independence within the British empire vis-a-vis the United States, particularly in view of the determination of that country to bring about collaboration for the effective defence of the whole continent. Moreover, as I read the accord, it will coordinate our use of standards and of equipment for the maintenance of our first line of defence, which, as the hon. gentleman who preceded me said, was formerly the Maginot line and is certainly now the English channel, our second line of defence being here at home.
It seems to me that the Ogdensburg accord will have the result of preventing anyone from justifiably denying that, together with our recognition that our first line of defence is the English channel, Canada's best guarantee of maintaining her national existence is the frank admission from the beginning that our defence must be worked out in cooperation with the United States on the basis of a single continental defence policy; and these arrangements of continental defence should be pursued in consultation with Britain, with whom at this time we are one.
I have no doubt that this last statement of mine will be construed as placing emphasis on Canada rather than at this time on the problem that faces Britain in Europe. That j suggestion has been made with regard to the observations of the Prime Minister in contrast with what the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) said. But, Mr. Speaker, words can be twisted in any way. All of us in this house, no matter what our views may have been in the past, recognize that if Britain falls, if our first line of defence falls, that will have for us the most serious form of repercussion; but in going closer with the United States in seeking a common understanding with her and, through her, I suspect with other countries on this continent and in South America, are we thereby alienating ourselves from our chief ally, Britain? Are we not bringing them closer within the sphere in which we originated and in which we propose to stay? I doubt very much if the observations made in another

The Address-Mr. Martin
place with respect to Mr. LaGuardia's method of informing the public are calculated to improve the relations between our two countries.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would it
not be wise if he restrained himself once in a while?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is Mr. Roosevelt's
job and not the leader of the opposition's.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, that
may be true, but it is rather sickening to me.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It comes with ill grace for us to make comments of that kind when we are doing everything we can to let the people of the United States understand the nature of our problem so that they can give us, as they are giving, every possible assistance in this hour of our trial.
Several members from various parts of the country-from the west, from the maritime provinces and from Quebec-have applauded the decision of the government to implement in its essentials the Rowell-Sirois report. Coming as I do from the province of Ontario, which seems to be singled out for special reference, for reasons that are not too clear to me, I regret the suggestion that this province is not willing to place the interests of Canada above its own special interests. I believe I speak for the vast majority of the citizens of the province from which I come, certainly for that part of the province from which I come, southwestern Ontario, when I say that we are anxious that when the dominion-provincial conference is convened there shall result from its deliberations a common understanding as a result of which we can go on with a greater measure of unity in Canada. The hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Graham) said he would like us to place ourselves in the position of those who framed the constitution of Canada. I would join with him in that wish, and I think he will find that the largest province of Canada-and it is not because it is the largest-is as much interested as any western province or any maritime province in seeing that the confederation, which is the binding bone of the country, shall not be destroyed or disunited. And if that is true in peace time, surely we are anxious that no loss of effort in our war programme shall take place; we are particularly anxious therefore that the conclusions of the dominion-provincial conference will result in carrying out at least in certain of the essentials the recommendations made in the report.
It seems to me that at this time of war we require certain essentials for victory: First, the maximum of national unity; second, that the money cost of ordinary
government functions be as low as possible so as to leave our citizens as much money as possible to pay the enormous costs of carrying on the war; and third, the opportunity of creating conditions as favourable as possible for efficient industrial production to serve the war. In my opinion, the Rowell-Sirois report meets these essentials in a very large measure. For that reason, speaking for myself, speaking I am sure for those whom I represent in this house, I say that we sincerely hope that above the interests of any province will come the interests of Canada, and that we shall not re-make confederation but re-oil it in its effective workings, so that our country may go on to greater and greater achievement and glory.
I do think-and this is only a personal view-that the collection of income and corporation taxes, succession duties, administration and unemployment relief by a single authority is what this country wants and what I trust it will receive. I am interested in unemployment because my constituency is largely an industrial one. We have had a constant shifting of responsibility between the provinces and the federal government for the past ten years. Unemployment and problems kindred to it are national and we should deal with them through the national authority. We should thus be able to handle the problem in the light of its national and not of its provincial aspects. I trust that hon. members who have complained of the absence on the part of Ontario members of references to the adoption of the Rowell-Sirois report, and other members from the province of Ontario, will subscribe to the view I take. Much as we love our province we love 'Canada more.
The hon, member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), speaking in this debate in reference to t'he general observation made by the Prime Minister, said that the time had come when we should make a clearer definition . of why we are fighting. That demand has been made in England of the government, composed of Conservatives and of members of the English Labour party. Mr. Churchill, I presume, spoke as head of the government, in his own name and in the names of Mr. Morrison, Mr. Bevin and Mr. Attlee, when he said that the time had come not for bowing to that public demand but rather for instilling in the minds of the people that, in so far as the clear aim of the war was concerned, it was a definite and worthy one.
The danger in the sort of suggestion that has been advanced by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is this. He leaves the impression that in the absence of a clear
The Address-Mr. Martin

definition of war aims our people may be led to the belief that all we are fighting for is to remove Hitler, and that then we shall not be able to have our people follow us. I do not agree with that. I believe a distinction should be made between the aims of war and the aims of peace or, if you will, between what we are immediately fighting for and the kind of world we hope we shall have after the war is over.
There is no misunderstanding or difficulty as to why we are fighting. We are fighting for one thing, and I believe that justifies the terrible sacrifice the world is prepared to make. We are fighting that above the law of nations shall come the law of God. We are fighting that free men and women may be allowed to live their own lives within certain restrictions. We are fighting that no nation, no matter what its form of government, shall be permitted to plunge an innocent people into misery and death simply because its leader says so. The other day I came across a statement which I had never seen before, which I think clearly indicates the reason for this war, not the kind of world that we are hoping will result from the war but the immediate justification for the war, and it is just as great in its spiritual quality as any justification could be. Here is what Hitler said to Herr Rauschning:
I am the greatest German who has ever lived. Mankind led by the German race is now in a period of transition, just as it was when men first began to pass from the ape-like into the human stage. Now, they are passing from the human into the superhuman stage. I have preceded them. In so far as there is a God in this world, I am he.
Surely that sums up the reasons for this war. The assumption underlying any demand for war aims would be this, that we could trust Hitler and Mussolini to give the working people of the world, the common man and the common woman, an opportunity to make their way in life; to give them security. No one knows better than the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar how difficult it was for me to rise in my place in September of last year and vote, together with other hon. members, that this country should go to war. But I say that this world would not be worth living in if we had to undergo another siege of barbarism as we know it under Hitler and Mussolini. Surely the job is not only to get rid of these two men, but more particularly to get rid of the instincts of which they are the product; then, after we have done that, go ahead and try to rebuild an international organization, upon Hitlerite ruins, if you will; go ahead and deal with such questions as the accessibility of raw materials, equality of opportunity, and so on; go ahead and restore

Czechoslovakia, France, the lowr countries and all the other subjugated nations, and in our own countries have domestic policies that will give new hope and new vigour to our people.


Mr. COLDWELL:: The hon. member is
giving war aims now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; I am giving peace
aims.


Major James William Coldwell: I agree with those
aims, and I hope the government will.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am giving peace aims, but I say that to confuse the aim of this war with peace aims is to misinterpret the real force, the real conflict, of the two ideologies that are now striving one against the other. For what are we fighting? We are not merely fighting Hitler. When we have got rid of Hitler, of Goebbels and of Goering, we shall not have got rid of that thing for which the German people have been the philosophical prey for two hundred years. We do not forget that there was a Kant, a Beethoven and a Bach, but we know there was a Frederick the Great, a Bismarck, a kaiser and an Adolf Hitler. We also know that until such time as we can rid a potentially great people of those abuses of false power, there can be no hope, no decency, no civilization in the world.
In this house I represent, as do many other hon. members, a constituency in which there are a large number of French-speaking people, of whom I am proud to be one. French-Canadians, as well as English-Cana-dians and citizens of central European origin, have their first loyalty to Canada, within the British commonwealth of nations. But it would be unnatural for them not to have a deep affection for the humanism of France, and the fall of France has left the French-Canadian people in my section of the country particularly, I think, with the desire to associate themselves with remarks of the kind made to the people of France by the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and by Mr. Winston Churchill, who on October 21 spoke to the French people in their homes, in high and low places, in these memorable words:
(Translation)
Good night, then: sleep to gather strength for the morning. For the morning will come.
Brightly will it shine on the brave and true, kindly on all who suffer for the cause, glorious upon the tombs of heroes. Thus will shine the dawn. Vive la France! Long live also the forward march of the common people in all the lands toward their just and true inheritance, and toward the broader and fuller age.
That is one of our war aims, the restoration of France and all these other countries, but

The Address-Mr. Castleden
let us not confuse that aim with the immediate provocation that has brought us to arms.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I know those whom I represent in this house would want me to say that while there will be dark days ahead, bringing with them ruin and death, there will be brighter days. The enemy is not invincible. He has been strong but also he has been fortunate. The day of reckoning will come. Then our forces will go from Dover, from Folkestone and from Croydon across the green fields of France, through her villages, her towns and her cities, mellowed by time and civilization, on into the heart of Berlin and of Berchtesgaden. They will go on not to the heart of Rome, for that eternal city belongs not to Caesar but to God; they will go on to the heart of the Palazzo Venezia, standing as it does opposite the monument to Victor Emmanuel, and to the heart of that also. By these various penetrations the victory will be sealed, and free men and women and their children will cry out, " Liberty and Christianity shall not perish from the earth."


Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, as has been repeated several times, we have been summoned so that an opportunity might be accorded for the fullest consideration and discussion of Canada's war effort, and to discuss the national problems which the war has served to intensify or to create. I think we will all agree that this is a big order. I believe it will be also agreed that this has been one of the dullest and most ineffectual sessions imaginable. I see very little in the way of results. I wonder why.
Does it not appear ridiculous to try properly to discuss Canada's war effort before we have had statements from the responsible ministers and before we have had access, through our various committees, to factual data and contract material? Ministers have been giving their reports, one each day we have been sifting, and still, three weeks after the opening of the session, those statements are not complete. How can we expect a full consideration of the problem without these two essentials, and without the full reports of all the ministers?
By this time, however, sufficient information has been given the house to indicate certain definite trends-and some of them I fear are not very good ones. The first is the wholesale recruiting of a noble army of controllers from organized industry in Canada. About thirty-seven boards, committees, bureaux and panels have been set up, and if we read through their personnel we might conclude that we are reading "Who's Who" in Canada's big financial and industrial interests.
In the most important department of government, that of munitions and supply, these people have been taken in and clothed with all the power of state. The administration has geared big business into government officialdom. I should like to warn the administration now that the same tactics and plans were followed in Great Britain, and they failed. I suggest the reasons are obvious- not that we are charging unpatriotism, but man is naturally a creature of his own environment. Unfortunately for the common people in Canada, in recent years big business has become almost a law unto itself, and its representatives are nourished and trained in the atmosphere of greed and selfishness. Profits are the big thing to them. Dividends, the ruthless wiping out of small opposition, cutthroat competition, even restraint of production are encouraged, so long as they bring big profits.
What we now require is efficient production and, above all, the delivery of goods. There should be no patronage and no profit. Industry, finance and labour should be working together in this great effort so ably outlined by the last speaker. Has there been a complete change of heart in these men who represent big business? I believe that it was the armament business in Europe which was largely responsible for our present plight, and that Germany was armed because there was money in it. I believe that France was betrayed because there was money in it. Has Canadian big business become repentant, since its conduct in September, 1939, when it refused to touch our contracts, when profits were limited by statute to 5 per cent? Has it suddenly decided that profits are to be only secondary from now on?
These men find themselves in a rather impossible position. Their loyalties are divided. In the past they have subscribed to the creed that "patriotism is a very fine sentiment but that it must not be allowed to interfere with our sacred duties as the trustees of our shareholders." We do not believe in these sudden conversions; they never last. But we will have to remember that, if we are going to Be successful, that motive must go. It was that greed and profit motive which ruined Canada in the time of peace. That is what brought unemployment upon our country, and made it necessary for us to spend a billion dollars upon relief. That is what turned one million of the eleven million people in Canada to relief lines, and caused us to have a forgotten youth without opportunity, and to have starvation in the midst of plenty.

The Address-Mr. Castleden

We in this group have pleaded for the taking over of the essential industries, under experienced supervision and efficient control. That had to be done in Great Britain. After they passed their mobilization act, they went to work and did it. I believe that ultimately we, too, are going to have to do it. We repeat that plea to-day. It was only after that was done in Great Britain that they performed the miracle in production with which they thrilled the world. They are equalling to-day the accomplishments of that great man, Mr. David Lloyd George, in the days jf the last war. Assure the people of a square deal; assure them of some equality in the sacrifice, and you will make the greatest contribution toward a united people.
The signs of what is happening may be revealed by an article which appeared on the front page of the Regina Leader-Post of November 15, 1940, under the name of B. T. Richardson. It is in these words:
Reports heard in Ottawa indicate that chaotic conditions are threatening along the industrial front unless a large measure of broad and intelligent planning is applied to war industry, because shortages of labour, of industrial capacity, of power and of raw materials have appeared. The situation that is developed is due basically to many branches of industry, all well loaded with large war contracts, competing without regard to any central plan for the sinews of production.
Is it not significant that the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) rose in his place in the house on November 20 and, after giving the membership of the board, stated that it had been appointed on Friday, November 15? This appointment was made fourteen months after the war began. It is said to be a board to coordinate the war effort with regard to the requirements and sinews of war. Does it not seem obvious that it should have been one of the first boards to be appointed?
The actions of some of these war-time boards in western Canada are subject to some question. If one were to review briefly the history of the grain trade in the west, he would find that for years the grain exchange exploited the western farmer. In my humble opinion, the amount of money they took from western agriculturists is about equal to the debt which now weighs so heavily upon those people, and which threatens to crush them entirely. It amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars.
Trying to solve this problem, the people organized their pool elevators and pool organizations. After years of struggle and fighting they built up a tremendous organization for the purpose of handling grain. At the present time they handle almost fifty per cent of the

wheat delivered at country points, in spite of the fact that they have much less than 50 per cent of the elevators built in that western area. The government control boards, by the very simple operation of alloting cars for the handling of grain to those country elevators in proportion to the elevator space at those points, instead of on the basis of the business handled last year by the companies at those points, have compelled many of the growers to use the facilities of other companies.
It is most important that a cooperative pool organization should keep its membership at the highest possible point. So, to save any loss of customers, they spent millions of dollars in order to provide this year extra temporary storage space. In spite of that, we find that the percentage of the grain handled1 by them to October 31 of this year had dropped to 40-8 per cent, compared with the 45-51 per cent which they handled last year, and the percentage handled by them had been increasing for a number of years. This experience causes some alarm. The greatest threat to profiteering industry is the cooperative, and we do not like to see these cooperative organizations being sabotaged in this manner. I hope before this session is completed we shall have further legislation to stop this kind of thing, and I hope we shall have no more of the type of legislation passed at the last session to impose the processing tax.
It will be remembered that when the resolution was before the house we were assured that the millers and bakers would absorb this processing levy, which would amount to about $7,500,000 on 50,000,000 bushels of wheat. Before the bill got through the house and became law, the millers were simply made the collectors of the levy, they having to collect it from the purchasers of the flour. The levy being passed on to the bakers, we then found the bakers boosting the price of 'bread by one cent a loaf. Immediately the price control board came into operation, as it should, and stopped the increase in the price of bread', and the bakers were told to sell their bread at the same price they had charged previously. Had that not been done, the bakers would have stood to profit by about $12,000,000, which is considerably different from a loss of about $7,500,000. This figure is based upon a consumption of 50,000,000 bushels and the fact that about forty loaves of bread can be made from one bushel of wheat. A few days after the house adjourned last August, an order in council was passed rescinding the order of the price control board. Apparently we shall have to be constantly on the alert to see that the price of this commodity does not rise.

The Address-Mr. Castleden
The second thing which the people of Canada are asking this parliament to do is to see that during this war the money they pay in taxes is not wasted. Investigation of these matters is quite impossible until the different committees are functioning. I should like the government to tell us why the public accounts committee is not functioning. Contracts are being awarded by the thousands, and we have been told by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) that about $500,000,000 worth have been let in Canada. The public accounts committee should be reviewing the war expenditures and the type of contracts that have been let, as well as the organization of the new government plants and any other plants to which the government has lent money. All we have had made available to us are the contracts let to September 1, 1940, which information is contained in several volumes, most of them containing over 600 pages. What do we learn from them? We learn that a number of new companies have been organized, and the parentage of these companies should be the subject of investigation. Opening a volume at random, I find the following at page 235 of the record of contracts awarded to the end of July:
File number: A8568.
Name of contractor: Kenwood Mills Limited, Arnprior, Ontario.
Commodity: Blankets.
Date of order: July 15, 1940.
Delivery: Commencing August 10, 1940, or sooner, at rate of 3,000 or more weekly, completed September 30, 1940.
Destination:	National defence inspection
room, 138 Queen street, Ottawa, Ontario.
Amount: $99,123.75.
No. of order in council: 3965.
What is the price being paid per blanket? What quality of blanket is being furnished? This information is not given. The Minister of Munitions and Supply has said that we may ask any question we wish, but does he want 200 of us to ask him questions about each one of these thousands and thousands of contracts? We should have this information. This public accounts committee has not been functioning. One of our duties this session should be the reviewing of these contracts. That is what the people want to know. I understand that this committee has not functioned for years, but the people want to know these things now. This information will fortify their faith; it will go a long way towards clearing up the mystery and suspicion that surround government action. I think it is the duty of every hon. member to demand that as a representative of the people he be told the facts.
In spite of the fact that agriculture is in its present terrible condition, the agriculture 14873-274
committee is not sitting. I understand that this committee has not sat for at least eighteen months. Last session we were promised a health committee, but I do not see that committee in the list of committees we were given the other day. The railway committee is not sitting, nor is the committee on marine and fisheries or the committee on banking and commerce. There have been no sittings of the committee on mines, forests and waters. This information should be public property. The facts which could be brought out by these committees should be brought out now.
We in this group have been attacked during this session by hon. members who should know better. We cannot say, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) can, that we are surrounded by a galaxy of constitutional lawyers. But we can say that we are fighting for humanity, that we are fighting in order that the people of this country may be given an opportunity to live decently and well. We are still fighting for freedom and democracy. We have been trying to build up an order of society in which cooperation may live. We are pleading for social security. We do not mean security for the upper groups in any community, or for the middle class or for those in the lower brackets; we are pleading for social security for the whole community. AVe are fighting the battle of those who toil and suffer, of those who, while they produce the wealth of the country, find themselves in a disgraceful condition of unemployment and insecurity. Lack of opportunity has existed' for many of these people simply because-they have been dispossessed.
There now exists in the minds of many people the suspicion that intimidation and discrimination are being practised in connection with the enforcing of the defence of Canada regulations. There is still much to be desired from those regulations. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) stressed this point. The other day I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) voice his approval of the suggestions which had been made, and I feel quite sure that his opinion will have considerable weight with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). But I should like to quote what he said as reported on page 309 of Hansard:
We hear these regulations attacked, sometimes with much vigour, on the ground that they are not in accordance with British justice -great stress is laid upon that phrase. They are attacked in the press and elsewhere, and
The Address-Mr. Castleden

I wonder whether those who attack the regulations on that ground are aware that, so far as the internment of subversive elements is concerned, our regulations are patterned precisely upon the British regulations as they exist to-day.
I should like to point out to the hon. member that our regulations are not analogous to the British regulations, particularly British 18b which corresponds to our section 21. I would point out the difference to him. There is a difference between the British regulations and ours, and I offer the suggestion that an early review and an amendment of these regulations be made in order to remove some of the evils which exist in their application in their present form. That is most imperative. The first consideration that I should like to suggest is that a sufficient number of committees be set up to deal properly with the large number of cases that are passing before those responsible for review, and that provision be made to assure that objecting persons have sufficient factual material to justify their charge against the accused.
Let me give a concrete case of abuse. It is a case that occurred in this very city last summer. On the 6th of July a certain Ernie Myerhoffer, a resident of this city, was arrested on the allegation that he had said something in contravention of regulation 39. Bail was set, but being poor he could not pay it and he had to remain in gaol. The unfortunate part was that it was the 30th of July before his case came up for review. The hearing lasted only a few minutes because the only witness for the prosecution upon whose information the arrest apparently had been made had no evidence to give. He had not heard the accused use the language in question, let alone the particular statement he was alleged to have made. The crown attorney apologized to the magistrate and the case was dismissed. But in the meantime that poor man's family had been evicted from their home, and hardship had been suffered. Such things are disgraceful and should not occur.
I am going to repeat the recommendations *which have been made by others and which, I think, should receive serious consideration by the government. First, there should be an enlargement of the reviewing committees in order to satisfy the public that there can be no discrimination. Second, there should be a widening of the scope of the information to which the accused may have access so that he might know his crime and the charge laid against him, and the evidence so far as that is possible.
I want to pay tribute at this time to that portion of the Canadian press-I am afraid

it is mostly in eastern Canada and mostly west of here-which has fulfilled one of the great functions of a free press, that of the defence of liberty when it sees it attacked. We do not seem to have that kind of press in certain parts of the west, but elsewhere when there has been a great duty to perform in Canada there have been editors of newspapers who in their press and in their position as editors have seen fit to draw attention to the serious defects in the defence of Canada regulations. They seem to realize that democracy can be maintained only so long as the people have faith that the ends of justice are being properly served.
One of the national problems which this war has served to intensify is agriculture, and I wrnnt to tell this administration that the country feels this severely. Other industries are booming. Every report in financial papers and industrial magazines shows a tremendous upcurve in industry. Agriculture alone is forgotten and kicked down. I would recall to the Prime Minister his words Which appear at page 48 of Hansard of this session, when he was speaking of what Hitler's regime would be like were he to subjugate this country. He said:
Their economies will be economies that satisfy the greed of their masters; their farmers will be peasants, and their workers, slaves.
Let me inform the house that to-day thousands of farmers in Canada are peasants and thousands of our workers, slaves. There is every evidence of a determined effort in certain mining and industrial areas in the east to keep the workers slaves. There seems to be a determined effort to prevent the organization of unions. It seems to me that if those who are opposing the organization of unions would look into the facts, they would find that where labour is organized there are fewer strikes and more peaceful and efficient operation of industry than where labour is not organized.
With regard to agriculture I have seen a great people in the west, a free people ready to make their contribution to the world and already making it, turned into a peasantry under the actions of the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) both in the west and in Ottawa. Things look extremely desperate for the people in the west now, and they are feeling the full force of the policies or lack of policies of this administration.
The report of the Minister of Agriculture on his return from Britain was a slap in the face for many people who had put their trust in him. Agriculture is a national problem for Canada, and it is a calamity for many people engaged in it, particularly in the west. We find that in the average community the

The Address-Mr. Castleden
whole economic structure is slowly collapsing. Doctors are moving out of many districts. Store-keepers can no longer advance credit to keep the people producing, and the producers under a lower standard of living are moving out. The ordinary social activities of many disctriots have largely ceased. Schools in many parts are becoming mere slum schools. The municipalities are so hard pressed that they are forced to prevent the farmer from selling his crop until the municipality has seized its share. The municipalities have their taxes hypothecated by the banks; then they have to go back to the banks in order to borrow more money to carry on their ordinary activities, and the bankers direct their policies-the amount that shall be spent on relief, how much shall be granted to a school district, how much shall be made available to the municipality to carry on. Mortgage and machinery companies cannot collect their accounts in many areas this year. They cannot get blood out of a stone. They could not make the farm pay by running it themselves, and so they just add on the interest and wait for the break to come.
I am fearful that if agriculture in the west becomes a business proposition where profits can be made out of the growing of grain, many of our farmers will find that they are no longer possessors of their land. I would remind the house that 90 per cent of the farms in Saskatchewan are mortgaged, and less than 5 per cent of the farmers of the province are out of debt. Crops in Saskatchewan have been meagre for years because of lack of efficient machinery and power, and the land has become weedy. The consequence is that the homes are suffering deterioration. In less than 1 per cent of the farms does one find buildings with much paint on them. Clothing is scarce, and the farmer who in better times carried life insurance finds that this, too, has gone. He can no longer protect himself against hail. Medical and dental attention is required in the family in about three out of five cases. This year there is a harvest, but what the farmer can get from his crop on delivering his first quota will in many instances, scarcely pay for the cost of harvesting.
The Minister of Agriculture, after visiting the mother of parliaments, says on his return to Canada, "Why should the government change its policies with regard to agriculture? The policies are Liberal; they were endorsed in peace time by the farming population when proposed in 1935; they were put into practice for four years and endorsed in war time no later than March 26 last." His crowning contribution to the house in this time of stress was to gloat over his power to create unemployment among those who had presented
themselves as candidates for the opposition. I wonder whether that is, if I may use the words of the Prime Minister, the "armour of God," with which the administration is clothing itself at this time.
Speaking last Friday, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) said this:
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 not unmindful of the responsibilities that Canada is assuming, and although the 70 cents 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.
And he ends with this remark:
We are undertaking to see that they do not bear an unfair share of the burden.
I should like to remind the minister that he has there made a great promise. I wonder whether he realizes the full significance of it.
The growing of grain at a loss in the west means that a debt is being piled upon these people which they cannot surmount. Making that contribution at this time may mean, in a few years from now, the entire loss of everything they possess. Unless you give them protection; unless they obtain some form of moratorium; unless the seizure of their homes by mortgage, finance and machine companies is stopped, the contribution which they will have to make will be the loss of everything they possess.
I was glad to get the minister's promise. We in the west, particularly our farmers, have been promised a great many things. In fact, to many of these people Canada is really now a land of promise. They were promised lower prices on machinery, but they did not get lower prices. For a number of years they have been promised real debt legislation, dollar wheat, interim payments and final payments. Township 23 in, I think, range 5, was promised a bonus on March 26 last. I should like to know from the Minister of Agriculture if that bonus has yet been paid; it was not paid last July. There must be a moratorium placed on debts, a parity price fixed for those commodities which the farmer is growing, a payment on his stored grain, and some of those payments which were promised to him less than a year ago. If that is done, there will be some recovery. There will be a recovery of homes, which is important, a recovery of hope, which is of more importance, and a recovery of morale, which is of the greatest importance. Our population will then be able to make an effective contribution to the war.
The Address-Mr. Castleden

Many young men in the farming areas were unable to make homes for themselves. Several years ago it was announced that they would be allowed a payment of $5 a month; that grant was given to them so that they could go out and work and make homes for themselves. That was the way in which this government treated the young men who were to constitute the next generation of a great Canada. And they read in the records of this house that ex-members of this parliament were to be granted $200 a day and their expenses.
Consider the situation of a young man, say about twenty years of age, wondering what he can do towards the building up of Canada, and in love with the girl over on the next farm. He finds that he cannot make a living; his father cannot help him to get started. So he goes out to work for a neighbour at $5 a month paid by the government; and when he learns that some other person, now a member of this house, is to receive $200 a day, he starts to figure up what that person could earn at that rate in a month and finds that it amounts to $6,000. He then starts figuring out, "How long would it take for me to make that much?" and he calculates that it would take him just 1,200 months at his then rate of pay, working twelve months a year. In other words, in one hundred years from now, when he is 121 years old, he will be able to celebrate his birthday by coming home, marrying the girl with whom he is in love, and living happily ever afterwards.
This young man, however, now finds out that his country needs him. He is willing to fight for his empire when he sees it attacked, and to-day he is in the army, the navy or the air force. As he lined up to go to camp, he wonders again whether his services are going to be appreciated. If he is successful in passing the medical examination, which many years of privation have made it difficult for him to do, he is sure at least of sufficient food and clothing. He is now in camp, Christmas is approaching, and he wants to go home on leave; yet he finds that under existing regulations his transportation will cost him anywhere from $30 to $50, depending upon the distance to his home.
I spoke during July on this matter, and I have been pleased to see that since that time hon. members in all parts of the house have been advocating that something be done in this regard. These men are giving everything; they are willing even to sacrifice their lives. Are we in Canada not prepared to show at least as much appreciation as is expressed in this small concession? I feel I Mr. Castleden.]
sure that the administration will do something, and I am going to leave it at that. I hope that it will not be confined to Christmas leave. I hope they will see to it that our railways will carry free of charge any member of our forces when he is on official leave.
May I refer briefly to another matter before I close?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I am sorry to have to remind the hon. gentleman that his time has expired.


George Hugh Castleden: With the permission of the house I will finish, briefly, what I had to say. In the constituency I represent there are several Indian reserves. I was called upon by some of these Indians to meet representatives from the reserves, and I found that conditions were rather terrible. On one reserve, namely the Gordon reserve at Pun-nichy, there are fifty families of Indian farmers of whom, I believe, less than sixteen are producing sufficient of any commodity to keep themselves alive. Trapping, fishing and hunting, which used to form a large portion of their means of livelihood, are almost gone. The health, education and morale of these people are low. There are some fine people on these reserves; there are fine qualities of character which are capable of development if these people are given a chance, but there is no one to present their case. No one will speak for them; they have no votes. Last winter there was a tragedy at the school in that reserve. I hope the minister responsible will take the first opportunity to look into the matter of the reserves in that area and improve the conditions which now exist.
In, conclusion, I would say this. I agree with what Mr. Ernest Bevin said recently, that "one of the biggest factors contributing to this war was the failure after the last war to erect an economic structure of society w'hich was based on humanity." I wonder whether w*e are going to learn anything from that. I submit that we should be seeing to it that we plan and start erecting such a structure in Canada now.


Mr. W. B. MacDIARMID (Glengarry):: I should like to say a few words with regard to the	problems	of	the	farmers in mydistrict.	I wish I	had some	of the oratoricalability of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier and also some of the foresight, diplomacy, tact and gift of repartee of Sir John A. Macdonald, so that I might place before this house the problems that beset our farmers at this	time.In my opinion	food was	the chief factor
in the wanning of the last war, and lack of

The Address-Mr. MacDiarmid
food was the cause of the collapse of Germany. The food blockade of enemy countries and the production of food in the allied countries constituted one of the chief means of winning the last war, and we are all of the opinion that the same means will be responsible for victory in this war.
There is one thing on which, I believe, this house is unanimously agreed, and that is the winning of the war. We all want to win the war; I do not think there is any disagreement on that score. And we all want to win it as speedily as possible and with the smallest loss of life not only to our Canadian soldiers but to the soldiers of Britain who are fighting for the freedom and the liberty of the world.
These soldiers of ours are fighting against the savagery and barbarity of Hitlerism. If Hitler were here to-day, how many of us would be living? I would have been shot days ago, or perhaps months ago. None of us would be living if we dared to express our thoughts against the government in power or against those directing our affairs. We do not appreciate our blessings. We rise in our places in this house and argue and criticize, but if we were under Hitler it would be execution for us. That is one reason why, I say, we do not appreciate the work of our soldiers and the work of this government.
This government was elected on the platform that it would carry on the war. Its members were elected from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and the people having elected the government, the government is responsible and it should carry on. It should carry out its platform, and I cannot see why all of us cannot concentrate and cooperate with the government to that end. Let the government carry out their promises and, if they do not, then we can do the same to them as was done to the last war government. These are the views of a newcomer, one who is inexperienced1 and unable to express himself as he would like.
A noted general once said that an army cannot fight on an empty stomach. The morale and courage of any people who have been bombed incessantly for the last few weeks and months cannot be maintained as it should be if those people, and especialy the women and children, are hungry. Therefore it is our duty to produce food and send it to them to the limit of our capacity to do so.
That is the problem we have to deal with in my constituency. Our farmers are of Scottish and French descent for the most part, and I do not want any member to rise
in his place, either on this side or on the other side of the house, and tell me that I do not grow wheat or -raise cows or -hogs or produce milk. I have been raised, and I practise my profession, among these people, having lived among them all my life, and I am qualified to discuss their trials and their problems. Our farmers work from early in the morning until late at night, twelve months a year. I can vouch for this because in my night visits in the practice of my profession I see lights burning in their barns hours before daylight and long after dark. They are patriotic and loyal, and many of our farmers' sons are now in uniform.
The trouble with our farmers is that they have to pay too much for the commodities they buy in comparison with the prices they receive for the produce they sell. In my district the majority of the farmers depend upon milk and hogs. The production of milk in the winter months depends upon bran, middlings and feeds of that sort from the west, and prices of these articles have risen very high. It is said that the reason is that the millers have unlimited quantities of the best flour in the world, but they cannot send it to Germany or to France. They cannot unload it, and so they raise the prices of these necessary foodstuffs which our farmers require. Thus our farmers are penalized.
Last year our farmers were not receiving SI a hundred for cheese. They were getting 87 cents and now they are getting S1.10. Mr. Singleton, the agricultural representative, said that the farmers should produce more, that they should produce all that they could, because the old country needed our cheese. How will they produce more if they do not receive more for their milk? It is a serious question in my constituency.
At six o'clock the house took -recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


William Burton MacDiarmid: As I have said already, Mr. Speaker, our farmers are having great difficulty in maintaining the production of milk and cheese, which is so necessary at this time. Our farmers are very loyal and patriotic. Many of them in my constituency come to me with their problems. One or two have 'been widows, with only sons twenty-one years of age, who were running their farms. If these boys have to take military training, the work on those farms cannot be done, and production will be lessened. As you know, farmers work on

The Address-Mr. MacDiarmid
schedule. The other day I heard an hon. member ask what was schedule. To us it means on time. I know at least one farmer who has a clock in his barn. His cows are milked at a certain hour at night and a certain hour in the morning, and it is necessary that all these matters be attended to by experienced people.
If there is no one to take the places of these young farmers when they are taking military training, production will suffer, because to-day no one wants to go on a farm and feed cows, clean stables and so on for the wages the farmers can afford to pay. It is utterly impossible to get any help. With the wages being paid in the munitions factories it would be foolish for a man to work on a farm for a dollar a day and his board. And then, when he works in a factory, he is through at five o'clock in the afternoon.
This is one of our great problems. I understand there are to be no exemptions from military training. What is going to happen, then? These widows to whom I have referred are unable to do the work on their farms. What are they to do? They have asked that the military training of their sons be postponed, but I would suggest to the government that if they want to maintain the production of milk and cheese they should adopt some regulation which would permit these men to stay on the job.
That is one suggestion I have to offer. Another would be that in view of the high cost of winter feeds, such as middlings and bran, that are necessary for increased production, the farmers should be given an increased premium on both cheese and pork, in order to stimulate greater production. Only last Saturday a farmer was in my office. He said he had sold six pigs and that he had to take a cut of S10 each in the grade. Another man told me that on each of seven pigs he was cut $4.50, which took away all the profit. Perhaps that does not seem very much to some hon. members, but it is a good deal of money to the farmer.
Another matter into which I think the government should inquire is the exorbitant prices farmers have to pay for their machinery. Just a few days ago one farmer told me that he had paid over $400 for a binder, while another said that he had paid over $300. Those machines are used for only a few days, and then are put away in the shed. The same thing applies to mowers; all these machines cost three or four times their old prices. I cannot see any reason for such tremendous increases in the cost of these implements which the farmer has to buy in order to carry on his work, especially when

many of them are used only for a short time during the year. So I think this government should take some steps to reduce the cost of the machines the farmers have to buy. If that cannot be done, the government should increase the prices of the commodities the farmers produce, in order to make up for the increased cost of the articles they have to buy.
I agree with the hon. member who said that it was necessary to have our boys properly equipped and trained before sending them overseas. I would add that we do not want our boys to go over there with paper-soled shoes, the wrong rifles, the wrong ammunition, and without proper training. In the last war I think some of our men were sent overseas before they were ready. I do not blame the government of that day, because they did what they thought was best, but I know personally of many fine young Canadians who were sent to France in the last war with insufficient training and improper equipment, and who simply became living targets for the guns of the huns.
Last winter I received a visit from a soldier, a private, who also served in the last war. I asked how the equipment compared, because we had heard so much criticism in that regard. He showed me his boots and said, "These boots are wonderful. You cannot get anything better." Then he showed me the warm clothing, the socks and so on, and said there was no comparison between the equipment he received in the last war and the equipment issued in this war. That is a concrete case; I know what I am talking about, and am not repeating anything from hearsay.
Another hon. gentleman said that our first line of defence was in England. I think we will all agree with that statement. But would it be good military tactics to have only one line, with no second and third lines behind? I do not think so. I believe the Pacific and Atlantic coasts of this country should be fortified, because we do not know what may happen. I do not know personally, but I believe the government are doing just that without saying anything about it, and I think they are wise in doing so.
We have heard the statements of the various ministers, and I do not think any men, no matter where you chose them, could have done better work. We have heard criticism of them-very weak criticism- pointing out what should have been done two or three years ago. But what government would have dared go to the Canadian people at that time and say, "We want $500,000,000 to spend on armaments here," when France, Belgium, Denmark and all the other countries did not themselves know enough to start fortifying? Would it not

The Address-Mr. Turgeon
have been ridiculous for a country with ten or twelve million people to take steps to protect the countries of Europe from themselves, when they were doing nothing at all about the matter?
It has been said also that from 1930 to 1935 the defence estimates were reduced. I believe the government then in power acted for the good of the country in reducing those estimates; they helped keep our taxes reasonably low. So I do not think we can criticize them for what they did, just as they should not criticize this government for not having done certain things three or four years ago.
As I said earlier in my remarks I have carried on my practice in three agricultural constituencies, Glengarry, Stormont and Prescott. I have been among these people all my life and I think I know them pretty well. I have heard something said in this house about starvation. I have never seen anyone die of starvation through lack of food. I have seen people die through starvation arising from some malignant disease, or through some wasting disease which would not permit them to assimilate food, but I have never yet seen anybody die of starvation from lack of food. Those who say that w'e are undernourished and are not fed when, in fact, we have plenty, are giving Canada a bad name. I know our farmers and other residents, if they knew what was happening, would never allow anybody to go hungry or to be cold. The people in my community would n-ot rest if they thought there was anybody among them starving or cold. I know the residents of my constituency, and I know that they are composed of both Scotch and French.
We have heard it said that people in certain districts of Canada do not receive proper medical care. I know of medical men in my district who have attended people for years without any remuneration. They believe, as I do, that if the Almighty has given them strength to practise the medical profession they should go out to heal the sick and to relieve the ills of this land, whether or not they are paid for it. I believe, along with those medical men, that they should go out and do good by attending the needy, when it is necessary so to do.
Time and again I have had occasion to ask services from doctors in this city of Ottawa. They have always helped, and they have not been paid for it. Then, medical men in Montreal have given service when patients were not able to pay. Some who speak are very much exercised about the condition of people in the wide-open spaces, people who are far removed from civilization and medical attention. Well, if we look at it from the other side of the picture we might ask ourselves 14873-28
this question: Is it not criminal for a young man to take his bride away from civilization, and attempt to rear a family under those circumstances? I do not think we should blame the municipal, provincial or federal authorities, if those people wish to take a chance. If I choose to go on a hunting expedition and get hurt, I should not blame the authorities if they have not the proper medical attention for me. That is up to me, entirely. The Lord has given me sense and has given most people sense, and we ought not to attribute our difficulties to any government if we are not looked after, under those circumstances.
As one hon. member has said, we in the House of Commons are friends; we want to cooperate. If Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was at one time the revered leader of the Liberal party, and if Sir John A. Macdonald were in this chamber to-night, facing each other in this time of stress, as the representatives of the two great races in Canada, I am sure they would cooperate, no matter which one was in office. I believe they would both put their shoulders to the wheel to do their best for Canada by submerging all political aspirations and ambitions. I believe that should be done by those who sit in this house to-day. Criticism is all right, but at this time I believe we ought to cooperate.
Possibly I am not speaking according to Hoyle, but I do not believe any party, whether in office or not, should now support the enactment of legislation which would entrench them at a time of any future election. Neither is it the time for any political party which has been travelling under an assumed name to revive, resuscitate and rehabilitate itself. Neither is it the time for any party to have passed any social legislation which would not be in the best interests of the country.


Mr. J. G. TURGEON (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me one point which has arisen directly from the fact that Canada is at war is that parliament is coming back into public esteem. People and newspapers that urge to-day that parliament should be sitting constantly, only a short year or two ago were regarding parliament as a public nuisance, a device through which the money of the taxpayers could be wasted. The participation of a member in this supposed waste of the money of the taxpayers was measured by the time consumed by him in speaking to the House of Commons upon public matters; costs were calculated in dollars and cents.
I believe any person who is truly in love with British principles and the British system of government will not only welcome this

The Address-Mr. Turgeon

change but be delighted by it. In totalitarian governments there is no such thing as public opinion. In a government such as we have in Canada public opinion is the most sensitive and at the same time the most vital force in a government, whether legislative or administrative.
There are many phases of public opinion I should like to discuss this evening. Time will not permit my discussion of all of them, but for a moment or two I shall deal with something which for several generations has been close to the aspirations of the Canadian people. It is true that it has been discussed so much at this session and throughout the country during the last six months that it would be worn threadbare now, were it not for the richness of its texture and for the fact that it has been and will be the most strengthening force in Canada's conduct of the war. I refer to what on many occasions has been eloquently described as unity of thought in Canada. It is my personal conviction that this is a unity of thought and action which will continue to abide with us when war is over, and when the problems of peace are before us for solution.
Like every other hon. member who has mentioned the matter of unity among those of different race and language, and like many thousands of people throughout the country I give the greatest credit and express the highest appreciation to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) for the work they have done in bringing about this condition of unity not only between Ontario and Quebec, but among all phases of our population, whether they be divided economically, as by classes, geographically, between the east and the west, or by race and language, as are the people of Quebec and those in other parts of Canada.
Addressing for the moment hon. members from the province of Quebec, and speaking as one who knows well the Pacific province in the extreme western part of Canada, I say that in the work he has done in bringing to a head all the efforts which have been made toward unity of , purpose, the Minister of Justice has certainly touched the heart-strings of the people in British Columbia. Continuing my talk to hon. members from Quebec I say that no man excels the Minister of Justice in public estimation in British Columbia despite the fact that he comes from the French-speaking, French-thinking province of Quebec.
But to these two men whose actions I extol, all credit is not due. There has been leadership which has brought about certain results, but leadership comes from inspiration. I should like to take a few minutes

of the valuable time of this house in attempting to discover the root of the inspiration which has brought about this leadership. Many years ago when the wars on the north American continent were finished, this country -which is now ours was bom in a manifestation of true British justice which at the same time was a stroke of imperial genius.	I>t was Lord Acton, who said in
an essay on freedom that the greatest thing in a hundred years of progress on the part of the British people was that true freedom which recognized and gave liberty to others as a matter of justice and charity, not merely in satisfaction of a claim of right. That was the spirit which animated the people of Canada. That is the spirit which gave birth to this country before the British colonies of north America united as the Dominion of Canada.
While I am dealing with this particular spirit of liberty, which naturally embraces good will, tolerance and the absence of bigotry, may I take a few moments to relate my own experience? I do this not for the purpose of speaking of myself, but as one of a minority to pay a tribute to the great majority that exists in Canada. I do this for the further purpose of refuting what a great political philosopher once said, that democracy was the most cruel of all forms of government, because the minority was always in the power and under the control of those who happened to be in the majority. My experience is the exact opposite; it tells only of good will and the lack of anything like intolerance.
Thirty-four years ago I went to the then new province of Alberta and settled in a district which happened to be one hundred per cent English-speaking and about ninety-nine per cent Protestant in religion. The people there knew that I was at least partly French because they had trouble in pronouncing my name. They knew that I was Roman Catholic in religion because when we were successful in having a priest come in, we celebrated mass in my home, except on those occasions when there were more than my little home would accommodate. We then celebrated mass in the Masonic hall.
Six years after my arrival I was elected to represent those people and to speak for them and in their name in the legislature of Alberta. To show that this was not just an accident, may I say that in the late fall of 1921 I went to British Columbia, not knowing a living soul in that province. To-day I represent in this house the district of Cariboo, which is overwhelmingly Englishspeaking and nearly overwhelmingly Protestant in religion. I have won elections and I have

The Address-Mr. Turgeon
been defeated; but never on any occasion, either in Alberta or in British Columbia, have I lost a single vote because of race or religion. It is a great pleasure for me to-night to have this opportunity to speak as one who is in a double minority, as it were, and praise the freedom and the love of tolerance of those who form the majority in Canada.
Many matters having to do with public opinion naturally arise during a debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I listened the other day to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), and I have listened to others who followed him, directing the attention of the ministry to the fact that there has been a concentration of industry in central Canada in connection with our war effort. It is stated that the people of the maritimes and the far west have not been treated fairly. I do not bring up this matter for the purpose of adding to the complaints or to the denials; I rise simply to say to the Prime Minister and to his colleagues that I believe that what they are doing is being done by reason of the fact that time is an element in the supplying of equipment, aeroplanes and munitions, that I believe that all these things are required, not for themselves alone but because they are needed in a hurry. Therefore I stand here without hesitation and say in the name of my constituents that if that is the reason why there has been this concentration of industry, then continue that concentration.
I speak now on behalf of a constituency which has received nothing whatever from the war effort of Canada. Our young men are enlisting and the moment they sign up they are whisked away to the coast. Our grain growers have been told that they cannot sell their grain because the war has destroyed their market. No industrial effort has been started in my constituency. But if the desire is, as I sincerely believe it is, to help people who are harassed and beleaguered in the old country, then I say, continue.
While the criticism which has been offered may be justified, I am reminded of the fact that a new doctrine of justification is finding birth in the minds of some who are ready to speak without reflection and reckon with the consequences only after they see the results of the impact upon public opinion of what they have said. This doctrine holds that criticism is justified because this government is supposed to be a one-party government. Leaving aside for the moment any comments that might be made on that thought, I think I am right in drawing this inference: If we had what is usually called a union government, then there would be no criticism. If
14873-28}
the basis for the justification for criticism is the fact that this is a one-party government,, then the establishment of a union government would eliminate all criticism. Then that which has been proclaimed from the Atlantic to the Pacific about the majesty of parliament would disappear immediately.
I understand that preparations are again being made to exert further pressure to bring about a union government. I intend to say nothing about that beyond throwing out the suggestion that whatever good points there might be about a union government, and doubtless there would be some, it is a good thing for the people of Canada that when the opportunity presented itself and advantage was taken of it by this government to make those excellent arrangements between the United States and Canada which were made at Ogdensburg, there was not included in the the Canadian government at that time any public man whose philosophy of politics and whose past made it impossible for him to participate in any closer or more intimate relations with the United States.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Whom does the hon. member mean by that?


James Gray Turgeon: I mean several, and when my hon. friend asks the question he knows exactly whom I mean or he would not be disturbed by my statement.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I am not disturbed at all.


James Gray Turgeon: But if it was a good
thing for Canada, Mr. Speaker, how magnificent a thing it was for the people of the British isles! That reminds me that to-day because of certain criticism which has been directed against the Ogdensburg agreement entered into between the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States, a feeling is gradually developing against the construction of joint defence works in the two countries.
Naturally time will not allow me to go fully into the question of joint defence works, but first let me throw out this warning. Ever since the beginning of the war we in Canada have tried to convince the people of the United States of the danger that would be theirs if, by any chance, Great Britain should be defeated, and of the danger which would be theirs if, by reason of the downfall of Great Britain, Canada should be invaded. To-day Great Britain as well as Canada are asking for' still further aid from the people of the United States, aid which is required by the people of the British isles who with such sublime courage and against odds unparalleled in military history are withstanding an aggression unequalled in brutality in the whole history of the world. The warning that I give not only
The Address-Mr. Turgeon

to this house but to all newspapers and public men is, let us say nothing and do nothing that might lessen the enthusiasm of the people of the United States in their effort to help us and the British people on the other side of the Atlantic ocean.
History will write much of the right hon. the Prime Minister and most of it will be good, but no deed of his will be written of more proudly than the one he has accomplished during the last few months by bringing the people of the United States, the people of Canada and the people of Great Britain closer together. I say to those of us who are married men with families that when we have passed and gone and the history of these times is being read, our children will be proud that their parents had the opportunity and the privilege of sitting in parliament with the Prime Minister to share his toils and his trials, and by their friendly advice and constructive criticism help to shape his policies and to put Canada in the position in which she is to-day.
In connection with the joint defence works by Canada and the United States, and having particular regard to what was said a day or two ago by Lord Lothian in connection with the financial position of Great Britain, I wish now to make a suggestion to the ministry, which, because of its nature, I make to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) and to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie King). It is this. Every dollar that Canada can provide for munitions and equipment and the other commodities which the people of the British isles need so direly to-day, must go to that effort. There must be no diversion except such as may be absolutely essential. Our aim must be to help the people on the other side of the Atlantic ocean.
Canada is a gold-producing country, and I suggest that these two ministers give consideration to making an arrangement with the United States, that rich country which to-day is in possession of nearly all the gold of the world, whereby she will make available to this dominion a credit, not in terms of money, but in terms of ounces of gold, to be drawn upon by us in payment for the cost of construction of any joint Canadian-United States defence works that may be undertaken.
I further suggest that the liquidation of this obligation should commence when the war is over, and that each year there should be set aside from the gold production of Canada a certain percentage of our output in order to extinguish that obligation which we shall have incurred to the people of the United States. Someone asked me when I was making this suggestion at Regina some
{Mr. Turgeon.]
weeks ago whether I meant by that to give the United States a mortgage against our gold production. Naturally not. But when you borrow money-and states are continually borrowing money in war and peace-you arrange for a sinking fund and set aside year by year a part of your income in order to make certain that the debt will be extinguished. That is all I am suggesting in connection with our production of gold, that every year there be set aside a certain percentage of our gold production so that in course of time the total debt will be extinguished. I suggest, naturally, that it be a non-interest bearing debt and that a certain amount of our gold production be earmarked for the purpose of a sinking fund.
This other thought I throw oui in that connection. When the last war was over, Great Britain found it impossible to pay off her debt to the United States except by way of trade and commerce, which the United States did not find it convenient to accept, and a feeling of tension, strain and bad will grew up between the two countries. We do not know, you and I who are here to-day, what is going to be the economy of Canada or of the United States or what is going to be the economy of the world when this war is over and peace once more is Shining upon us. We do not know what the price of gold will be then. It may be much higher or it may be much lower. But if our indebtedness to the United States is in terms of gold by weight, there can be no possibility of strain or ill will arising because we owe them gold, just as we might owe them any other commodity.
It may be suggested that the neutrality act will make this suggestion of mine impossible to carry out, but my opinion is that the neutrality act would not make a credit in terms of ounces of gold impossible. But even if it did, I still feel, by reason of what has been taking place in the last few months, that the people of the United States are ready to-day to advance such a credit to us in order that we may pay for our share of joint Canadian-United States defence works. I also feel that when the necessities of the motherland grow greater, the people of the United States, having gone with us part of the way, will foe glad to go the whole distance, and that we shall have no further trouble in carrying on the work for lack of a credit or the provision of money.
In that regard I should like to say a word of commendation to the Prime Minister and also to his colleague the Minister of Finance, with reference to the statement made by the Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago, that only physical and moral capacity to

The Address-Mr. Fair
sacrifice and to produce would be the measure by which we would determine our help to the people of the motherland and our efforts to defend ourselves. I have here a statement, which probably hon. members have seen, made by Colonel A. A. Magee, president of Barclay's bank. In speaking to the bank shareholders he says, among other things:
The pressing problem at the moment is the placing of the war effort upon the most efficient basis within our power. The maintenance of the value of the Canadian dollar and the prevention of price inflation are of economic significance, but subordinate to the essential function of contributing to the utmost towards the winning of the war.
I have quoted that statement because that same man, president of Barclay's bank, is executive assistant to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston); and that determination, expressed so wisely and so well by the Prime Minister, to let nothing interfere with Canada's effort to help, has permeated1 all departments of government, as is indicated in the statement of the president of Barclay's bank. I congratulate the government upon it.
One thing disturbs me. I am afraid there is not existent in Canada to-day that realization of what this war means to us, without which a proper determination to win it cannot be built up. When I say that, I do not want any confusion of thought. I do not mean that there is any lack of confidence in the government, because I know that in the history of parliumentarianism no government has held the confidence of the people of Canada in spite of war to a greater degree than has the government which is in office to-day. What I fear is that we have not paid sufficient attention to what is going on in people's minds.
We have been talking about this being a war for democracy. There is no truer lover of democracy in this House of Commons than I am; but I remember, as all hon, gentlemen here do, that the same thing was said during the last war, and1 we all recall the expectations which were built upon what was said at that time but which did not work out. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to every person who hears my voice, that while it is true that we are fighting for democracy, we are fighting for life itself. Just imagine what would happen to us in Canada if by any mischance the people of the British isles should fail in the defensive struggle which they are waging against Hitler and Mussolini and their other actual and potential friends! Imagine what would happen to us! We are fighting for
life. We are not fighting for democracy; we are fighting for national existence, for the life of the individual as well as for our life as a nation; and that is the truth which, it seems to me, should be brought more vigorously home to our people.
May I say a word, not of censure, but by way of asking whether it is wise to-day to demand, as some hon. members have done, that instead of prosecuting the war with all our force, we should get into a conference with the other nations of the commonwealth and our allies to determine what our war aims will be. Do those hon. members feel away down in their bosoms that their suggestion is a wise one? We cannot determine what our war aims will be, except in the general sense.
Therefore, in closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say through you, particularly to those hon. members who are asking for a conference or a council so that war aims can be determined and expressed, that if we win this war properly-not as we won the last war, and how much could be said on that-with the help of all peoples of British stock and of the' people of the United States, and with the help of the glorious people of the little kingdom of Greece, and any others who may join her and ourselves-if we win the war properly, as I pray God we will, because winning it incompletely would not be much better than losing it, then we shall have a democracy such as man has only dreamed of and has neither seen nor experienced before. We shall have a democracy in which the class distinctions which have been imposed upon us in the progress of our industrial and agricultural eras will be washed away. We shall have a democracy in which the arrogance of race will no longer be permitted to subject the peoples of neighbouring states to a condition of slavery. We shall have in Canada and the other free nations of the world a democracy in which man will be distinct and free because he is a human being. Those are the peace aims and the aims for the end of the war which I hold and which I express to the house to-night, speaking, as I said at the beginning, for myself and my constituents of Cariboo.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to add a few words to this debate, which has now been carried on for nearly three weeks, in speaking to the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), and reading as follows:
And this house further regrets the failure of the government to adopt a monetary policy
The Address-Mr. Fair

that would permit a maximum war effort without either increasing debt or reducing the standards of living below that necessary for maintaining maximum efficiency;
Furthermore this house is of the opinion that a continuation of the present financial policy will further destroy the precious liberties so essential to, and recognized as being inherent in a true democracy.
Since the address in reply to the speech from the throne was moved, we have heard quite a few speeches-some good, some not so goodi-a very much diversified line-up, and all purporting to be given with honest intentions. During the last war, I believe, the same condition existed. People were shocked at things which happened during that war, as a number of us are shocked at what has gone on since its conclusion; and when the next war comes, as it surely will unless conditions are changed, those who come after us will again be shocked at what we are doing and what we shall have failed to do at the conclusion of this war.
Looking back over a number of years to the time when I left my native land, I can remember several hard things which were said about the people of the country of my birth. The same things are being said to-day about people belonging to other nationalities. Before anybody here or anywhere else in Canada ventures upon such ground, I suggest that he get the facts.
Last night we heard an able address from the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka), who spoke on behalf of the Ukrainians and other minorities in Canada. Those who were not here to listen to his speech W'ould, I suggest, do well to read it in Hansard. Knowing the Ukrainians as I do, and having the honour to represent quite a number of them. I compliment the hon. member upon his address in their behalf, and I add my own words to his. The Ukrainians are misunderstood to a great extent simply because people do not take the trouble to find out anything about them. I have been a neighbour to Ukrainians for a number of years and I have also gone through districts in which there were few people but Ukrainians. It is true that the older people who came from the old land and slaved to make millionaires of some people in Canada, do not speak English as well as some of the rest -of us do, but that is no fault whatever of theirs. I can imagine several members of this house going to a foreign country and trying late in life to learn the language.
With regard to the young Ukrainians, those in school, university or business, I can say that we of the English-speaking and Frenchspeaking races have nothing at all on them. They are pretty intelligent and industrious.

Moreover, as far as I have been able to find out, they are honest, which is one of the main things, I believe, in getting along. I said one of the main things in getting along and someone says, " humph." I am not surprised to hear that, because quite a few people across Canada are saying the same thing when we talk about honest dealings in connection with our war effort.
I have received several letters suggesting incidents that are occurring throughout the country. In connection with the war effort, we were told by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), when we came here a year ago last September, that people who profiteered would be classed as belonging to the underworld. I am sorry to say that to-day we have quite a few who belong to that category, according to the Prime Minister's statement.
Last night the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) gave an address. On previous occasions we have also had addresses from the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). I am glad to say that the Liberal party has at least some men who have backbone enough to rise in their places in this house and express their convictions. There are several men here representing constituencies who do not say a word from one end of the session to the other. In the few years I have been in the house I have known that to be true, and I have often wondered -whether the people who vote for these members on election day know just what is being done on their behalf. If a man is dumb he has no business here, and the sooner the people realize it, the better it will be for all concerned.
A number of speeches have dealt with the war, and mainly with the war. I am not going to say very much about the war to-night. I do not like war, and I hope that something will be done after this slaughter is finished to prevent another such war from occurring.
Industry, banking and several other subjects have been discussed, and a number of other questions have been left untouched. I will touch upon one or two and offer a few suggestions. One matter that should have been looked after twenty years ago is the position of the returned soldiers who came back after the last war. On other occasions I have spoken of their condition, particularly that of the men on the land. I have produced figures showing that for a number of years, perhaps ten or eleven years, there has not been collected from the soldier settlers enough to pay the interest on their loans and meet

The Address-Mr. Fair
cost of administration. On their behalf, therefore, I suggest that the government do something about giving them free title to the lands they hold at the present time.
These men went overseas and offered everything they had. They were ready to give their lives, and that is the most we can offer. They came back and, instead of being treated as the government had promised, before they went overseas, that they would be treated, we find that deals characteristic of the underworld were put over on them. I say characteristic of the underworld and I know what I am talking about. I know of instances in my own neighbourhood. Somebody made blood-money out of the deals and these men were made to suffer and are continuing to suffer. This matter is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), who is in his seat. I ask him to take particular note of the condition of the soldier settlers and of their present financial standing. He is reading a paper, but I hope he will take note of the matter anyway.
The question of old age pensions is one that must be dealt with. The people in England are paying very heavy taxes and they have reduced the age limit. We are still on the seventy-year basis, allowing $20 a month, provided the recipient has no other income. If he has an income, the amount is cut down, and if he happens to have a little house in town or anything of that kind, he must sign it over to the government. Therefore the picture is not a pretty one. Our laws make it impossible for these people to accumulate anything in their working days to carry them over the period when they should enjoy a holiday in the later years of their lives, and I suggest that at the earliest possible opportunity the government bring down a measure reducing the age limit and increasing the amount of the pension.
I	notice that some of the soldiers who have been overseas in this war have come back. They went away A 1 and were discharged because they were no longer fit, and now they are refused a pension. We are starting now to deal with the men who are coming back. Let us deal justly with them. We are creating precedents; let them be just. We have heard many appeals being made to have Christian principles upheld. I say, let this government, the spokesmen for the upholding of Christian principles, put these principles into effect at once.
A number of our young men have enlisted. Many of them from western provinces are at present stationed in Ontario. Christmas will shortly be here and a number of them will
get leave. Three waaks ago one of my neighbours, a young man with a wife and four children, who because of economic conditions could not make a living on the farm and could not get work to keep himself and his family, was forced into the army as a last resort. He has a wife and four youngsters in a little town outside Edmonton. He came here on a week-end leave and telephoned me, and I had a talk with him. He wanted to know whether they were going to get free transportation home for Christmas, or on their last leave before going overseas. I told him that members belonging to all parties in the house had spoken in support of this suggestion, but that I did not know just what the government were going to do. I hope that, as has happened in other instances, public opinion on this matter will become strong enough to compel the government finally to yield. I believe there are enough people across Canada who want these men to have a free trip home to justify that action being taken. In this particular instance this young man, even if he gets a return ticket for half fare, will have to pay no less than $47.SO in order to get home to see his wife and family.
I believe we have plenty of railroad crews and trains. Let us make use of them. Do a little extra bookkeeping; that is all it amounts to.
I should now like to get back to hogs for a little while; I mean the four-legged ones. Not very long ago the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) returned from the old country, and according to his own speech he brought home the bacon. I do not believe, however, the farmers of Canada thought he brought home the bacon as far as they are concerned. I have in my hand a news item dated Toronto, November 18, as follows:
Hon. P. M. Dewan, Ontario agriculture minister, in a statement to-night described slumping hog prices, due to the price reduction in the new Canada-United Kingdom bacon agreement, as "hard medicine" for Ontario farmers. Western farmers stood to make a "reasonable profit" with their stocks of low value feed grain, he said.
I notice that Mr. Dewan holds the same opinion as a number of gentleman farmers in -this house, Because grain prices are low in both eastern and western Canada, these experts with figures calculate the cost of raising hogs and say that the farmers should be able to make a profit. They all seem to lose sigh of the fact that grain is being produced at far less than cost of production. Apparently it is not enough to lose in producing the grain; we are supposed also to lose when we come to sell bacon. Under the old agreement grade A Wiltshire sides sold for $18.01 per hundred at seaboard; under the
The Address-Mr. Fair

new agreement the price is $15.82. But the minister told us that because he was able to get rid of so many more hogs, the new prices would compare favourably with the old rates. This means that if the farmer this year is going to get as much money as he got last year, he will have to feed several extra hogs. I do not think this is very good business for the Canadian farmer.
In many matters our Prime Minister and this government try to follow the example of England. Over there they subsidize the farmers, and I would suggest that the same thing be done here in connection with the raising of hogs and the production of several other commodities. I do not object to giving our goods to Britain; that is part of our contribution, but I do not think the producers should take the rap. I believe the country as a whole should bear that burden, because when the war is all over and the taxes have to be paid, the farmer will be caught both going and coming, and will have to pay a double share of taxation.
We find that the cheese men also are not satisfied. I quote another Toronto dispatch dated November 20:
Directors of the Ontario Cheese Producers Association to-day endorsed the sale of cheese to Great Britain announced by agriculture minister Gardiner but took the stand that the price is out of line with present cost of production. . . .
A special committee was appointed to draft a memorandum, incorporating views of the producers, to be presented the minister. The committee, it was understood, will suggest that government assistance be considered for the producers in the form of a subsidy.
I wandered away from the hog question, but cheese is not very far from hogs in any event.
I should now like to refer for a moment to an article which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press last week. I do so because time after time fifth columnists have been referred to in this house, and I wish to put the Free Press in that category to-night, not only because of the article I am going to quote but because of other articles published which have not been fair to the producers of Canada. This article states:
Mr. H. H. Hannam, president of the Canadian 1 ederation of Agriculture, is indignant and declares that the Canadian farmers will also be indignant over the reduced price for bacon fixed m the new bacon agreement.
Indignant against whom? Not against Great Britain, Mr. Hannam hastens to explain. Then the indignation must be directed against the Canadian government. On what grounds? Obviously on the ground that the Canadian government did not say to the government of 
Great Britain: Pay the price that our distinguished and patriotic Canadian, Mr. Hannam, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, demands, or go without bacon.
No doubt Mr. Hannam will resent having the matter put thus crudely; but is it not pretty much to this that it boils down? A man big enough to hold his position ought to be able to look at this transaction in its entirety, instead of from a narrow angle. Thus examined, it might be found to have a great many good points. But Mr. Hannam is in the business, in which he is not alone, of trying to stir up grievances in the hope of being able to capitalize on them later on. It is a discreditable business. Also dangerous.
As president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Mr. Hannam represents a number of the producers of Canada. The Free Press, in accordance with its old practice, now seeks to disrupt that farmers' organization. The Free Press, and those who contribute financial support, see what would be the result if Canadian agriculture were organized and educated as it should be. I believe the statement I have read is an unfair one for this newspaper to make. A number of farmers subscribe to the weekly edition of this newspaper, and I would suggest to them that if they want truth they should subscribe to a publication that tells the truth. I hope this will be read by a number of those farmers.
I heard and have read the wonderful speech that was delivered by the Minister of Agriculture on November 14. He made quite a number of statements, with some of which I agree and with some I do not agree. During the discussion he had this to say-and it would be amusing, were it not so very expensive:
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 Jife-long association with and love for farmers and farming.
I heard of a man at a meeting, who rose to support a motion he had voted against the year before, say, "Some of you may wonder why I am now supporting the very thing I opposed a year ago? At that time," he said, "I had a reason; now I have lost my reason." I believe that applies very well to the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. GARDINER:: I think just the same as I did a year ago.


Robert Fair: The minister knows quite a lot about wheat-some say he grows it; I do not know. On April 5, 1939, however, he is reported to have made the following statement at page 2623 of Hansard:
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. We have had a great deal: of discussion

The Address-Mr. Fair
about the cost of producing wheat. It costs a certain amount to work an acre of land whether you get any wheat off it or not; it costs a certain amount to harvest it if you do get any wheat off it. It has been proven over and over again, I say, that twenty bushels to the acre of wheat can be produced at a cost of from 30 to 40 cents a bushel. For every bushel a man gets over twenty his costs per bushel decrease. When he has a crop of twenty bushels or more per acre, his other crops are usually good in proportion.


James Garfield Gardiner: Read it all the way
down.


Robert Fair: I have only forty minutes; the minister may read it later on.


James Garfield Gardiner: It would not mean the same thing if the hon. member read it all.


Robert Fair: I might say to the minister
that he has denied it time after time. Anyone, however, who wishes to read it will find the whole quotation at page 2623 of Hansard for April 5, 1939.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the hon. member
read it all, it does not mean what he is now saying, but what he is going to read.


Robert Fair: If I had plenty of time I would read the whole thing, but I have only forty minutes.
Then, on November 14, 1940, speaking again in connection with wheat he said:
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. If he is to receive more money, it must come from the sale price of wheat, or from the taxpayers of Canada, or from both.
Then again at page 2530 of Hansard for August 2, 1940, we find the following discussion between the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the minister:
Mr. Coldwell:	This is Professor Hope's
conclusion:
"Conservatively it would probably require with average yields a farm price for wheat of average grade of about 90 cents, with coarse grains in proportion to maintain a reasonable level of living and service the present debt on western farms. It would require somewhat more than this to restore the farming community to the condition of 1931."
This is the comment of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar:
The conclusion is quite obvious. It is clear that it will require not a Fort William price, but an average farm price of 90 cents a bushel to maintain even the standard of living we now have.
Mr. Gardiner: We all agree with that. Why discuss that at greater length?
I draw particular attention to this, because it has taken the minister only five years to admit it.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member has read it so often I know it by heart.


Robert Fair: The minister said:
We all agree with that. Why discuss that at greater length?
The man at the meeting had lost his reason; I believe the minister has done the same thing. We have been told that when a man loses his reason, he first seeks to destroy his very best friends. I believe that is true of the minister in the present instance. He has loved the farmer so much that he set out in 1935 to destroy him. He has sought to do so through the policies he has set out since that time-and I am referring particularly to his programme in connection with wheat.
When this government took office in 1935, the farmers were receiving an initial payment on their wheat of 874 cents a bushel. At the same time we had an advisory board composed of seven members. Because of the minister's love for the farmers, I would have expected him to make certain recommendations to the government. After a short time we find that by order in council the wheat board was put out of operation. That was a board set up under statutory authority, but by order in council it was declared inoperative unless the price of wheat went below 90 cents a bushel. In that way the farmers were deprived of the benefits they derived from the operations of the wheat board.
After a while we find that the price was cut down to 80 cents a bushel-again because of the minister's love for the farmers. Later on, it was cut down to 60 cents-but possibly because of an election in the offing it was raised again to 70 cents. Therefore the net result was that we had the government to thank for an increase of 10 cents a bushel in the price of wheat.
I do not agree with that policy, and I say that the government should do something drastic about it. The farmers are not protected in the prices of articles they have to buy. So far as I am aware, we are now paying higher prices for farm machinery than we have ever paid before. What is the government doing about the matter? A House of Commons committee investigated the price of farm machinery, and the Saskatchewan legislature carried out a further investigation. But nothing is being done about the matter. Therefore it is up to this government, having control over that industry, to do something about it.
I might make mention of a number of other points, but I fear I have not time to deal with them. There are many points to be considered in connection with the wheat problem.
The Address-Mr. Fair

I admit it is a serious question, but before any solution is reached, it will have to be attacked from an angle different from that from which it is being attacked to-day.
The minister is very good at figures, provided they are not checked. Because we had a surplus of wheat on November 14, he proceeded to look ahead five years, to cut down our yield, to raise the consumptive capacity of other countries, and as a result according to his figures he would have a shortage within five years. Had there been an increase in our carry-over, I am sure we would have had a drop of three or four cents a bushel in the price of wheat, had it not been pegged. I have seen that happen before. But because it is on the other side of the ledger we do not find any appreciable increase in the prices offered on the Winnipeg exchange.
Before I forget it, I should like once more to ask the government to follow the example set by the British government in connection with the Winnipeg exchange. This government is careful to do as the British government is doing in some respects. The action was taken by the British government shortly after the war started, and if it was good business for them, why in the name of common sense is it not good for Canada? Perhaps some of the friends of the exchange who happen to sit in the government might not enjoy things quite as well if the grain exchange were closed.
The farmers to-day no longer resemble the goose that laid the golden egg. Until they are more prosperous, there shall be no prosperity in Canada.
We have heard a great deal about unity, but in many instances I think it is just so much trash, as the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) said yesterday. I think we would be well advised to stay away from these nice phrases and get down to business.
I agree with the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) when he says that in order to solve the wheat problem it will be necessary for the four large wheat exporting countries, New Zealand, Australia, the United States and Canada, to get together and arrive at an agreement setting export quotas for each country. I do not contend that production should be restricted, because weather conditions may vary and we do not know when we may have a shortage of wheat. But restrictions on deliveries of wheat could easily be agreed upon, based upon previous years' experience. Should we have a long crop, then our farmers could store it on the farms; should we have a short crop, they would then have ample crop insurance.

The government should get away from the idea of telling us that there is no money with which to pay a decent price for wheat. At the present time we are spending for war purposes, for purposes of destruction, something like S3,000,000 a day, but we cannot find any money to subsidize wheat production, or the production of cheese and; bacon. I am not speaking now just for the farmer of western Canada because I realize that conditions all across the country are not at all satisfactory. Anyone who has listened1 to the different speeches delivered during the past three weeks will readily recognize that fact.
I submit that the government should take over all grain handling facilities. As has been pointed out, the grain companies are making large profits, particularly out of the storage of grain. The situation being as it is now, the farmers are compelled to put grain into the elevators and keep them full in order to obtain a little money with which to carry on. The government is spending millions at the present time to set up war industries and have them operated by people experienced in those particular lines of business, and there is no reason in the world why the same principle could not be applied to the storage of wheat. Wheat is just as vital, if not more so, to our war effort. The government should pay a price of not less than $1 a bushel for 2,000 bushels from each, farmer. If a farmer had less than that, he would receive this price for all his crop; if he had more, he would receive this price for 2.000 bushels and sell the remainder at world market prices. Today world, market prices are ruinous to the agricultural industry. Being ruinous to agriculture, they are ruinous to Canada.
There have been a number of complaints this year about the grading of grain. The question of cracked wheat has come up time and again. Under the present set-up, if No. 1 grain is three per cent or more cracked, the grade is reduced to No. 2. On certain occasions the farmers cannot prevent grain from being cracked and they are robbed of a grade, which means three cents a bushel in addition to dockage, which may amount to three per cent or more.
The question of tough and damp grain is an important one in my province. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) has done something to solve this problem, and I should like to give him credit for that. I think we would be giving him credit for many other things were it not for the fact that the rest of the government seem to be against his doing more. He cannot do just what he would like to do.

The Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
He knows the conditions and I think he, having lived in the west for a number of years, would do what was right if he were permitted to do so by his colleagues. As I said, tough and damp grain is causing quite a little worry to the people of my province. As I understand the regulations, when a man has delivered his quota of dry grain, in order to get cars in which to ship his tough grain he must sign that it is tough. Although the moisture content may be just above the dry line, he is deprived of the right to get straight grades for his grain. I believe this is why some farmers hold back their grain and take the chance of having it spoil.
Time and time again we have been told about the millions of dollars that have been spent in western Canada, and some seem to consider this as a kind of relief. If we take the figure of 90 cents a bushel at the farm, which was agreed, to by the Minister of Agriculture on August 2 of this year, as a basis, the Canadian wheat growers have contributed approximately S220.000.000 in losses on growing grain this year. This is the contribution which has been made to the railroad companies, the elevator companies, the banks, the mortgage companies and all other industry in Canada. This fact has not been brought out before, and I now bring it to the attention of those who seem to think that the government has been doing too much for the west. I ask them to go back to 1930, take the costs of production through the different years and compare them with the amounts received by the farmer. I believe the result will take away the smiles from their faces. They will see that western Canada has contributed far more to the Canadian economy than it has been given credit for.
I suggest to the government that they take heed of some of the financial programmes *which have been brought to their attention by this group. I suggest that they forget all about imaginary inflation, or go to the dictionary to find out just what it means. It seems that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) and his advisers have not yet learned the real meaning of inflation. The people should learn more about money because money controls the life of Canada to-day. In the past, shortage of money has retarded our war activities, and I believe' that the money managers are to blame to-day for the western farmer not being able to get an advance on his wheat on the farm. When I say that money controls the life of Canada, I think I am quite right. I have only two more words to say and I ask the government to investigate their meaning-they are "social credit."


Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker,
I must first congratulate the mover (Mr. Claxton) and the seconder (Mr. Jutras) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne upon the manner in which they performed their duty, and more especially must I commend them for the appeal they made for unity and their exhortation of the Canadian people for the utmost effort and sacrifice to win this war.
I must now pay tribute to the people of Great Britain for their courage and fortitude and determination to put down, in the words of Mr. Chamberlain, this evil man, this abortion of deceit. We shall certainly profit by their example.
I wish also to pay tribute to the women of Canada for the splendid way in which they have set to work in Canada's war effort, and more particularly I would pay a tribute to the Conservative Women's Association of my own riding of St. Paul's for the excellent work they are doing in connection with the Red Cross. They have been incorporated undei the War Charities Act and are working night and day in connection with this work.
The speech from the throne advises us that we have been summoned at this time in order that opportunity may be accorded for the fullest consideration and discussion of Canada's war effort and of national problems which war has served to intensify or create, and that we shall be fully advised of Canada's cooperation with the United Kingdom and of relations with the United States. The speech also told us that measures would be submitted to the house such as seem necessary to his excellency's advisers for the welfare of the country and for the prosecution of the war to the utmost of our strength.
Up to date no measures have been submitted to the house, and certainly there has not been the fullest opportunity accorded to examine and discuss Canada's war effort. To my mind the debate as it has progressed has been more or less futile, and we shall really not get anywhere until the house gets into committee of the whole and actual measures are before us.
The people of Canada want leadership at this time. They do not want any soothing syrup, but that is what they have been getting here. We came here to get the information which the public are demanding but which the government attempts to give to the people of Canada only by way of statements by the various ministers. Under this procedure it will be almost impossible to arrive at the full implication of the facts, and there can be no opportunity for constructive criticism

The Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
in this regard until we get into committee of the whole on definite measures brought down by the government.
Most of what has been accomplished by the present procedure could have been accomplished simply by the ministers handing their statements to the director of public information for dissemination to the members and the press. But now that we are here, I think all the ministers should make their statements. The Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock), the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud), and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gibson) should each make a statement, because the house would like to know just what those ministers are doing, and then when we come back in perhaps two months' time we shall be able to cross-examine the ministers across the floor of the house.
No doubt a certain amount of useful information has been obtained and a great deal of constructive criticism has been offered. But one thing that worries us is that the government are not seeking the help of every member of the house. The idea that the government can do no wrong seems to be the ministry's main thought, and they get very touchy when they are criticized. They do not seem to understand that the members of the opposition criticize the government without thinking of politics at all. I suppose the government are so steeped in politics themselves in their war effort that they cannot conceive of anybody feeling otherwise, but I assure them that we as an opposition are just as fervent, in fact more fervent in our desire to forward the prosecution of the war than any member of the government or anybody else.
The government of the day have, however, decided to carry on Canada's war effort in this partisan manner, and on their shoulders must rest the responsibility and the blame for all the sins of omission of which they may be guilty, and we as an opposition must also measure up to our obligations as such. I predict that when the history of this government's partisan war effort is written and the facts come to light, it will not be the pretty picture that we are led to believe. If it should so happen that any serious reverses come or that the war is unduly prolonged, this government will go down in history as wilfully negligent in not utilizing to the full the services of every member of the house regardless of his political colour. The government are fighting a Liberal war and the public know it; that is one of the main reasons for the lack of confidence which the people of the country have in the government to-day.
The truth is that the government's great concern up to date has been political success,

success in partisan politics. It has corralled all sources of public information so far as the war is concerned and keeps them under its thumb just as rigidly as any dictator would. The press can get information only through the government, and the government can punish if the press offends.
I must give a clean bill of health to the radio corporation; nevertheless the radio is being used at the present time as an instrument of this administration, and it is being used ruthlessly and to the full to help the administration politically, day in and day out. That is a misuse of the radio. There are far better uses to which the radio can be put than that. Not only that, but the misuse of the radio in this way makes the public suspicious that we are not doing everything we can to fight the war, that, instead, we are only fighting political issues. This uneasiness and suspicion in the minds of the public is soothed by various reports of one kind or another which are given out from time to time by the director of public information. Certainly all is not as it should be, and it is the duty of every member of this house to use his prerogative and criticize. There is nothing like honest criticism to spur a government on to further effort, and as a matter of fact there should be no further effort possible. It ought to be a full-out effort that we are making now.
We have been told that the government have a long range programme and that they have been working night and day planning to put it into effect, but certain circumstances belie that statement. For example, since the beginning of the war we have had a camp at Camp Borden, and all this time we have known that there would be a tremendous number of men there. At the present time the number is between 16,000 and 17,000. About two weeks ago 239 men were in hospital, and there were no orderlies to look after them. Their food had to be prepared by only four men. The patients who were in bed had to get up and fetch their own food, or, if they were too sick to move, it was left to one of their comrades who was not so sick to get it for them.
The regimental doctors endeavoured to make some provision in their own lines for sick cases. But that was not what it should be under conditions of that kind. The doctors have had to fight all the time in order to get proper hospital accommodation at Camp Borden. The first result of their efforts was that a seventy-five bed hospital was provided. Why should they have had to fight for something which is so necessary? In a place like that, a good-sized hospital is necessary so that one can cope with contagious diseases by

The Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
ensuring proper segregation. I understand that at last a hospital of a thousand beds is to be built. But when one considers that it is usual to make arrangements on the basis of five per cent of sickness in a camp of this size, it does not look to me as though there had been any planning so far as that phase of the work is concerned. We have been at war fifteen months, yet only a short time ago was it decided to build this hospital.
Moreover, there are five ambulances up there, and they have travelled 150,000 miles taking to the city of Toronto those sick men who could not be accommodated at Camp Borden. Again, there is no operating room. Who ever heard of a town of 16,000 or 17,000 people not having hospital accommodation and a proper operating room? In cases of acute appendicitis and of fractures of various kinds, rest is essential, and yet it has been necessary to convey men suffering from these ailments all the way to Toronto before they could be medically treated. This does not look to me like planning. The record in these cases has been good, but that is due, no doubt, more to good luck and medical skill.
Another case of lack of planning has been brought by me to the attention of both the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) and the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie),, and I understand that something is being done about it, although much time has gone by. Take the case of a man in the Canadian active service force who becomes sick and is put in category E: that means he is discharged from the army. Until recently there was not administrative machinery to take care of that man and his family during his disability.
To cite an actual case, a man had to return to his home town and, with his family, go on relief in that town; not only that, he had to accept charity for medical attention. There was no planning there that. T can see. although I understand that some arrangement is being made to take care of conditions of that kind. Is the morale of the people being maintained when that sort of thing is going on? It certainly is not. It is quite true that the Department of National Defence refers a category E case of that kind to the Department of Pensions and National Health for treatment, but it cannot be denied that in many instances, during the course of the treatment, the soldier or officer has been informed that he has been discharged from the Canadian active service force as of a given date, and notwithstanding the fact that he requires prolonged treatment, he receives no pay and his family are destitute.
It must be expected that members of the Canadian active service force will require hospital treatment for disabilities which, to use the wording of the act, cannot be attributed to service as such; nevertheless these men should be retained on the army strength until such time as the treatment is completed, and then, if it is decided by medical authority that they are unable to meet the requirements of the existing medical standard, naturally they would be discharged from the force.
Let us not forget the experiences of the men who fought in the last war. It is only reasonable that care should be taken to prevent pensionable disabilities from increasing, as well as to reduce by proper treatment the amount of pensionable disability. Certainly it is in the public interest that this should be done. But I do not think any men who require treatment should be discharged from the army until such time as the pension commission has given a ruling. Why should men and their families suffer during that time from lack of income?
The men who served in the last war fought to make Canada a place for heroes, not only heroes of war, but heroes of everyday life, to live in. We have always been able to find money enough to provide for railway deficits and for public works at election times. But when it came to the claims of the men who served overseas, of their dependants, and of their widows, it was always necessary to fight in order to get a little more for them. It was invariably pointed out how much such a measure would cost, how much more the people of Canada would have to pay. At the present time we are not thinking very much about what the people will have to pay; that is not the first consideration.
At this time men and women are fighting for Canada, and we must give them something more than lip-service. We need to remember those lines in Binyon's " Ode to the Fallen"; I think it might be well if every hon. member would realize their significance:
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
Let us see to it that we remember them. Let us not forget as we forgot last time.
I wish to touch for just a moment on the question of leave with transportation for the soldiers. The question will be a serious one this winter. Other hon. members have made

The Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paid's)
suggestions on this subject. Soldiers should be given leave periodically. It might be easier to give leave more frequently to those who are closer to their homes. I suggest that leave be awarded on a basis which will allow the soldier a period of five days at home. I do not wish to suggest how often leaves should be given, but a system of this kind would make for happier families and a more contented corps of men while these men are on this side of the water. Certainly they should have five days at home periodically and their fares should be paid there and back.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer, although it may seem a small one. All of us are able to get three hundred cigarettes for a dollar for the soldiers overseas, but some of these soldiers have no friends at home, or at any rate not many, who can send cigarettes to them. I have received several letters from them, and it seems odd to me that these soldiers cannot purchase overseas the cigarettes they require for the same price at which we can send them from here. Let me quote from a few letters:
The purchasing of smokes in this country is certainly beyond the buying power of the Canadian troops. The prices are as follows: Cigarettes, per package of 20, one shilling and sixpence; tobacco, one-sixteenth of a pound, one shilling and threepence.
For the boys who are fortunate enough to have friends or relations in Canada, this course is overcome to some extent. This position, however, only represents a small percentage of the troops. Could you not do something in parliament so that Canadian troops could purchase smokes at or near the price for which they can be purchased in Canada?
That is not unreasonable, and I am surprised that the government has not done something about it before. I quote from another letter:
Luxuries, smokes et cetera are expensive here, just about out of the regular sapper's reach for regular consumption, except on pay day or the day after.
_ Cigarettes at the present time are hardly in the category of luxuries. They are almost a necessity in the army. I commend this thought to the government, and I suggest that they see to it that the purchase of cigarettes be put within the reach of these soldiers.
We hear many stories about lack of equipment. I would be the last one to criticize the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) when he says that we will supply Britain first and do without, ourselves. This is right, but surely small quantities of equipment can be allotted to various units for training. One can hardly understand why there should be a shortage of clothing in Canada to-day in view of the statement of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) in the House of Commons on July 30,

1940, at page 2118 of Hansard, where he is reported as having said that production of boots and shoes had been stepped up to
30,000	pairs a week and that production of battle dress was reaching 20,000 suits a week, blankets being produced at a rate of 30,000 a week, and so on. Then, again, on November 20, as reported at page 265 of Hansard of the present session, he gives production figures for battle dress blouses, trousers, blankets and so on. One can hardly understand, I say, why, if these figures are correct, there is a shortage for any of the troops in Canada at the present time.
The public must know more about what is being produced. I accept the minister's statement when he says, as reported at page 258 of Hansard, that a recent cable from the dominion's office in Great Britain stresses the importance of carefully guarding production figures for munitions and aeroplanes. I accept that statement as coming from the dominion's office, but I should like to know the origin of it and who instigated it. I cannot reconcile that cable with the information that comes over the radio from time to time. The other evening all hon. members heard, I have no doubt, the announcement that the United States bomb sights had been delivered to Great Britain and that arrangements had been made for the exchange of bombers, how many bombers and engines were moving from one place to another, and so on. A short time ago we were advised by radio of the exact number of aeroplanes delivered to Great Britain in a certain month from the United States.
We have been told by the minister, or rather a statement was made to the press as to how many tanks were being made and how many more will be made in the future; and then the Minister of Munitions tells us that 25-pounders will be made in a Quebec gun plant in October. I quote the Toronto Daily Star of August 22, wherein he is reported as having made a statement in that regard. As a matter of fact, more information can be obtained from United States papers than in this House of Commons. Let hon. members read any of them and they will see.
Of course the public are interested in knowing what we are going to produce, but what the public want to know is what we are producing and what we have delivered. Everything in the way of production seems to be in the future. All one has to do is to read the minister's statement to come to the conclusion that he is trying to do a great deal more than any one man can accomplish. The minister admits, or he admitted to me the other day, that he is working fifteen or

The Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
sixteen hours a day. There is no fact-blindness here as far as the minister is concerned; but if he thinks he can do all his jobs as efficiently as these jobs ought to be done in war time, he is certainly suffering from an acute case of fact-blindness. I know he is endeavouring to correct his mistakes from time to time, and he is served by a number of fine men. But in some of the others we have not the same confidence.
There is no doubt about it that the minister is a splendid administrator of the department that has control of broadcasting. I think he is a splendid man for that job, but he must have relief from some of the other jobs he has at the present time. The minister is also policy-maker and cabinet liaison for the most gigantic industrial programme ever undertaken in Canada. If anyone asked him who was the boss of this or that department, he would say, "I am ". He is trying to be the administrative head of that programme, actively conducting and controlling the biggest of all big businesses. What he should have is an outstanding business executive who will be given full power to deal in a non-partisan way with the coordination of this biggest of all big businesses-war supplies.
I come now to the thirty-day training scheme. To my mind, in the present set-up it is a colossal waste and nothing more or less than a political sop to the public. It has become necessary because of lack of leadership on the part of the government in the past. If the facts of what would be required of Canadians should Canada become involved in the war had been brought home to the public in days gone by, and if since the beginning of the war, in the words of the amendment moved by my leader (Mr. Hanson, York-Sunbury), the government had not continued to soothe the Canadian people regarding the war effort of the nation, thereby creating a false sense of security when a clear-cut call to action is desperately needed, I say that this scheme would not have been necessary. If the government had not done this but, instead, had faced realities, this proposed expenditure of $50,000,000 a year for this short-time training would not have been needed. There is no doubt that the thirty-day training scheme has done some good. A holiday always does a man good, when it is spent under goodi conditions, with good food and good discipline; but it is rather an expensive holiday as far as the country is concerned. Let us face the facts. The Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner) said in the course of a radio speech:
.	. . in one year from now a man will be
needed to use every gun, operate every plane and drive every truck made, and in the front line of battle.
Think that over. What confusion there must be in the inner circles of the cabinet concerning the major strategy to be followed in connection with this war! Certainly we see signs of the indecision and lack of leadership which has characterized this government ever since the outbreak of war. To reach this conclusion it is necessary only to read a few extracts from recent speeches. On November 12 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) declared that the first duty of each part of the empire was its own local defence. Then he proceeded to say :
That is the policy we have pursued from the beginning, the policy that we are pursuing to-day, and the policy that we intend to pursue so long as we are responsible for the administration of Canada's war effort.
That is his policy, and he says nothing about preparing to man every gun, operate every plane and drive every truck in the front line of battle. Three days later the Minister of National Defence, enlarging on what had been done in Canada, said:
And let me remind my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), who seemed to think that we were attaching too much importance to Canadian defence, that I stressed in July that our front line was the island fortress of the British isles. . . .
I can say to the house that those principles on which we were working then are the principles we are working on to-day. Any change has been only to emphasize more than ever the vital interest we feel in helping to hold and strengthen that front line on the English channel.
Certainly that seems to me a different policy from the one enunciated by the Prime Minister. A little later the Minister of National Defence went on to say:
The war committee of the cabinet has had the matter of the length of the training period under review repeatedly in connection with the man-power problem, and we are now considering the further step of lengthening the training period to four months and reducing the aggregate number of men to be called from civil occupations in the year. . . .
Such an extension of time and reduction in numbers ought to help to prevent undue disturbance in industry.
This seems to be a sort of half-way measure, but again it is a different policy. Now I come again to the statement of the Minister of National War Services, made over the radio on November 17, in which he took an opposite stand. He said:
I think it would be wise to stop much of this talk against military training for men who are making planes, munitions, arms and ships and remember that in one year from now a man will be needed to use every gun, operate every plane and drive every truck made, and in the front line of battle.


Thomas Vien: I must remind the hon. member that he has exhausted the time at his disposal.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Just a few minutes more, and I shall have finished.


Thomas Vien: I shall assume that the hon. member has unanimous consent.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: We must have
some way of counteracting those foreign broadcasts. For that reason, if for no other, it is vital that as quickly as possible Canada should install a shortwave broadcasting station.
Let us consider another angle of the problem. What would be the result if anything happened to the British Broadcasting Corporation. They are now broadcasting to those countries to the south of us, but I am wondering what would happen if their programmes were either completely or partly shut off. It seems to me that as part of her war effort Canada might help Great Britain by erecting a station such as I have suggested. This should be done quickly. Under the frequency reservations provided by the Berne conventions, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation were allotted ten bands. I have the details here, but I shall not take time to place them before the house. With the exception of one which is not much good, through lack of use by us and encroachment or squatting by others, these have all been lost to Canada.
I am told on good authority, however, that we might use the 25 metre and 31 metre bands, and the use of those bands would permit us to reach practically any point in the world. The installation, with directional antennae, would cost about half a million dollars, if we act quickly. That is not very much money for something which is practically a necessity. The cost of installation is increasing; that is the trouble. I cannot urge this too strongly as a war measure of the first importance. Not only is it of importance to Canada, but it is a way whereby we may give assistance to Great Britain by providing her with a duplicate system.
I have only one more point to bring out-


Thomas Vien: I understood the hon. member had leave to continue for only a few more minutes. He has now spoken for more than five minutes over his allotted time.


Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
applause of hon. members of the opposition, because I realize it is for me. I was almost going to suggest that it was eleven o'clock, because I did not know whether or not the bands were going to be brought into play. I want to be brief, because I understand another hon. member is to follow me.
I am not going to be selfish in my praise and mention merely the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. On the contrary, I am going to praise all hon. members who have made speeches. I think most of them have

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank
been very good. Most have been constructive. If a member cannot be critical and at the same time constructive, I do not think he should be elected at all.
I was particularly interested in the observations of the hon. member (Mr. Ross, St. Paul's) who immediately preceded me, because he gave me something to talk about. He pointed out that this was not an ordinary session, but rather that it was a session of campaigning. From what he said I can well understand why he called it a campaign session, because he took special pains particularly to praise the war effort of the good ladies in his constituency who are working for the Red Cross. It is obvious that he is beginning his campaign already.
The hon. member who preceded me accused the Liberal party of playing politics. During my short term in the house I have come to the conclusion that each and every member in it, and particularly the lady member, is a good fellow, irrespective of party. I note the hon. member said that we are steeped in party politics, and that the party to which he belongs is as keen to win the war as we are. I wish I had time to tell him something about the partisan politics of the Liberal administration in British Columbia-because every appointee has been a Conservative.
When the hon. member states that the war effort of his party is as keen as that of ours, I shall give him credit for his statement. In that connection I shall read the observations of a member who, although not the house leader of the Conservative party, is the organizer for that party in Canada. The Vancouver Province, the Conservative paper of British Columbia, quotes that gentleman in its issue of October 21. We of the Liberal party do not claim to possess all the patriotism there is in the world; we do not contend that we are the only people who want to win the war; we do not contend that we are the only people who can win the war, but possibly the present organizer of the Conservative party has a greater right than we. I intend to quote him.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Is he the organizer?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am promoting the hon. gentleman. I quote:
John R. MacNicol, president of the dominion Conservative association, took the federal government warmly to task Saturday.
And again:
Mr. MacNicol affirmed the Conservative party's central objective was to win the war. " And we're going to win it," he exclaimed, " because God is on our side."
That is from the Vancouver Province. I wonder who was on their side for the last

ten years. Reference has been made to lack of preparation for this war, but personally I do not think any government can be blamed for lack of preparation prior to a war. The people are to blame because they allow no government to prepare properly. There is one member in this house who can claim more credit than any other member. He does not happen to belong to the party to which I belong, but I want to congratulate the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Bence) upon sending into oblivion the worst detriment to Canada's war defence we ever had, the former hon. member who said, " not one dollar for national defence."
Certainly mistakes have been made in the past, and no doubt many will be made in the future. Do not think I am not going to criticize the government for some of the mistakes they have made. They had better not make them again in the future. In my opinion many of the mistakes that have been made could have been eliminated had more attention been paid to the elected members of parliament rather than to the so-called dollar-a-year men who are cluttering up the streets of Ottawa. That is about all they are doing. We have been elected, rightly or wrongly, by the popular vote. We should be taken more into the confidence of the government; our advice should be asked more often instead of the advice of some of these men who could not be elected in British Columbia to the office of pound-keeper. They are responsible to no one, and in many instances they are not responsible at all. I could quote what other members from British Columbia have said in this regard, especially the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Mayhew) and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), but I shall not take up further time.
I think a member should criticize his own government, but he should do it in a fair manner. I do not intend to take up the time of the house by talking of someone who has not a pair of socks or has only two shirts. I was in the army for a number of years; I have been out of the army for a number of years, and I still have only two shirts.
I have another suggestion to make, one which may not be popular with private members. This house should be kept in almost continuous session. It would mean a financial loss to members from the far west to be kept here, but we asked to be elected to represent the people during war time and we should be ready to stay here. In this connection, I should like to quote two people. It has been quite popular this session to quote a gentleman who is probably the

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank
greatest living statesman, present company excepted. I refer to the Prime Minister of Great Britain. Many other members have quoted Mr. Churchill, and I should like to quote his opinion on the continuous sitting of parliament even when it is not known when a bomb may drop into the chamber. This is what he said:
I urge the House of Commons not to lose sight of its democratic duty of giving guidance to the nation and, if necessary, correction to the executive.
In other words, the Prime Minister of Great Britain is asking the members to offer guidance to the executive council. He continues:
To-day, in inaugurating this new session of parliament, we proclaim the faith and sincerity of our resolve to keep vital and active, even in the midst of our struggle for life, even under fire of the enemy, those parliamentary institutions which have served us so well . . . and which have proved themselves the most flexible instruments for securing progress, carrying forward at the same time the traditions and glories of the past which, in this solemn moment of world history, are at once our proudest assertion of British freedom and the expression of our unconquerable national will.
The Prime Minister of Great Britain contends that the House of Commons there should be in almost constant session. I should now like to quote the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King). I got a little applause from my left when I quoted the last gentleman and I may not get so much from that direction this time. In my opinion the Prime Minister is the one and only man in public life in Canada to-day who can continue to keep this country unified under present conditions. I give that as my own opinion, but it is the opinion of one representing a constituency which came back into the Liberal fold in the last election for the first time in fifteen years.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is a long time.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I will be here
for a long time; do not worry about that. This is what the Prime Minister said, as reported on page 43 of Hansard:
We face a future unknown and unpredictable. We cannot tell what calamities may strike us before the present year is ended or what perils may be upon us in 1941 or 1942. Failure to view the situation as a whole, and to take account of all conceivable possibilities, might be fraught with the gravest dangers. There must be no surrender to the insistent clamour of those who refuse to look beyond the problems of the moment.
I ask hon. members to notice his words as reported on page 43:
I have sometimes felt that, forced as we are to deal with questions arising from day to day, we lose a certain perspective of the trend of events.
That is the reason why I say that this house should be kept more or less in constant session, irrespective of whether it pleases us as private members. That is a Liberal principle, at least the one upon which I was brought up, that we must have parliamentary rule at all times.
Personally I think the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) has made excellent progress so far. As I said before, I am not concerned about mistakes which have been made in the past provided they are not repeated in the future. I think I can say quite modestly that I know something about war, having served through the last one. My sympathies are certainly with the present enlisted men. But I do not think the Department of National Defence has made sufficient use of officers and non-commissioned officers who served in the last war, for training purposes at the present time. I think the government has made a tremendous mistake, and I sincerely hope the Minister of National Defence will see that this is corrected.
Second, I do not think the government is paying enough attention to the value of highways as a part of our national defence effort. Each month I receive a book containing details of contracts1 worth millions and millions of dollars which have been awarded in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. In my opinion a few million dollars should be spent on what I believe is a most necessary defence measure, that of having a trans-Canada highway. On the Pacific coast, and I know something about it, we are served by two railways and no roads. If a certain country went to war with us, those two railroads would be put out of action within twenty minutes. Would it not be wise for the government of the day, as a national defence measure, to use some of these millions to build the Agassiz-Haig road and to complete the Princeton highway. Hon. members can make up their minds that if war was declared on Canada, our two railways could be put out of action by any twenty-year old boy within twenty minutes. Then there would be no way to get supplies to the defence works that have been built on the Pacific coast. I think not the slightest attention has been paid to that fact by the government.
My hon. friend who preceded me apparently does not think very much of the thirty-day training plan. I think the camps have done wonderful work and I am proud of the way in which the boys have been trained out in my riding. True, they are not soldiers, and nobody ever suggested that one could make a soldier in thirty days. I had the privilege and pleasure of serving with some boys not

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank
of my own unit but from Toronto, and one could not make a soldier out of them in four years.
One suggestion I would make to the government in this connection is that we are going to lose all the benefit of this thirty-day training if we do not make greater provision for the boys continuing their training in the non-permanent militia units or in active service units. I urge the Minister of National Defence to create more militia units and more active service units. We cannot turn loose these young men who have had thirty days' training and expect them to retain all they have learnt and to retain their interest in the army. In my district there is no opportunity whatsoever for an old soldier or a young boy to join either the militia or the army. This government must accept responsibility for that, and it is a grave responsibility. Therefore I strongly urge the Minister of National Defence to create more active service and non-active service units so that these boys can continue their training.
I want to say a word about the discontent that is growing among the soldiers in Canada. There is nothing that breeds discontent more among soldiers than the fact that they are not on active service. Perhaps when they get into the front line they will wish they were not on active service. At all events a soldier in camp is apt to become discontented, and nothing is more likely to breed discontent among the soldiers than the fact that we are saying to them: We cannot afford to give you a free pass on the train to go home and see your family. In my opinion that is ridiculous. We own one of the railroads, and the other railroad presumes that it owns Canada. It is time we should show it that it does not, and I strongly urge upon the government that now is the time to Show the boys that we really appreciate their efforts-.
The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) and the member who preceded me criticized the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner) for allegedly suggesting that a factory manager might have to be changed if he could not get the action required in connection with some of the boys taking their training in camp. I am tired of hearing about these poor boys in the factories. Many of them are making more money than they ever made in their lives before, while the boys who have joined up are getting $1.30 a day to protect the boys in the factories. I would suggest to the hon. member for Parkdale that if we taxed some of those immense war industries in his riding and the city of Toronto which are making more money than

they ever made before, we could easily find the money for free transportation for our soldiers.
Unquestionably someone fell down with regard to the huts at Nanaimo. I understand that this mistake has been rectified, but it should never have been permitted to happen. We produce in British Columbia 53 per cent of Canada's lumber production, and we have the largest -coal -mines -in the Dominion of Canada. Yet we have more unemployment in British Columbia than in any other province. Whoever it was that was responsible for the blunder in connection with the huts at Nanaimo should have been not only fired but interned.
The time to prepare for the return of the soldiers of this war is to-day, not -to-morrow. We all know that tremendous mistakes were made after the last war by both parties; I do not say intentionally, but we ought to take steps now to see that those mistakes are not repeated. I think the private members of the house should be called in -to serve on committees where they could give the benefit of their experience in deciding what should be done to look after the boys when they come back, because I warn this house and the government that the conditions which have existed for the last twenty years will never be permitted- to exist in the twenty years following the present war.
Moreover, I think it is high time that the government took into consideration this mere pittance of $20 a month that we are giving as a pension to the aged. That amount should be increased. Surely if $20 a month were required to feed an aged person before the war, it ought to be obvious that with war prices, the sum of $20 is not sufficient to-day. A man or woman seventy years of age cannot use that money to advantage in the next world, so let us give them an increase now at a reduced age limit.
I wish to speak for a moment or two now of the junior employees of the civil service, and I can safely do so because there are no civil servants in my riding, I think I am the only person in the riding who has a government job. The federal government is expected to set an example to the employers of Canada, and we as members of the federal house are supposed to set an example to the provincial houses and to municipal governments in our treatment of our employees. Yet in the civil service there are junior employees in the city of Ottawa receiving $55 a month on which they are trying to live away from home. We expect them to live as decent Canadians on $55 a month. We should be ashamed of ourselves, and as a private member I am ashamed of myself. I

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank
take my breakfast in a little restaurant- I live in a room because every apartment is taken by these one-dollar-a-year men who clutter up the city-and in that little restaurant I see these girls, junior employees in the civil service, making a breakfast of a cup of coffee and a cigarette because that is all they can afford; and at supper I see them having a bottle of coca-cola and a cigarette because they are getting only $55 a month to live on. This government has nothing to be proud of in that fact, and I am not particularly proud of having to go back to my constituents and say that as a government we are paying $55 a month to boys and girls to live on. I hope the government will tell some of their $30,000 a year treasury officials that a girl cannot live on $55 a month.
I come from a rural riding, and I should like to speak for a minute on rural conditions in my riding. We have received absolutely no benefit from war expenditures. Like the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Turgeon), I am not complaining particularly about war industries not being located in my riding, for it is not particularly suited to the establishment of such industries, although during the last war factory after factory in British Columbia were turning out munitions; but to the best of my knowledge we have not a solitary one turning out munitions for this war. I read in the paper to-day that somebody had suggested in the house that these ships which were being built on the lakes should be sent down to the St. Lawrence before they were frozen in. so that they might be completed and delivered. We have shipyards on the Pacific coast which are working at only half their capacity, and it never freezes there. Let the government give us orders for some of these ships it wants built, and we will build them.
With regard to milk, it may surprise some hon. members to know what the price was in September, 1939. In my riding milk is paid for on a butter-fat basis, and prices are set by pooling the price return of fluid milk, canned milk and butter and cheese. The price in September, 1939, was 35 cents a pound butter-fat; in September, 1940, it was 37 cents-up only 2 cents. That is after one year of war. I hope some of these great industrialists in the east will listen to that. But the price of bran in November, 1939, was $27 a ton, and in November, 1940, it was $29, or up $2. Is the dairy farmer getting anything on that?
For grade A large eggs, in August, 1939, we got 26 cents a dozen; in August, 1940, the price was two cents down, while the laying mash cost 10 cents per hundred pounds more. We are sending lumber by
the thousands of cars monthly to be shipped from the Atlantic coast, and the cars come back empty. The farmers of the prairies have millions upon millions of bushels of wheat which they cannot sell; yet we, as a "race" or some other classification, have the stupidity to let those cars come back empty instead of taking the grain out to the Pacific coast to be used. We could profitably produce another $5,000,000 worth of eggs. I want the house to remember this. Last year we exported only $90,000 worth of eggs from British Columbia. We could produce profitably for export $5,000,000 worth of eggs for Great Britain if we got a reasonable rate on our grain.
I recently heard an hon. member from Ontario, I believe it was the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser), remark that the west was getting all the grease at the expense of Ontario. Possibly the west is getting the grease, but I want to point out to that hon. member that the industrial centres in Ontario have been getting the gravy for the last fifty years. I do not wish to depreciate in any way the efforts of the wheat grower to secure justice in this house, but there are also farmers in the maritimes and in British Columbia who should have equal consideration. I hope that the prairie farmers get their just dues.
We are making a new effort in my particular district. I am glad that the minister concerned is here. I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture and of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner) is absent from the house at the moment-not that I want to have any argument with him, because I notice that a number of my hon. friends on the left have tried that. We are endeavouring in my riding to establish bulb-growing. Those who are familiar with the subject know that it takes from five to twenty-five years to become established in the bulb industry, and some of the bulbs may cost $100 or $150; that is your initial stock; the bulb has to be divided and re-divided, and you gradually build up until you get an acreage large enough to enable you to ship bulbs. That may take from five to twenty-five years, according to the amount of capital.
As I have said, we are trying to establish that industry in British Columbia. In no way will it compete with farmers elsewhere. There never was a time, when, owing to world conditions, it was so practicable as at present to establish ourselves in this line. While our farmers are establishing themselves, striving to gain an existence and to become independent, they depend to a great extent on the sale of cut flowers. This
The Address-Mr. Cruickshank

year they got the magnificent sum of 4 cents a dozen for cut daffodils, out of which they have to pay for cultivating, cutting, packing and freight. I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) is taking this in, because he is going to have a long interview with me the day after the house rises, when he will not be so busy. The farmer gets 4 cents a dozen, and what have we done? We have allowed him an exemption up to $500 from sales tax on cut flowers and bulbs, and if he sells $501 worth the 8 per cent tax is applied and he must pay $40.08 sales tax. I know that this war has to be paid for, and I understand that the primary reason why hon. members are here is to find ways and means of winning the war and paying for it. But I suggest that it is not sound economy, it is not to the best interests of Canada, to force men who may become established in this line into the industrial centres by taxing them to pay for the war effort, when there are other ways of doing it.
There is one thing I want to suggest before I close. I do not know how much time I have, but I do not believe anyone else wants the next five minutes, so I will go on. We have in British Columbia a tremendous number of unemployed. We are not reaping any of the benefits of war industry. There is one way whereby the government could aid us, provided we have the resources we are reported to have in the Turner valley. I understand

I have never heard it contradicted by reliable authority, and I am speaking not of these dollar-a-year men, but of independent, reliable men-that we have enormous quantities of gas and oil in the Turner valley. At the present moment one thing Hitler is worried about in connection with his war effort is his supply of oil, and every hon. member knows that the greatest worry the British government has to-day is to protect its oil supplies. If we have the oil in the Turner valley, in my opinion now is the time, not after the war reaches our shores, to pipe it to the Pacific coast. We have the men; we are preparing at the coast for the time when the oil will be there; and we have the material.
One other item before I close, and I want the minister to bear this also in mind. I am sorry that he is sitting in the back row, but I hope that he can hear me. We talk about conserving exchange, and I listened with a great deal of interest to a discussion by two hon. members on foreign exchange. I admit that I do not know anything about the subject, but I do know a little about common sense. In the city of Toronto to-day is a lady whose husband is serving in the bombing 
section of the Royal Air Force-serving in our defence. About two weeks from now that lady will have a baby, yet her husband cannot send any part of his cheque out here to pay for her keep. Did one ever imagine anything so ridiculous? The reason is the foreign exchange regulations. I could cite a dozen other cases. Surely the minister does not know what is going on. If he does, does he think it is fair that a man who this very night is flying a plane to defend us, cannot send part of his pay to his wife, and that at such a time she has to depend on charity? A man working for a Canadian firm in London whose wife is in Toronto cannot pay her a portion of his wages owing to the rules governing foreign exchange. These are facts. I am perfectly sure the minister did not know them or they would not be allowed to exist.


Mr. ILSLEY:: The Canadian government does not stop a remittance of that kind.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am glad to have the minister's explanation. But I am sorry to say that no later than last Sunday this lady in Toronto could not get her money. I can give her name.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is not this government
that is responsible.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I know, it is the British government. But am I to be told here that we are a part of the British empire, and yet we cannot find some way to avoid this lady being compelled to subsist on charity? What are we here for if we are not part of the British empire? It is to face such questions that we as members are assembled here, and as long as I am a member of this house I shall never be satisfied to offer any alibi or any excuse when the wife of a man who is flying a bomber to-night in defence of London and of ourselves has to depend on charity.
On motion of Mr. Hanson (Skeena) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Ilsley the house adjourned at 10.53 p.m.
Wednesday, November 27, 1940.