1940-11-19

NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. MAXIME RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) whether those who have been called up for training under the National Resources Mobilization Act are obliged to sign any document or form, particularly one with the following heading:
Militia Act
National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940 Enrolment
Non-permanent Active Militia of Canada

Defence of Canada Regulations
I hold in my hand a copy of this form, and I shall send it along to the minister. I should like also to know if those who have signed such a form or document are under any obligations in addition to those arising out of the National Resources Mobilization Act. My information is that those who were called for training in October last were asked to sign a form similar to the one I have sent to the minister.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: My hon. friend was good enough to tell me that he was going to ask this question and I have had the regulations looked up. I have prepared an answer which I think will give the information quite fully.
It will be remembered that under the militia (special) regulations, 1940, those who were called for training automatically became members of the non-permanent active militia. There is a provision in the regulations that the recruit shall sign in triplicate a special enrolment form, copy of which is attached to the regulations. It is a copy of this enrolment form which my hon. friend has just sent to me. I would point out that this enrolment form simply contains personal particulars of the man, such as his name; his address; his place of birth; his date of birth; his religion; his next of kin; his physical description such as height, weight, colour of eyes and colour of hair; and his preference, if any, for naval, military or air force service. If the man refuses to sign, it is provided that his commanding officer may fill in the answers in so far as he can get the information, and the form bearing the signature of the commanding officer has the same effect as if the man had signed it himself.
My hon. friend asks whether or not the signing of the form changes in any way the obligations which the recruit has under the National Resources Mobilization Act. I can say to him that the enrolment form, whether signed or not, does not change in any way the obligations of the recruit under the National Resources Mobilization Act. As I have said, he is a member of the nonpermanent active militia and the regulations provide expressly that so long as he remains a member he is liable to the performance of such training service or duty-I quote now- " but only within Canada and the territorial waters thereof " as the Minister of National Defence may require from time to time.
In addition to the enrolment form being useful for the purpose of furnishing personal particulars of the man and indicating the type of service which he prefers, it is stamped with a certificate of training. It is expressly provided in the regulations that the first copy 14873-14
shall be sent to the officer in charge of the records, the third copy shall be sent to the militia unit to which he has been posted, and the second copy shall be delivered to the recruit as evidence of his having performed his training.
Let me repeat, first, that the signing of the form does not in any way increase the obligation for training service or duty under the National Resources Mobilization Act, which can be required only within Canada and the territorial waters thereof; and, second, that the form serves only to verify the personal particulars regarding the recruit, the second copy, when stamped with the certificate of training, provides him with evidence of his having performed his training.



DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) if the attention of the government has been drawn to the article entitled "The U.S. and Us" appearing in the October issue of Canadian Business, advocating the adoption of communism in Canada. If so, has the government taken steps under the defence of Canada regulations to prosecute the author and the publisher for the writing and publication of this article? Has the government taken any action to declare the Canadian Chamber of Commerce an illegal organization for supporting the principles advocated in the article?


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I received my hon. friend's notice too late to be able to secure a copy of the publication, but I shall not fail -to do so in order that I may be in a position to give him an answer. If the matter comes under the censorship regulations it will be the Secretary of State, of course, who will have the responsibility, not myself. Meanwhile I must say that I should be surprised if the Canadian Chamber of Commerce or the Canadian Manufacturers' Association had turned bolshevist.



KING'S REGULATIONS AND ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	Mr. Speaker, supplementing the
question asked by the hon. member for Beau-harnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond), I would
[Stage Direction]
202	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Macdonald (Kingston)
ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) if all the amendments that have been made to the king's regulations and orders since the beginning of the war have been published in the Canada Gazette with the forms relating thereto; and second, if a member of parliament asks for a copy of the amendments to date of the king's regulations and orders will his request be granted or refused?
James Layton Ralston: In reply to the first question, so
far as I am aware all the amendments to the king's regulations and orders have been published in the Canada Gazette, but I shall endeavour to verify that.
Second, with regard to the presentation of a copy of the king's regulations and orders to my hon. friend or to members of the house, I shall have to make inquiries because I am not familiar with the terms under which they are issued. It may be a matter for the king's printer; I do not know. I can assure my hon. friend, however, that steps will be taken to see to it that in whatever way the orders and regulations are made available to members the amendments will be included therein.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, November 18. 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.
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services): Mr. Speaker, to-day I shall endeavour to tell the house something of ships and sailor men, of the ships of the Royal Canadian Navy and of those men who go down to the sea in ships and do business in great waters.
Hon. members will recall, I am sure, that in the latter days of the last session, at a time when I had not the honour of a seat in this house, my colleague the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Power) gave to the house an account of the growth and strength and accomplishments of the Royal Canadian Navy. That story was told by my hon. friend about four months ago. I shall endeavour now to continue that exposition and to add to it such new material as the intervening period of time warrants or requires.

I should like first, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the composition of the navy. The personnel of our navy may be classed under three heads. First there are the men of the Royal Canadian Navy itself. This class consists at present of 253 officers and 2,429 men.
Next there is the group known as the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve. This group, as many members know, is made up entirely of seafaring men, drawn from the merchant service and other seagoing pursuits, and it consists non' of 486 officers and 2,670 men.
Finally we have the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve, a reserve which for some years has existed in eighteen different centres throughout Canada. It corresponds roughly to the militia of Canada, and it is to a large extent the training ground for officers and men who wish to join our naval forces at this time. The Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve has a strength now of 881 officers and 6,554 men.
That gives a full strength in the Canadian navy, in all its three branches, of 1,620 officers and 11,653 men, or a grand total of 13,273, all ranks.
All these men are on active service. At the beginning of the war the number of men on active service in the Canadian navy was 1,774, so that in fourteen months we have increased the number of men on active service nearly eightfold.
These 13,273 men on active service with the Royal Canadian Navy have been drawn from the three branches of the navy to which I have referred. They are to be found in widely scattered lands and seas, all accepting equal responsibility and danger, whether they are with the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve or the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve, and all striving together in one service for the same great end. Some of these men are on Canadian destroyers, others are on armed merchant cruisers, and still others on patrol vessels, mine-sweepers or in supporting establishments. No fewer than 798 young Canadians are serving in Great Britain or in British ships. This number includes Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve officers training with the British navy, officers lent to the Admiralty for special service, officers and ratings serving on British convoy staffs, Canadian cadets training in England, and the like.
In addition to the number I have given, there are in the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve 81 officers and 1,033 men who are in reserve and not yet called up for active service. When you add these last

The Address-Mr. Macdonald (Kingston)
figures to those that I first gave, you get a total Canadian naval personnel of 14,387, all ranks.
The second element in the composition of the navy is, of course, ships. The number of ships in the Canadian navy now stands at 155. These include various types. We have armed merchant cruisers, we have destroyers, we have corvettes which can be used for general patrol work, for anti-submarine work or for mine sweeping; we have mine sweepers; anti-submarine vessels, motor torpedo boats, together with various other types of auxiliary craft. The figure of 155 vessels now in the Canadian navy represents a tenfold increase over the 15 vessels of various types that we had at the beginning of this war.
I turn now, Mr. Speaker, to the duties of the Royal Canadian Navy. The duties of that navy may, I think, be classed under three heads: First, convoy work and control of the movement of British merchant shipping to and from north America. Second, the patrolling of our own coasts. Third, cooperation with the British navy in European and other waters.
Convoy work is undoubtedly one of the most important duties which the Royal Canadian Navy performs. Under the system now prevailing in our great ports, merchant ships are assembled, grouped together and escorted across the Atlantic in cooperation with the Royal Navy. From our ports in Canada since the outbreak of the war no fewer than 3,500 ships have departed, and in these ships 21,000,000 tons of cargo have been carried over the sea.
In addition to providing escort for cargo or merchant ships, Canadian naval vessels have escorted troop convoys to England and to other areas; and I am glad to be able to say that not a single one of these troops so escorted has been lost at sea as a result of enemy action.
With regard to the escort of cargo ships, I should like to say here that, in spite of enemy claims, which have been particularly exultant and exaggerated in recent weeks, the convoy system is still functioning efficiently and, one might say, without serious interruption. Recently the enemy has increased his efforts to interfere with the passage of goods over the seas of the world to Great Britain, but it may be said with the greatest assurance that these efforts have not approached in their violence or in their success the attacks upon merchant shipping in the last war. I may tell the house, for I see no reason why it should not be told, that in the last week for which I have official figures, a week which falls within the last month, 775 ships in convoy reached British ports, and in that same week 14873-14J
only 5 convoyed ships were lost. That is a percentage of about three-quarters of one. In the last week for which I have figures of cargo tonnage, a week which also fell within the last month, 1,129,000 tons of cargo were imported into England-cargo which came over every sea. In spite, therefore, of enemy claims, we may rest assured that the British navy, associated with the navies of the dominions, is still performing vigilantly and valiantly and successfully its time-honoured function of keeping the ocean lanes of the world open, not merely for its own ships and its own supplies, but for the ships and the supplies of neutral countries as well. The white ensign of the British navy is still a pledge of security to all who pass on the seas upon their lawful occasions.
The Canadian navy guards our shores with its destroyers, its armed merchant cruisers, its patrol vessels and mine sweepers, and its various other types of craft. In these matters it works in close cooperation with the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Army, and its men are constantly on the alert by night and by day, whether the weather be fair or whether it be stormy; whether the temperature be marked by the severe cold of the north Atlantic in winter or by the balmier air of the Pacific. The ships and the men of the Royal Canadian Navy stand, in all circumstances, on guard for Canada.
The third duty of the Royal Canadian Navy-and though I mention it last it is not at all because I regard it as least-is that of cooperating with units of the British navy in European waters or in whatever other part of the world such duties may be assigned to them. These duties may take ships and men of the Royal Canadian Navy across the Atlantic and back again. They may call them to the broad waters of the east coast of Britain, or to the narrower seas which separate Britain from the continent. Our ships and our men may find themselves serving in and with British units in the Caribbean sea, or off the Newfoundland coast, or in the Mediterranean, or on the Pacific. Wherever in the seven seas they have been called upon to serve they have won commendation and approval-the highest and the most authoritative in the world-the approval of officers of the British navy.
And here I come to a stage at which I shall have to draw attention to certain remarks made from the opposite side of the house during the course of this debate.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), in his speech in this house in July last, and again in his remarks last week, made some references to me which I regard as, on the whole, kindly and
204	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Macdonald (Kingston)
well meant. It is true that speaking last week he predicted for me a not too lengthy stay in the historic constituency of Kingston City. He would have me homeless shortly, but not nameless; for he paid a high tribute to the name which I bear. For that tribute I forgive him his Cassandra-like references to my political future. The hon. gentleman has made, however, certain references to the quality of Canada's war effort which I cannot pass over lightly. For example, in the amendment which; he proposed to the address he used these words:
. . . this house regrets that the government has 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.
And again in the course of his speech he used these words:
Our contribution to the first battle of Britain has been rather pitiful. In fact it has not been a factor in the defence of Britain at all, so far as I am aware.
Well, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) has put on record here the story of the Canadian Army, and my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) has told the house of the work of the Royal Canadian Air Force. I ask the house if there is anything pitiful about our contribution of more than 50,000 land soldiers to the defence of Britain. Fifty thousand of our men stand on British soil to-day, and Britain knows, and Hitler knows, that behind them in this country are many times fifty thousand eager to join battle with the enemy.
Is there anything pitiful in the work of the Canadian airmen serving now with the Royal Air Force or with the Royal Canadian Air Force, as described yesterday by the Minister of National Defence for Air? I think there is not. I think, on the contrary, there is every ground for pride in the achievements of these two branches of the service.
I am here, however, to speak for the Royal Canadian Navy, and if hon. members have listened to the account which I have just given of the work of that navy, I am sure they will agree that that work has not constituted a mere pitiful contribution and that it is not a factor to be disregarded in speaking of the defence of Britain.
Take, for example, the assistance of the Canadian navy in convoy work. Is convoy work not important? Take away the convoy system in which we cooperate with the Royal Navy, leave our merchant ships on the oceans of the world unguarded and defenceless, and you strike at the very arteries of British life. Is it to be said that the work of the Royal Canadian Navy in this respect is pitiful and negligible?

Take again the casualties that the Canadian navy has suffered in the discharge of its duties, and say that these represent only a pitiful contribution. Two of our destroyers have gone down in the discharge of their duty -the Fraser, in June of this year, and the Margaree a few weeks ago. The mine sweeper Bras d'Or is now nearly a month overdue from a port on the St. Lawrence river to the port of Sydney, Nova Scotia, and she must be presumed lost. As a result of the loss of those three vessels and of other Canadian losses the Canadian naval casualty list now stands at 14 officers and 243 men.
We mourn for those men who have gone, who have given their lives in a great cause, and we hope that those whom they have left behind may be comforted by the reflection that they died as heroes die, in the course of their duty and in the service of their country. They came from every part of Canada, though our eastern coast has suffered most. By the loss of the Margaree alone twenty-five homes in the city of Halifax are bereaved and saddened. It will be idle to say to the wives and mothers of these men that our contribution is pitiful or negligible in this struggle. They will bear their loss bravely, as befits the kindred of heroes; but they, dwelling in that old and gallant city, within daily sight and within constant sound of the sea, will never again look upon the broad Atlantic or listen to the plaintive music of its waves and tides without sorrowing for those who lie forever in its depths.
We do not know exactly what fate befell the Bras d'Or, and we fear now there is no survivor left to tell the tale of her going. But we do know the story of the Fraser and the Margaree, and to lighten the gloom of our sorrow we can say that those who survived behaved with the utmost coolness and gallantry. There was no panic, no fear among them, and everything that men could do to help one another was done. They quitted themselves like men and were strong. In the case of the Fraser the greatest praise must be given to her sister ship, the Canadian destroyer Restigouche, which disregarded great risks to her own safety and to the safety of her crew in order to effect the rescue of many of the Fraser's men. It was a misty night off the coast of France, a night when ships had to run without lights in order to avoid the risk of drawing enemy attack. When the Fraser was struck by another and much larger ship, the Restigouche, without hesitation, turned on her searchlights in order better to carry on her work of rescue. The position was such that the Restigouche had to back toward and alongside the Fraser, a very dangerous operation; but Lieutenant-Commander

The Address-Mr. Macdonald (Kingston)
Lay of the Restigouche took the risk, and by the exercise of great skill and commendable gallantry he succeeded in bringing off to safety 14 officers and 104 men of the Fraser's crew.
I should like to say here that Lieutenant-Commander Lay's Christian names are Horatio Nelson, and that he is a collateral descendant of the great admiral. So that there is something in a name after all. I should also like to add another and more intimate fact about Commander Lay's ancestry. He is a close relative by marriage of the Prime Minister of Canada.
Other noteworthy actions performed by Canadian ships were the rescue by the destroyer St. Laurent of 850 persons from the steamer Arandora Star; the assistance given by the Canadian destroyer Skeena to a Liverpool merchant vessel, for which the Canadian captain received hearty thanks from the Liverpool owner; the assistance which the Canadian destroyer Assiniboine gave to a British cruiser in the capture of the German ship Hanover in the Caribbean sea; the capture of the Italian ship Capo Noli by the mine sweeper Bras d'Or in June last, and finally the spectacular capture by the armed merchant cruiser Prince Robert of the 10,000-ton German express cargo boat the Weser.
It is only natural that the good work of the Royal Canadian Navy, which I have described inadequately here, should have been noted and commended in Britain. Four members of the Canadian naval service have been awarded the Distinguished Service Cross. One petty officer, who I regret to say perished in the Margaree disaster, was awarded the medal of the Order of the British Empire. Nine officers and men have been mentioned in dispatches. The King's Dirk, one of the most coveted of prizes, was won in July last by Cadet Ralph M. Lawrence, a native of the province of New Brunswick, who is training in England. A Canadian naval officer and a Canadian electrical artificer have won cash prizes under the Lott Naval Trust Fund for inventions which they designed or improvements which they made in ship's equipment or armament.
On more than one occasion high British naval authorities have paid unsolicited tribute to the work of our officers and men. The most recent of these tributes-and it comes from a very authoritative source indeed-was pronounced only a few days ago by Commander Reginald Fletcher, a member of the British House of Commons and parliamentary under-secretary to the First Lord of the Admiralty. Speaking over the British Broadcasting Corporation network on Thursday night last Commander Fletcher said:
We have received invaluable help from the dominions and especially Canada.
Hon. members of this house, who are inclined to make invidious comparisons between Canada's war effort and the war effort of other dominions, should ponder these words, " invaluable help from the dominions and especially Canada." Continuing, Commander Fletcher said:
The Canadian destroyers have worked alongside our own on equal terms in every way. They have entered fiercely into their work with great zeal and efficiency.
I ask hon. members to note the words " Canadian destroyers have worked alongside our own on equal terms in every way." What higher praise could be given to naval officers and men than to say that they are equal to the officers and men of the British navy? Commander Fletcher went on to pay tribute to the crews of the two Canadian destroyers, the Fraser and the Margaree. Those who were lost, he said, had died in the line of duty, and the survivors had distinguished themselves by their gallantry. Then he continued:
But more ships carrying the maple leaf on their ensigns will come to join, and be welcomed by, our navy.
More ships will join, more ships will carry the colours of Canada with the white ensign of Britain, and they will carry with them the traditions which officers and men of the Canadian navy are now building so gallantly and so soundly. Commander Fletcher concluded this part of his broadcast by saying that the Hon. A. V. Alexander, First Lord of the Admiralty, had visited the Canadian ships and had been impressed by the bearing of their personnel.
There you have the views of two people in England who are as well qualified as any two people in the world can be to appraise the work and the worth of the Canadian navy.
I should like also to put on record here a paragraph from a letter written by the master of the ship which struck the Margaree, and later rescued some of the destroyer's crew. This letter was written to the commander in chief of the West Indies station, and, speaking of the men of the Margaree who were saved, he makes this remark:
I should like to take this opportunity of expressing the pleasure it gave us-would that the circumstances had been different-to have these men with us and to get to know and appreciate their fine qualities, and cheerfulness even in such tragic circumstances.
These words, Mr. Speaker, and the other facts to which I have made reference show, I think, beyond all doubt that the Royal
203	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Macdonald (Kingston)
Canadian Navy is not making a mere pitiful contribution in this struggle. It is making an important contribution, and it is earning the pride of all Canadians and the approval of British naval officers in the process.
I pass now to some discussion of plans which the naval staff and I have in mind for the future of the Royal Canadian Navy.
We now have, as I said a moment ago, a total strength on active service of some 13,000 officers and men, and of ships we have 155. By the end of the next fiscal year we hope to have added some 100 ships and 10,000 men to our strength. That will give us, if our plans materialize, a Canadian navy of 23,000 men manning 250 ships. When we reach that stage of development we shall, of course, be able to make a contribution much greater than that which we are making to-day.
The rapid growth of the Canadian navy, from the beginning of the war up to the present, and the plans that we have in mind for its enlargement, bring before us certain considerations to which I should like to refer briefly.
Thirty years ago the project of a naval college was advanced in this country, and the college was actually established at Halifax in January, 1911. The great Halifax explosion in 1917 so damaged the building that it was unsuitable for its purpose. Classes were then continued for a year at the Royal Military College, Kingston, and for a few years subsequently in a temporary building at Esqui-malt on the Pacific coast. Since 1922, however, Canada has lacked even this meagre draining centre, and, in consequence, for eighteen years past we have relied for the training of our officers and higher ratings entirely on British schools. They receive there, of course, an excellent training. In .England these young Canadians were in the very heart of the world's naval life. They were surrounded by the great traditions of the British navy; they saw before them every day the proofs and the symbols of that navy's might. I hope that link between Great Britain and Canada will always continue. I hope that for all time Canadians may have recourse to British ports, British ships, British naval skill and British naval tradition.
But yet, recognizing all these things, and eager as I am to retain these things, I believe that something more is required for the full development of the Canadian navy. I have just given to the house some figures which show the estimated size of our navy by the spring of 1942. If I interpret aright the feelings of the Canadian people in this respect, these figures are significant of two things. The first is that we in Canada are determined 
to put forth on the sea, no less than on land and in the air, our fullest efforts for defence of the British commonwealth, including Canada, and for attack on the common enemy.
That is the first thing. The second significant thing is this. The dignity of Canada demands that we should have a navy worthy of our importance in the world of nations, adequate to the needs of the great trading nation which Canada now is, and which she is bound to become in greater measure after the war; a navy sufficient to meet the obligations which rest upon us as members of the British commonwealth, and as a country in close association with the United States in the matter of the joint defence of this continent.
Under the Ogdensburg agreement, and with the appointment of the joint defence board, representatives of Canada and the United States have undertaken the joint study of measures for the common defence of both countries. These measures involve defence by sea, by land and by air. We in Canada must assume our full share of responsibility in this regard. We have long enjoyed the sheltering protection of the British navy. We stand high on the list of the world's trading nations; yet we have never had a navy whose strength was commensurate with our trading position. The trade routes of the world are kept open for us, as they have been kept open for centuries, and as they will be kept open for centuries to come, mainly by the navy of Britain, assisted 'by the navies of other friendly and democratic countries.
I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian people wish to indefinitely continue a policy which demands of Britain the sole responsibility of guarding our trade routes, or which, on the other hand, takes shelter behind the existence on this continent of a great and friendly power. I believe that Canadian pride, Canadian dignity, Canadian consciousness of present greatness, Canadian hope for increased stature among the nations of the world, all demand that we should assume our proper share of the burden of naval service hitherto borne so largely by the motherland.
We cannot hope, of course, to have in Canada at this time or in the near future a navy comparable to that of Great Britain, or to that of any one of several of the other great powers I might mention. In all things we must be guided by our means and our capacity; but we can, and, in common sense and in honour, I think we must, build a navy that will be not unworthy of Canada, and that will enable us to play our proper

The Address-Mr. Macdonald (Kingston)
part as a member of the British commonwealth of nations and as a friend and ally of the United States.
The building of such a navy will carry with it the necessity of having trained officers and trained ratings. As I said a moment ago, at one time we had a naval college in Canada, but vicissitudes of one kind or another led to the closing of that institution. I am happy to be able to say in this house to-day, with the concurrence of the Prime Minister and of my colleagues, that we propose to reestablish a Canadian naval college. To this college will resort young men who wish to adopt the naval profession as their life's work. During the war period no other type of work can be attempted at such a college. Indeed, there is high authority for the opinion that a naval college should never concern itself with anything else than the training of men for service in the navy. As yet the whole project is far from being fully developed in my own mind. It may be that the institution will be exclusively a naval institution. On the other hand, it may well be that after the war, it will become a place to which young men who wish to train for the merchant service can go and receive the training necessary to fit them for that important line of seafaring work. It may be, too, that it will be found possible to have in attendance at this college young Canadians who do not contemplate a career in either the navy or the merchant service, but who wish to take advantage of the training which this college will provide as a general preparation for their lives as citizens of Canada. These are all matters to which the naval staff even now is giving its closest attention. One thing is sure. We shall bend our utmost efforts to see that the foundations of the college are laid on sound and broad lines, so that in its conception, in its training, and in its results, it may be a strength and a pride to Canada.
Besides the decision to build, equip and staff a naval college in this country for our Canadian youth, there is another implication which is carried in the decision to enlarge greatly the Canadian navy. It is this. We have built already in Canada some of the smaller ships required by the Canadian navy, and we have built some ships of similar type for the British Admiralty, just here I should like to pay tribute, in which I am sure my hon. friend the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) will be glad to join, to the work that has been done already by the shipbuilding yards in this country. On the whole, the programme of building ships for the Canadian navy is well ahead of schedule, and this fact reflects the greatest credit on the loyalty, the diligence and the
skill of the shipbuilders of Canada, and on the manufacturers of other essential equipment for ships.
But, Mr. Speaker, we intend to go further.
It is our hope that in the Canadian yards we shall be able to build destroyers and perhaps cruisers as well. The building of these craft requires a high degree of skill; they have never before been built in this country. In the early stages of this development we shall require the assistance of skilled men from Admiralty dockyards or from private yards in Britain, and we have asked for that assistance.
With the establishment of a Canadian naval college, and the building in Canada of the larger types of ships of war, we shall come to the day, and I think that it will be a proud day for this country, when our Canadian naval effort will be directed by Canadian men, trained in Canada and operating in ships built in this country.
As I survey, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian naval effort, or indeed, the whole Canadian war effort, I see no reason to blush. I find no cause for shame. It is true that we were unprepared for war, but yet our very unreadiness may in the end prove to be one of our greatest assets. The nation that is unprepared does not seek a fight. Before the high court of history we shall take our stand with Britain, and with our other associates in the British commonwealth of nations, in the certain hope that our ground is impregnable, in the sure knowledge that we did not desire war. Before the tribunal of the present, before our own people to whom we are responsible, we say that we went to the very edge and brink of honour in our effort to preserve peace. It was only when discussion, negotiation, and even concession had failed, and when there was left no other alternative, it was only then that we took up arms. We took them up with great reluctance. We shall bear them with even greater firmness. We shall not lay them down until honour walks the earth again, until we and the rest of the democratic world are safe from the menace of nazi attack and the threat of nazi thraldom.
The struggle, as the Prime Minister said in his eloquent speech a week ago, will be longer, harder and more terrible than any of us can believe at this time. Such a struggle will demand sacrifices; it will require, as Mr. Churchill said, its full meed of sweat and toil, blood and tears. But if any of us in this country should falter along the hard road, we shall look to Britain for resolution and inspiration, and we shall see there a whole people at war for the
208	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Macdonald (Kingston)
first time in modern history. We shall see the young, the middle aged and the very old, the strong and the weak, the rich and the poor, all ages, all sexes, all classes, equally in danger of enemy attack, and all facing that danger with equal courage and equal coolness, with a humour almost a gaiety, that has challenged and won the admiration of the world and the support of free men in every land. The people of Britain, soldiers and civilians, men, women and children, are adding now the newest and the brig-hbest page to the proud story of the British peoples.
Some two months ago I listened to a radio commentator from London who said that one of the amazing sights in that great city, was the number of flags that could be seen flying there. Most touching of all, I thought, was his statement that in instance after instance these flags could be seen floating over ruined buildings, many of them the humble dwellings of the poor. These people, forced to see their homes destroyed, their personal possessions gone, sometimes members of their families maimed or killed, digged themselves out of the wreckage and at once they planted above it the flag of Britain. That act seems to me symbolic. They plant that great flag there, not only to defy Hitler, not only to encourage the weak and inspire the faltering among themselves, but also as an emblem of hope and of prophecy. And the hope and the prophecy are this: that just as the flag of Britain rises over the physical ruins of some of its homes, so out of the wreck and welter of this war there will arise a greater Britain, a Britain strengthened and stiffened by its heroic struggle, a Britain which will lead the world into better and fairer ways of life, not for one class or group, but for all people.
So long as that spirit remains we need have no doubt as to the ultimate outcome of this war. The whole of Britain is under attack now, but in her own time She and her dominions will take the offensive. They are on the offensive even now; for our gallant airmen are carrying the war to the heart of enemy countries and to the territories which Germany has conquered, and our incomparable fleet still commands the seas. Her soldiers at Dunkirk have proven their quality. We shall see Britain triumphant, and long after the name of Hitler will have become nothing but an unpleasant memory, the same flag which now waves over disordered heaps of crumbled brick and stone and mortar will be flying freely and proudly in the airs of heaven, sheltering liberty and justice and freedom and truth in its benevolent shade. 
That is the hope and the promise of the British flag flying over the ruins of British homes.
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the honour of being the first to congratulate the former premier of Nova Scotia, the Minister of National Defence for Naval Affairs (Mr. Macdonald) upon the eloquent speech in which he presented his report to the house. Having myself a task to perform, I am sorry that in the brief time at my disposal I shall not be able to refer to what he has said. There come times when hon. members rise in their places feeling unable to deal effectively with the subjects upon which they have chosen to speak. They may be depressed by the utter futility of any hope that their arguments, no matter to what extent they may be backed up by facts and figures, will have any weight. They may be depressed because they know that anything they may say will not prevent what they believe to be a menace to the country.
I refer to the recent agreement between Canada and the United States in connection with certain developments on the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes system, which was tabled on November 12. 1 want to refer particularly to one item in that agreement, namely, that which refers to the diversion of the waters of two tributaries of the Albany river from a wholly Canadian watershed to the international watershed of the St, Lawrence-Great Lakes system. We are told that the diversion is to be made for war purposes. I personally do not agree with its necessity for war purposes.
In rising to speak against what I am convinced is a tremendous menace to this country I hasten to say first of all that having been partly educated in the United States, and having had for many years business connections with great firms in that country in the same line of business in which I was engaged,
I have learned to respect and honour our cousins in the country to the south, and I hope I shall never be in any other frame of mind towards them. We indeed have the best of neighbours of any country in the world. But I cannot consent to the theory that this diversion is a necessity for war purposes. This diversion from northern Ontario of rivers that are wholly within a Canadian watershed and are now under the sole, single and sovereign jurisdiction of Canada, and their transference by diversion to international control with another country, leaving us without full control over our own waters in northern Ontario, is something to which I cannot possibly subscribe.

The Address-Mr. MacNicol
What is proposed under this agreement so far as the diversion of waters from northern Ontario is concerned? This is a purely Canadian watershed where the rivers now flow on a grand plateau north of the divide between the Hudson bay basin and the international watershed. They have flowed and I hope will continue to flow as God ordained them to flow into the Hudson bay.
The proposal is to divert the Ogoki river and to take from it a flow of 4,000 cubic feet per second. Next it is proposed to divert the Kenogami river, which, together with the Ogoki is a branch of the Albany, and to take from the Kenogami a flow of 1,000 cubic feet per second, pouring it finally into lake Superior, and thus to divert from waters flowing into the Hudson bay 13,000,000,000 cubic feet of water per month at a time of year when, as I shall later show, the water is most necessary, according to one of the greatest navigators this country has ever had, to assist in the opening of navigation in Hudson bay.
What is the proposal with respect to the Ogoki diversion? It is to erect a 35-foot dam at Waboose falls, just east of where the SSth meridian intersects the river, and to raise the water behind that dam to a height of 1.065 feet above sea level. The result of that will be to back up the Ogoki river forty miles west to the west end of Calm lake, submerging an area of approximately 1,000 square miles.
What is the relationship between these waters and the heights above sea level? The elevation rises from Lake Nipigon, which is S52 feet above the sea level, via the little Jackfish river, which starts in South Summit lake, which is 1,062 feet above sea level and just south of the height of land. Immediately over the height of land the country is flat. As far as the eye can reach there is nothing but a flat expanse of territory, except for Waboose mountain, which is some ten miles to the northeast. The first lake over the height of land is the Mojikit, 1,061 feet above sea level. A 35-foot dam at Waboose will submerge that whole territory between the height of land and the Ogoki river some twenty miles north in a direct line, and to some extent north of the Ogoki river, because I found bench marks some distance north.
As to the land southeast of Calm lake, my Indian guides informed me that they were told it would require large dams to prevent the water from flooding over that country. So that there would be a lake there of not less than 800 to 1,000 square miles in area.
We are told that this diversion will cost about $5,000,000. I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker,
that it will cost several times $5,000,000, perhaps $10,000,000 to $15,000,000 at the least.
On the Kenogami river the works are already completed. There is a dam 14 miles north of Long lake the source of the Kenogami, and behind that dam are controlled the waters of Long lake, the Kenogamissis river, and the Burrows river, which have a flow of about
1.000	cubic feet per second. That dam and the control dam south of the international height of land, and the canal through the height of land, were built in open and flagrant defiance of the international treaty of 1909. Had the Canadian government done its duty when these works were begun, they would not have found themselves recently in the mess they were in when they agreed to legalize something that should never have been done in the first place and that took place in open violation of an international agreement.
What is Canada supposed to receive for this vast expenditure and for the loss to northern Ontario of waters which in my judgment will be vital in the future to the settlement and power needs of that country? We are told that we shall receive at Niagara an additional
5.000	cubic feet per second, which conforms to the 4,000 cubic feet per second from the Ogoki and 1,000 cubic feet per second from the Kenogami. From that we are to receive a comparatively small volume of horse-power, from 70,000 to 80,000, supposedly for the purpose of producing war munitions. We are told that on the Nipigon we shall be able to develop perhaps another 100,000 horse-power. I have been up and down the Nipigon river and I know it thoroughly. There are running freely in that river to-day four splendid rapids-Virgin, Flat Rock, Rabbit and White Chute'-from which 100,000 horse-power can be developed, so that any development of Ogoki water on the Nipigon river is far remote in the future.
We are told that we shall be able to develop on the St. Lawrence river, from this same 5,000 cubic feet per second of water when it reaches the St. Lawrence, perhaps an additional 70,000 horse-power, but it will be some considerable time before the St. Lawrence waterway is developed, and when it is developed' there will be many millions of horse-power available. So that it will be a long time before that supposedly extra 70,000 horse-power will be used.
We are told further that at Sault Ste. Marie we shall be able to develop another
8.000	horse-power. I know the Sault very well, and there is at present a vast volume of undeveloped power there, so that it will be a long time before that additional power is required. Finally, we are told that three
The Address-Mr. MacNicol

inches will be added to the levels of the great lakes. I am of the opinion that instead of the levels of the great lakes being heightened, they will be lowered, as I shall show a little later on.
To place the matter on a proper basis I shall start at fundamentals and trace the origin of what I call this tragedy, this attack on the resources of northern Ontario and of Canada. The origin has nothing to do with the development of power at Niagara Falls; not a bit of it. It can be traced back to 1921 or 1922, when a celebrated reconnaissance engineer enjoyed a holiday, at his own expense and in his own time, south of the height of land and also north and west on each side. This gentleman, Mr. Ralph Keemle, merely as a study, chose to present the results of his discoveries in that country, and offered two pronouncements for examination by engineers and others interested. They were, first, that a canal could be built from lake Superior via lake Nipigon to Little Jackfish, up and over the height of land, up the Ogoki river, across the land between the Ogoki and the Albany, through lake St. Joseph to Lac Suel, down the English river to the Winnipeg river, thence to lake Winnipeg and the Saskatchewan into western Canada. The second was that the development there could be used to replenish the great lakes for the lowering of their levels as the result of loss through the Chicago drainage canal. These two pronouncements were the origin of the tragedy which is now to be inflicted on this country.
Mr. Keemle's deductions were brought to the attention of the late Sir Adam Beck, who looked into the matter as far as power development was concerned and merely filed the information which had been presented to him. Little notice was taken of these discoveries until in 1924 the engineering board of review at Chicago was called together to delve into the causes of the lowering of the water levels of the great lakes and to offer suggestions for their replenishment. The nineteenth suggestion which was presented to this board is this:
The possible diversion of a large quantity of water into the great lakes from streams now entering the Hudson bay, was brought to the attention of the committee on lake levels, as a remedy for low lake levels, and as means of compensation for the diversion of water from the lakes through the Chicago sanitary canal. This water, now flowing north, was to be turned south into the great lakes by way of lake Nipigon. It was suggested that a quantity of water equal to that now diverted at Chicago could be taken through a canal across the northern divide, from waters of the Albany and Ogoki rivers, which now flow into Hudson bay.

Is it not strange that the amount which is now to be taken from northern Ontario north of the great divide and from the great northern Ontario plateau is the exact amount which a recent bill before the United States congress calls for, namely 5,000 feet per second? I am not saying that there is any relation at the present day between the one and the other, but the real facts behind the proposal might well show that to be the case.
What did the board say in giving its report? Here is the statement with reference to these diversions:
Since there may be other opportunities for industrial development on north-flowing rivers, the Canadians naturally would be slow to make southward diversions into the great lakes drainage, pending future development of the country.
It is a sad state of affairs at which we have arrived, Mr. Speaker, when we are willing to jeopardize the future requirements of that country by diverting water which has
100,000	potential horse-power.
The premier of Ontario has been very insistent during the last few years in pressing this government to grant his request and permit the diversion of those rivers. If this government has consented to such an outrage on northern Ontario upon the statement of the premier of Ontario as to what that country is like and what the water levels of the great lakes are, it is a sad state of affairs. Here is what he is quoted as having said at London, according to a report in the Star of Windsor, Ontario, on February 2, 1938, in reply to a speech which I had made against these diversions:
Defending his proposed Ogoki river diversion plan before the Engineering Institute of Canada here last night, Hon. Mitchell F. Hepburn, premier of Ontario, replied to charges of John R. MacNicol, M.P. for Davenport, that back of the plan is a tie-up with the Chicago drainage canal's lobby at Washington.
" Lake Michigan empties into lake Superior," Mr. Hepburn said. " Certainly water we dumped into lake Superior wouldn't run uphill into lake Michigan."
If this whole tragedy is based on the assumption that the level of lake Michigan is nineteen feet higher than lake Superior while in reality it is that much lower, then the world has been turned upside down since I traversed those lakes, as I have done many times.


Mr. HOWE:: It looks that way on the
map.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have given what Canada is supposed to obtain, at some time in the distant future, from these diversions, apart from the comparatively small block of power

The Address-Mr. McicNicol
which can be obtained at Niagara Falls? Let me point out what the menace to Canada will be as a consequence of these diversions.
First there is, as I said a moment ago, the loss of 100,000 horse-power, which could be developed and for the benefit of future generations, on the rivers affected.
Then, we shall submerge approximately a thousand square miles of potential pulpwood and mineral land. The Precambrian shield touches that area. Not far southeast are the fine mines at Geraldton, and further east there are mines at Kirkland Lake, Timmins, and elsewhere. The whole country may be a mineral country.
Further, the Indians will be deprived of a large part of their hunting grounds. I am happy to say that when I went up there a few years ago quite a number of Indians, having learned from my outfitter that I was coming into that district, met me at the point at which I was going to enter the river to proceed north. Some of them had come all the way from Fort Hope on the Albany river to cheer me, so they said, in the effort to save their hunting country for them. This diversion will be a very serious business so far as the Indians are concerned. And every one of the outfitters of that country is opposed to it. These outfitters are the means of bringing to Canada every year a large sum in United States money. They take tourists up into that country, which is one of the finest tourist areas in the world, and wholly unexploited except for the tourists who visit it.
These diversions will result in the submergence of the famous Sentinel rock falls. Sentinel rock is a huge rock which resembles the head of a Roman sentinel. Standing in a prominent position alongside the falls, it presents a striking picture. I should not like to think it would have to disappear as a result of this project.
In my judgment these diversions are a sacrilegious interference with the laws of nature. What did Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, say in chapter 1 of Ecclesiastes, verses 6 and 7? I quote:
The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.
All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
In agreeing to this diversion we are interfering with the laws of nature, and no engineer can tell what the effect will be on the rainfall or the wind or the clouds with regard to the replenishing of the north country once this vast volume of water is diverted from its God-directed course.
Then there is the loss of navigation on the Albany river itself. Recently I conversed with a former bishop of that country who had read that I had been opposing these diversions and he said, "I am praying that you will succeed in your opposition, because I have been up and down that river many times and in the summer, over the pebbly shingles in the lower reaches of the river, navigation is slight enough, so that with a diversion of
5,000	cubic second feet at that time there is bound to ensue a very serious state of affairs so far as navigation is concerned." I am wondering what the Hudson's Bay company will have to say about it, because they have used the river for navigation purposes for two hundred years or more and they may have a claim for damages against this country if their traffic up and down the river is interfered with.
There is also the loss of national control. In my judgment, once the agreement is concluded and has been accepted by the congress of the United States, it cannot be altered without the consent of congress. I am not unmindful of what happened in the last war when, for so-called war purposes, this country permitted the erection, across the south branch of the St. Lawrence river opposite Massena, of a barrage which has prohibited navigation since 1918. That barrage was to have been removed within five years of its erection, or at all events with the cessation of war, but it is still there, causing a diversion of 25.000 second feet out of the St. Lawrence, 12,500 cubic feet of which belongs to Canada and for which we do not receive a cent. Yet we cannot stop it. That was for war purposes in 1918, and the same thing will happen again. Once these diverted waters start flowing out of lake Michigan at Chicago or over Niagara falls they will continue indefinitely and we may not be able to stop the flow south at any time in the future.
What does the United States get out of the agreement? I am not opposed to their getting something out of it, because I am a friend of the United States; but I cannot read into the agreement, tabled on November 12, what the eminent writer of the New York Times Tead into it. Let me quote from a New York Times editorial of October 16- and they have the best writers in the United States:
Ontario has long wanted more power from Niagara. Now that Canada is at war and straining every industrial sinew, the need of that additional power is acute. Washington sees the point and consents to the diversion of 5,000 cubic feet of water a second from each side, which is equivalent to about 155,000 horse-power-

The Address-Mr. MacNicol
That is to say, 77,500 horse-power each. Now our agreement does not say that. The agreement tabled here does not say " each side." If that be the case, then the new diversion at Niagara is to be 10,000 cubic feet per second, and that bears out what I said- that the water levels on the great lakes will go down instead of rising as a result of the agreement. To continue:

all in accordance with the recommendations made by the special international Niagara board in its report of 1926. Niagara is of negligible importance to the administration-a card to be played. It is the St. Lawrence project that is really to be pushed-a project which involves the digging of a channel for ocean-going steamers and the erection of dams and plants to generate power. The only satisfaction to be derived from this trade lies in the immediacy with which both Ontario and western New York can meet the need of extra hydro-electric power at low cost. Both on the Canadian and the American side of the falls power plants were long ago expanded to use far more than the amount of water which is now to be diverted, so that it is unnecessary to wait months and years before the extra power can be put to work.
Is the New York Times right, or is the agreement tabled in this house on November 12 right?
I wish to refer briefly to a suggested effect on Hudson bay. I do not know personally that there will be any effect on Hudson bay. I am not an engineer qualified to pass on that question, but I went to the bay last summer and talked to old residents there in the hope of ascertaining what I could about navigation on Hudson bay, and I am convinced that if the war continues and the submarine menace gets greater, as it may, it will be necessary for the empire to put forth every effort to minimize that menace by restricting the shipping lanes in which submarines could operate. There is a fairly well protected channel for 750 miles from Churchill to the ocean before submarines could be of any effect and trade might go over the great circle to Great Britain; therefore anything that interferes in any way with the length of navigation period on Hudson bay must be resisted. This country should be the last to tolerate anything of the sort; for we have in Hudson bay one of the greatest treasures of the dominion. It extends south 900 miles into our country, and the port at Churchill is an excellent one.
Shortly before Captain Bernier died I had the pleasure of meeting him. He was a devout Christian. He wrote me a letter which I will read. Captain Bernier was the most eminent marine captain in Canada. He had, I believe, more knowledge of northern waters than any other captain, having been

yearly the first to enter those waters. He was an old man and he told me he was going east and did not expect ever to come back, and he did not. I said to him one day, " I want to ask you a question because of your vast experience of navigation on Hudson bay. What would be the effect on Hudson bay if any of the fresh water now flowing into it was diverted?" He wrote me the following letter, which in my opinion should be in the archives in view of what it contains. It is dated at Ottawa, March 16, 1934:
In reference to the questions you asked me on Wednesday morning, relative to the navigation on Hudson bay, I am pleased to set out the information I endeavoured to convey to you personally:
There are twenty-four large rivers flowing into Hudson bay from the territory surrounding it and in between the mouths of these said rivers there are many other rivers which also discharge a large volume of water into the bay. My opinion, based on experience in navigating Hudson bay and from observations made, is that the total volume of all the water entering into Hudson bay from the land substantially raises the level of the bay above the level of the ocean, in the flood season of the rivers, to approximately one foot.
I am not able to say whether or not that is so, but I take Captain Bernier's statement for it. He was in earnest when he made it.
My opinion is that at the time of the flood season of the rivers the outlet of the bay itself is more or less still choked with ice between Bell peninsula, Southampton island and cape Digges on the Ungava mainland. The islands of Coats, Mansel and Nottingham act as anchors of the main sheets of ice. On looking at the map it will be seen that the outlet of Hudson bay is considerably narrowed by the position of the islands at its outlet, jamming ice, which jamming undoubtedly retards the outward flow of the bay's surplus water. The fresh water rises to the top when it enters the Hudson bay and this together with the ice jamming is one other reason why the Hudson bay level in the flood season is above that of the ocean. I am convinced that this very fact-that the level is higher-has a considerable effect on forcing the ice out of Hudson bay into Hudson strait and then to the ocean, thus opening navigation.
In reply to your question as to whether a material reduction in the flow of fresh water into the Hudson bay from the rivers would have any effect on navigation, I am of the opinion that if the flow from the rivers to the bay is materially reduced and all other conditions exactly the same, the reduction in the fresh water entering the bay would shorten the period of navigation at the commencement of the season. Of course, you will realize that there are so many contingencies and variations that enter into an opinion, that I cannot give definite detail. I believe that the route from Churchill to Great Britain will, as time goes on, become more and more important and that if the ships using the northern passage are built along lines suitable to ice conditions and with improved methods of obtaining the data and the radioing of same to the masters of ships, the Hudson bay route will increase in popularity.

The Address-Mr. MacNicol
Now, Mr. Speaker, if there is even a little fact in that statement; if the opening of navigation in Hudson bay would be delayed one day through the diversion of 13 billion cubic feet of fresh water per month when the ice is breaking up in Hudson bay, in my judgment it would be a very serious thing for this country, and particularly serious if the time comes, as I said, when it may be advisable for our ships to go north over the great circle to Great Britain.
I said at the beginning that I was opposed to these diversions being made on the ground that they are to provide power for war purposes, because I do not believe that it is required for that purpose. The hydro-electric power commission should have a fairly substantial surplus-they would not operate without some surplus-and that surplus can be used until other means are provided. Last year the Beauharnois company appeared before this house and asked a further diversion of 30,000 cubic feet per second from the St. Lawrence, and we granted it. That will result, if it has not done so already, in the production of an additional 225.000 horsepower. They can come again; the river between lake St. Francis and lake St. Louis is rendered unfit for navigation anyway, so that if they require more power for war purposes let them come again and ask for another 30,000 feet, which will produce another 225,000 horsepower. Seventy or eighty thousand horsepower at Niagara Falls will not last very long. If we have to get power in large blocks we can get it from Beauharnois, and we can get it there at once.
Further we can produce a great deal more power at Niagara Falls. At Niagara Falls the United States gets 20,000 of the 56,000 feet diverted under the 1909 treaty. We are supposed to get 36,000 feet; as a matter of fact we use only 22,400 feet. The other 13,600, the remainder of our takings at Niagara Falls, generates power that goes to the United States, so that all we get now in Canada at Niagara is the power produced from 22,400 cubic feet per second. And 16,000 feet of this goes to Queenston, from which we develop, or could develop, approximately 500,000 horse-power. As an engineer my hon. friend knows that if the forebay adjacent to the Queenston power house were enlarged to the extent that has been proposed by engineers, at a cost of $10,000,000 to $15,000,000, another 160,000 horsepower can be produced there with the same
16.000	cubic feet of water. All we haze to do is to modernize our development at Niagara Falls. What have we been doing during the last few years? There are several plants there using water, but some get much more
power per cubic foot than others. For instance I am told that the 5,000 cubic feet per second to be diverted from northern Ontario is to be developed right near Niagara Falls, and will produce 70,000 to 80,000 horse-power. If this water were taken on to Queenston it would produce approximately twice as much power. The Niagara Falls developments should be modernized. The $10,000,000 to $15,000,000 more or less required to divert northern Ontario's water resources from that great plateau north of the height of land could be spent to much better advantage in modernizing the Niagara Falls plants and developing power down there. Also the other 6,400 cubic feet that now runs through the old plants on our side of the line at Niagara Falls could produce a lot more if they were modernized.
Then we have not far from Ottawa two or more million horse-power running to waste, at Campbell's Bay and Carillon and other sites, in addition to what can be developed on the Madawaska. Any amount of power is now available without robbing water that should go and that God directed to go into Hudson bay when He made this world. I am unalterably opposed to diverting any water that God designed, perhaps, as Captain Bernier so well said, for assisting the opening of navigation in Hudson bay. If the pronouncements of the late Captain Bernier have anything in them-indeed if they have not I would make the same statement, because no one can tell what the effect of the diversion will be on Hudson bay-the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan and Alberta have a vital interest in the navigation of Hudson bay, and if I were living in any one of those provinces or represented one of them in this house I would request that the legislature meet to discuss the effect of these diversions on Hudson bay before this affliction is consented to. This government should have appointed an engineering board of review on which the best engineers in America would be invited to sit with engineers from the three prairie provinces, because their interest in that great port on Hudson bay is vital; it will be in the future a great port. I am satisfied that had engineers for those provinces been consulted about this diversion they would have refused to consent. The legislatures of the provinces affected should meet. A great tragedy is to be inflicted on this country on the basis of a statement by the premier of Ontario, if he is correctly quoted, that the level of lake Michigan is higher than lake Superior and that the water when diverted will not flow into lake Michigan. In that statement the premier of Ontario is wholly in error. I say that nothing can stop that water flowing out at Chicago as well as at
The Address-Mr. MacNicol

Niagara Falls. Lake Huron and lake Michigan are one single lake, having the same level, 581 feet above the sea. It has the two outlets.
Let me conclude by saying that, in spite of what anyone may say, in my judgment the necessities of Chicago, as well as other necessities, are behind these diversions; and when during the coming session of congress they again present bill No. 8327 asking for a diversion of 5,000 c.f.s. from lake Michigan, that request may be granted. Already they are diverting 1,500 c.fs. for dilution and 2,000 c.f.s. for domestic supply, so that if they obtain for dilution 5,000 c.fs. it will give them a total of 7,000 c.fs. Then if the agreement also calls for the diversion of 5,000 c.f.s. on the United States side at Niagara Falls-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sure my hon. friend
would not like to have the impression go out that this request for an additional 5,000 c.f.s. is definitely going through. What is definite at the moment is that 5,000 c.f.s. are being used on the Canadian side and nothing on the United States side.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister should know; I do not know, but certainly that was the statement made in the New York Times by perhaps one of the best informed writers in the United States, and he would not lightly make an error. The minister knows a great deal more than the average man in this house about engineering, and I would ask him if it would not have been much saner to follow the recommendations of the 1926 board. Apparently all that was necessary, because they wanted it on their side as well, was to say to the United States, "You take 5,000 c.f.s. and ive will take 5,000 c.f.s., for the duration of the war." Then both countries would have obtained power immediately and we would not be parties to a tragedy affecting the future of northern Ontario and the navigation of Hudson bay.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: In rising to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I should like first to join with the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. MacNicol) in congratulating the Minister of National Defence for Naval Affairs (Mr. Macdonald) on the ease and eloquence with which he addressed this house in his first speech here. I imagine that possibly, like myself, he is somewhat handicapped in speaking to the house by not being permitted to address it in his mother tongue.
The speech from the throne which was read at the opening of parliament contained these words:

You have been summoned at this time that opportunity may be afforded for the fullest consideration and discussion of Canada's war effort and of national problems which war has served to intensify or create.
That states very clearly the reasons for calling us here, I think. I for one believe it is highly desirable that at this time we should have a full and free discussion of Canada's war effort and related problems. Though now we have been at war for more than fourteen months there has been very little opportunity for the private member, at least the private member on this side of the house, to obtain a clear picture of what the country has done and is doing in this great emergency. Perhaps it is difficult to give a clear picture without making public information which might be helpful to the enemy. We should keep in mind, however, that too little information may be as harmful to our cause as too much.
Already, since the opening of this session, we have heard a great deal about the military preparations which the country is making to carry the war to a victorious conclusion. If we are going to wage war at all I think we should do so with all the power at our command, if for no other reason than to bring the terrible ordeal to a successful ending as quickly as possible. We should not, however, lose sight of the fact that preparation for war is not a military problem only. It is also an economic problem, a political problem and a psychological problem. If, then, we think only in terms of military preparation, whatever may be the military result we will lose the war. For us I hope that winning the war is not to be an end, but rather the means to an end. If that is the case, as I sincerely hope it is, we must keep that end continually in mind. I think that is what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) must have had in mind when he said, as reported at page 61 of Hansard'.
What is necessary then to win the present conflict: It is to put on the whole armour of God, not the outward material trappings only, the helmet, the sword and the shield, necessary as they may be for purposes of defence and attack.
There is much more in the Prime Minister's peroration to the same effect, but I think I have quoted enough to show that he holds that in this struggle the use of military instruments is not enough to win the war. We must also make use of other, if more intangible, things, such as fair dealing, honour, truth, justice, equity, cooperation, the willingness to sacrifice, and many similar virtues

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
which people of good-will all through the ages have tried to get accepted as the foundations for the society of their day.
If that is what the Prime Minister meant, and I believe it is, then I am in absolute agreement with him; and because I believe as I do I am greatly disturbed about the lack of understanding and of the practice of the truths mentioned by the Prime Minister on the part of most of the people who have to do with the direction of our war industries. Since the war started we have heard a great deal of that much misunderstood word, democracy. In modern warfare the morale and temper of the workers in industry in my opinion is of equal importance to the morale of the soldiers in the army. Relations in industry between employers and workers are not good in Canada to-day, and are daily becoming worse. For this the government must accept responsibility. I think this is more particularly true of our war industries.
Let me outline briefly the position of the worker as he sees it himself. He feels that he is being exploited, that the contractors are making an undue profit out of his labour and out of the distress of the country. Moreover, he feels that he has been ignored by the government. He feels that the government is working hand in hand with the employers to prevent his having a say as to the terms upon which he will sell his labour. He is losing faith in the sincerity of those who are governing this country, not only those in the government itself but the people who have great influence upon the government. Steps should be taken at once to remedy this condition if we are not to have unrest very shortly which will reach greater proportions than the unrest at the end of the last war.
I should like to refer for a moment to my own city of Vancouver. Perhaps this matter is a small one, but it is just one of a number of small things which are likely to increase and make for a bad situation. The Boeing aeroplane company have a plant in Vancouver which has had, and I believe still has, government contracts for the manufacture of aeroplanes and aeroplane parts. According to a recent press statement the government has under consideration the construction of another new aeroplane plant near the city and yet, a few weeks ago about 150 men were laid off at the Boeing plant; the reason given for the lay-off being lack of material. But the men who were laid off are not satisfied that that was the real reason. As a basis for their doubt in the matter they point out that shortly before they were laid off a considerable number of new men had been engaged. They point out that although there has been considerable talk of a scarcity of skilled labour, the employees laid off by the Boeing plant were skilled men who had been in the employ of the company for a long time, some of them for many years.
The men are also suspicious because among those laid off are some of the officers of their union. They inform me that no effort has been made by the company to observe the regulations issued by the government last January as to labour conditions applicable to contracts awarded in western Canada for aircraft manufacture and overhaul. These regulations stipulate that the ratio of apprentices -between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one years to trade journeymen shall be five journeymen to one apprentice. These regulations were applicable to a number of trades, but I am informed that, after the lay-off at the Boeing plant, in the machine shop there were one apprentice and one journeyman left on the night shift, two journeymen and one apprentice on the afternoon shift and on the evening shift, three journeymen and one apprentice. In the metal shop, where there was supposed to be not more than one apprentice to five journeymen, there were left three apprentices and three journeymen.
I am told that an analysis of the capacities of the men laid off showed that in most instances, if not in all, it was production workers, journeymen and specialists, whose labour was dispensed with. I am not arguing that changes in the regulations should not be made if conditions warrant, but it seems to me that when such changes are made they should be made according to the rule laid down by the order in council P.C. 2685, passed last June, which provides that such changes shall be made only after consultation with representatives of the employers and of the employees. I submit that employers should be given to understand that war contracts are not the result of their personal initiative and enterprise. They should be told that the people of Canada pay for these contracts; that these contracts are the result of the determination of the people of this country to destroy Hitlerism, but that in doing so we are not going to allow embryo Hitlers to develop among us.
Further with regard to the growing discontent among the working people I should like to remind the house that at the last session I directed attention to the lack of labour representation on the various war boards. At this time I should like to advise the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) again that if he wants the people of this country to continue in the faith that this is a war to destroy Hitlerism and to save democ-
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis

racy he had better review without delay some of the appointments which have been made to these boards since the war began. I do not refer to the armed forces; I refer to the personnel of many of the war boards, particularly to the appointments made to the former munitions and supply board, most of whom have since been taken into the Department of Munitions and Supply. I want to say most emphatically that at this moment there are men in influential positions who should be retired quickly. I am not denying that they may know a great deal about business and industry, but they know nothing at all about democracy. Because they know nothing about democracy there is likely to be trouble in this country before very long. It may be better to have a little dislocation now than a great upheaval later on.
Last June the government issued an order in council, the one to which I referred a moment ago, which set out the principles and conditions which should govern the conduct of employers and workers during the war. In that order in council the government gave its approval to collective bargaining. Collective bargaining presupposes union recognition by the employer; indeed, collective bargaining is impossible without union recognition. I do not know whether this order in council has had any effect upon the attitude of employers toward collective bargaining, but from what I hear and from the evidence I have, I doubt it. I believe that most employers, with a few honourable exceptions, treat it with contempt.
I drew attention last session to a conciliation board which had been set up to investigate a dispute between local 240, Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers' Union at Kirkland Lake, and Teck-Hughes Gold Mines, Limited. As I remember the case now, there were three points in dispute-wage increases, union recognition, and the reinstatement of a number of employees, 47 in number, who had been discharged for alleged union activities. The members of the board were Mr. Justice Martin of Saskatchewan, Mr. J. L. Cohen, a lawyer of Toronto, and Mr. G. C. Bateman, who I understand is at the moment economic adviser to the Minister of Munitions and Supply. Mr. Justice Martin and Mr. Cohen, in a majority report, recommended that the discharged men be taken back before any new men were hired, and that lay-offs and rehiring in future be according to seniority. They also found in favour of union recognition, but found against an increase in wages for the time being. But Mr. Bateman, economic adviser to the Minister of Munitions and Supply, found against all the claims of

the men, including union recognition. However, the men agreed to accept the award shortly after it was made. Forty-four days after the men had agreed to accept the award, just a month and a half afterwards, Teck-Hughes Gold Mines, Limited, in a letter signed by the president himself, advised the Department of Labour in these words:
I beg to inform you that at a recent meeting of our board of directors it was decided that the recommendations made by the board of conciliation and investigation wrould not be accepted by this company.
Order in council P.C. 26S5, which I have already mentioned, reads, in clause 7:
That employees, through the officers of their trade union or through other representatives chosen by them, should be free to negotiate with employers or the representatives of employers' associations concerning rates of pay, hours of labour and other working conditions with a view to the conclusion of a collective agreement.
With an experience, Mr. Speaker, of over thirty years in the trade union movement, and at least that length of time studying the relations between employer and worker, I am convinced that there is no other way under heaven in which there can be peace and democracy in industry except by collective agreements between employers and employees.
I have quoted this clause from the order in council because many trade unions in their innocence thought this order in council was operative, that it had some legal sanction behind it, like the order in council, for instance, which declares areas around certain industrial plants " protected areas," or like the order in council which, without any notice or consultation, and in contravention of the government's own declared policy, abrogated the Fair Wage and Hours of Labour Act of 1935 in certain works.
The workers are usually simple people. By that I mean they are not accustomed to the subtleties found in high places. Words mean to them just what the words seem to mean, and they accept them at their face value. The workers did not know that the order in council which the government passed in June last was merely window dressing and was accepted by the government as being just that. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) I imagine would call it " eye-wash," but many of the workers have another word for it, which, if I were to use it, would be considered unparliamentary and I should have to withdraw it. It is a compound word made up of the male of the bovine species and a certain kind of fertilizer.
All the nazi-minded people are not in Germany. Many of them can be found at

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
the head of Canadian industries. I am afraid that a few can be found around the Department of Munitions and Supply.
We have, I understand, a bureau of public information. At least I get through the mail a weekly budget of information after most of it is a week old. For obvious reasons- because of their age, I presume-these budgets of information do not carry any date. I have in my hand at the moment one that came not so very long ago from the Canadian office, but which seems to have originated in the British ministry of information. Here is the heading, " Nazis Crush Belgian Trade Unionism." Then follows a short statement by Max Buset, a member of the Belgian Labour party and at one time a Labour member of the Belgian parliament. I shall quote only two or three sentences from this statement. He says:
One fact emerges quite clearly from all we have heard, and that is the complete destruction of the trade union movement, such as we have known it up to May 10, when the nazi fury descended upon my unhappy country.
The first thing the nazis do when they get control anywhere is to destroy the protective institutions which the workers have built up through the years. Trade unions, labour parties, cooperative movements-all these go. But I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, what is the difference between the philosophy of the man who crushes the Labour movement and the man who will not allow the Labour movement to come into existence, who will not allow a trade union to be born. What is the difference? No difference whatsoever. The mind of one is the mind of the other. Both minds are totalitarian in every respect; totalitarian in every sense of the word.
I had the opportunity of sitting in at some of the sessions of the recent convention of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada held at Vancouver, and I wish to say that if the temper of the delegates at that convention is any indication of the temper of the rank and file of the workers throughout the country, it is not good. At the convention strong exception was taken to the interference by the Department of Munitions and Supply, through its director of labour relations, in the matter of wages and labour conditions in war industries. It seems to me that if the facts are as stated-and the delegates to the convention were intelligent men and ought to know-then such a condition should cease at once.
I have before me a report which appeared in the Vancouver Province of the discussion on a resolution condemning the Department
of Munitions and Supply for interfering with wages and labour conditions. The subheading is:
Decisions of munitions board called prejudicial to labour.
Then it goes on:
H. B. Chase, director of labour relations for the board of munitions and supply, came in for fiery criticism Thursday when the Trades and Labour Congress adopted a resolution calling for the restoration of the single authority of the dominion Department of Labour.
One of the delegates said that-
. . . Chase had violated the entire spirit of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act.
He continued:
On his visit to Vancouver last year, Chase had opposed the rate of 90 cents per hour suggested by the conciliation board which investigated the situation, and had declared he was " going to see no more shipbuilding contracts came to this coast."
That is, to the Pacific coast. It was also mentioned that no one knew upon whose recommendation Chase was put on the board. I pointed out last year that he was the only Labour representative on the munitions and supply board; yet, as I have said, at the Trades and Labour Congress, where 250 delegates were present, nobody knew by whom their representative on the board had been recommended.
The adjustment of labour-employer relations is a business in itself. It requires the understanding and experience of people who have been trained in that kind of work.
I suggest to the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) that he assert his authority in his own department. It is, perhaps, too much to expect that we shall have a proper understanding between workers and employers in our war industries so long as a man like Mr. Bateman, with his mediaeval ideas of the relations which should exist between employers and workers, is economic adviser to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe).
We should always bear in mind that we are waging a war for freedom; not freedom for the strong and powerful but freedom for the weak and defenceless. We are also fighting a war for democracy, and every victory for democracy at home will harden the will to resist nazism everywhere.
In the few minutes which are left to me, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a word with regard to the defence of Canada regulations. I want to support the position taken by the acting leader of this group (Mr. Coldwell) when he spoke some days ago. I was glad also to note that last night the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen) dealt
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis

intelligently and comprehensively with the subject. Although it is now nearly fifteen months since these regulations were passed, by order in council, there has not been in this house any adequate discussion of them. I know that a special committee was appointed last year to review the regulations, but it met in camera, so that only the members of the committee have any knowledge of what was placed before it by those who are charged with the enforcement of the regulations, or of representations made by organizations or by individuals. I am not denying the necessity of special regulations in war time for dealing with espionage, sabotage or other activities intended to impede our war effort. But surely it is possible to protect the state and do it in such a way that reasonable men will be satisfied that injustice is not being done to innocent persons. That is a most important thing-that the public mind shall be satisfied that these regulations are so enforced that innocent people are not punished. During the closing days of the last session I brought to the attention of parliament the phase of the regulations to which I am now referring. I pointed out at that time that a number of men who held positions of responsibility in trade union organizations had been interned without the fact having been made public and without having been given any adequate opportunity of meeting the charges against them. Counsel for some of the internees have found the two review committees established under regulation 22 to be almost entirely valueless. I have under my hand a statement of two counsel describing the procedure followed by the review committee. According to the statement, the judge comprising the committee has before him the departmental file, the contents of which are not disclosed to the internee or to his counsel. The judge then proceeds to interrogate the internee, who has no knowledge of the nature of the evidence against him or of the facts on which the evidence is based. Surely this is a most undemocratic and improper review procedure. I am quite willing ito agree that in the nature of the case it may not be possible to confront the accused with the witnesses, and that it may also be necessary to hold the review in private. But precisely because the ordinary court procedure of examining and cross-examining witnesses may not be feasible, it is doubly important to take every precaution against error and injustice.
I therefore suggest that two amendments to regulation 22 must immediately be made. First, the review committee should be enlarged, to consist of at least three persons, since in the nature of the case the committee must act

as jury as well as judge. Second, the internee and his counsel should be provided with a full statement of the evidence and the facts alleged, in order that they may be in a position to meet them and to establish if possible the innocence of the accused.
I do not want what I am saying to be taken as unfriendly criticism of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). I am quite willing to admit that his position is not an easy one. On the one hand, he is charged with protecting the safety of the state against the actions of subversive individuals-persons who in many instances give their first loyalty to other governments; on the other hand, he is entrusted with safeguarding the life and liberty of every Canadian citizen until he is proved guilty of some crime or action inimical to the welfare of the country. In time of war this is not an easy task.
At the time of the invasion of the low countries and of the Scandinavian countries when the hue and cry went up against fifth columnists, I received many resolutions and telegrams asking that this and that authority be set up to deal with subversive activities. In all cases I refused to give my approval to any such thing. I stated publicly at that time that there was no man in Canada to-day, likely to fill the office of Minister of Justice, whom I would rather have in that office than the present minister. I had hoped that his record of opposition to such undemocratic legislation as section 98 would guarantee that the regulations themselves would be liberalized and would be applied with care, but this hope' has not been fulfilled. The internment of trade union officials, the arrest and prosecution of people who say things in private conversation or under the influence of liquor, the use of the regulations for the purpose of arresting people who do peaceful picketing, and the general interference with freedom of speech and association constitute in my opinion as serious a threat to democracy in Canada as the country has ever seen. The least that the minister and the government can do is to provide a proper review procedure for those interned.
I was sorry that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) did not see fit to be more explicit as to the peace aims of the government. He said that if nazi Germany were not defeated, there would be little of freedom, truth and justice left in the world. I admit at once the truth of that statement, but it does not follow that if Germany is defeated, freedom, truth and justice will automatically flourish. We fought for freedom, truth and justice in the last war; millions of young men died in the belief that they were fighting for

The Address-Mr. Little
these things; but we did not get them. After the last war the struggle for wealth and power in this country went on with unabated fierceness, and we have had ever since wealth and poverty, want and abundance, mansion and hovel side by side, even in more glaring contradiction than before 1914-18.
Just as a closing word I would say that in our fight to destroy Hitlerism we must remember those basic things for which we are actually fighting. We must demonstrate, not by words, but by action, that, as J. B. Priestley said a few days ago, " democracy is a creative principle," and that we believe in it. If we are going to win this war we must begin now to break the power which enables a relatively few to appropriate to themselves the value of the labour of our people. Unless we do this we shall lose the war, whatever the result of military operations may be.


Mr. WALTER LITTLE (Timiskaming):: I had not intended to speak at this time, but in view of the remarks made yesterday by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), I felt it my duty to set him right on some statements he made. In the first place, I wonder whether the hon. member is in favour of law and order. He states that in Kirkland Lake there are 250 men in uniform, carrying guns and so forth. That is not exactly true. There are 100. In the next place, he said that no one in that town knows what these men are there for. If he had taken proper steps to find out from people who are in a position to inform him, he would have been able to ascertain what these men are there for. They are volunteers who have freely offered to assist the local municipal police in keeping law and order in that town. Every one of them is a citizen of the town and is as good a Canadian citizen as anyone in this house. Some of them are working men; some are doctors; others are clerks, merchants and so on. I am very much displeased at the statements the hon. member has made with regard to these men. He says also that they look like the storm troopers of Hitler. I have never seen Hitler's storm troopers and do not know what they look like, but I may tell the hon. gentleman that if they look anything like these men they are a good looking bunch.
I consider it most unfair for a man to go into a district such as mine, or into any other part of the dominion, and to pick up statements here and there to suit himself, without taking the trouble to get authentic information from the proper source. As I said before, if he had gone to the reeve of the town or to the provincial police or to any of the men in the organization, he would have been correctly informed.
I should like to tell my hon. friend that at least 1,700 have enlisted from Kirkland Lake and district, and if that is not evidence of loyalty from a small town in that section of Canada I do not know what is. I have lived in the township of Teck for twenty-seven years; I know every man on that organization; I could name every one of them by their first names. I believe that the hon. gentleman should retract what he said and let the public know that he was misinformed. I do not know who gave him the information, but I can tell him the individual who gave it did not know what he was talking about.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, the present session of parliament was called principally in order that we might hear of the efforts of the government in connection with our war activities since parliament adjourned last August, and also hear representations regarding other activities as well. Personally I believe it to be the duty of all hon. members, whether on the opposition side or on the government side of the house, to bring to the attention of the government such matters as they consider it advisable and necessary to mention, because I believe that such matters, so long as they are not of a carping or personal nature, will be welcomed by the government, who during these strenuous days of trial must look to the elected representatives of the people for help and guidance.
It is my opinion that the people of Canada are well satisfied both with the efforts of the government and with the government itself. I challenge anyone to name a better qualified personnel than that forming Canada's present war cabinet. It may well be that the opposition do not entirely agree with that statement, but I am confident that the majority of the people of Canada will agree with it, just as I am confident that they have all faith in the integrity and ability of these men. What is most interesting, as well as extremely laudable, is the fact that from the beginning of this war up to the present time there has not been the slightest breath of scandal or suspicion of profiteering.
The other day, Mr. Speaker, you gave a ruling with regard to the reading of speeches, and for a moment I should like to refer to that matter. First I should like to compliment you upon the ruling you gave, but at the same time I should like to sympathize with you in your work of carrying it out. I quite
The Address-Mr. Reid

realize the task ahead of you; but I am confident that if it is carried out in a manner fair to all, you will have the support of all hon. members both in spirit and in deed.
There are differences of opinion with regard to the reading of speeches. I know there are those who hold the view that it might be better if speeches were read, and again there are those who do not believe that speeches should be read at all. My view is that if the practice of some hon. members reading their speeches is permitted to continue we might very well have in this parliament what in bygone days was the practice in the parliament of Great Britain; that is, we might have writers and others making a living by writing speeches for members of parliament. In that event we would have to listen to the views of writers and others outside this parliament who are not responsible to the people, such as the members of the house are. There is that danger, and I compliment you, Mr. Speaker, upon your decision, which I have no doubt will be impartially enforced in l'egard to all hon. members.
So far, as we all realize, the present conflict has been of a highly specialized mechanical nature, with the ingenuity of man having been turned to the production and use of fearful and scientific weapons. I believe, however, that Canada has overlooked up to the present, and is still overlooking, a powerful weapon which could and should be used in this war. I refer to the power of the radio. For some considerable time Germany has been using the radio in such a manner that it has become known as Hitler's secret weapon. At present Germany broadcasts day and night in twenty different languages, sending out propaganda-a great deal of it, if not all, lying propaganda-designed not only to create confusion in the minds of those who hear it but also to foster in the minds of those people sentiments hostile to Great Britain and her allies and favourable to Germany herself.
I believe Canada should commence immediately the construction of a high-powered shortwave broadcasting station so that speeches might be sent from this country to any part of the world it might be thought desirable. A short time ago the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) made a splendid speech over the air to the people of France. That speech, however, which I feel sure was of inestimable value and benefit not only to the people of that distressed but heroic country but also to the people of Great Britain, did not go direct from Canada to France as it should have done; it had to be relayed by way of the British Broadcasting Corporation facilities.

I am going to ask the government to give serious consideration to the erection of such a high-powered shortwave radio station, to which should be attached a foreign languages bureau. German propaganda is going out over the air not only to European countries but particularly now to the people of the United States and South America. Yet Canada is sitting idly by, doing nothing whatever to counteract that dangerous propaganda which is intended by Hitler to react against Great Britain and even ourselves. To illustrate my point I should like to cite one recent instance, the speech of United States ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, in which- presumably speaking off the record, although some of us doubt it very much-he criticized Great Britain and gave it as his opinion that democracy in that country was finished. Not only was that speech broadcast throughout the United States and Canada by means of the press; it was immediately picked up by Germany and broadcast over the air to the United States, Canada and other countries as well, solely for the purpose of creating confusion in the minds of the people and bringing about an unfavourable reaction towards Great Britain. In my opinion Canada could render a valuable service by explaining to the people of this entire continent both north and south just what we are really fighting for and pointing out what it would mean if it is made possible for Hitler to win.
If I had anything to do with such a shortwave station I would not have these broadcasts made by certain professors from some of our colleges, and there are others I could mention. I would choose practical men, men of understanding and ability. At the moment I have in mind two outstanding men in this country who could render great service in this manner; I have in mind the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the right hon. Minister of Justice. If the services of the Minister of Justice could be utilized to speak in French to the French people, and those of the Prime Minister to speak to the people of the United States and, in fact, the entire American continent, both of these estimable gentlemen would render a wonderful service to Great Britain and to France. Great Britain is endeavouring to the best of its ability to circumvent the propaganda emanating from Germany and directed toward the people of this continent.
There is a further point in connection with the establishment in Canada of a shortwave radio station. As everyone knows, we have lost for the present all our markets on the continent of Europe and no none can tell what the outcome of this war will be or when we shall again have markets on that

The Address-Mr. Reid
continent. Therefore, we have been turning our eyes to South America. It is true we have been doing what we can in connection with sending trade commissioners, but had we a shortwave radio station we could aid these commissioners by broadcasts in the languages of the South American countries. A shortwave station would bring other countries closer to us and would enable us to be better understood by their peoples.
I should now like to deal with a matter having to do with enlisted men. I refer particularly to the dismissals or discharges which have taken place of men who enlisted in good faith after being medically examined and declared to be A 1. Many of these men left lucrative positions. They were examined by doctors; some, if not all, were X-rayed, and were accepted by the army as being physically fit. Later on, after a subsequent examination, some were discharged from the army and they now find themselves without jobs or money. I ask the government and the minister to take note of this serious condition. I am not speaking of the odd case; these discharges have been so numerous that to me they indicate that something is wrong with our system of medical examinations.
It was understood that there would be no haste in examining men who offered themselves for enlistment. During the last war there was a cry for men, but such has not been the situation in this war. I urge the government to grant to these men who have been discharged as physically unfit, leave of absence for a reasonable length of time, in order that they may become reestablished. At the same time I would call up on the carpet some of the doctors who have been making these examinations. In my humble view as a layman, if some of them were making the same blunders in private life as they seem to be doing with regard to the army men, they would not be practising medicine very long. The doctors do not suffer for the mistakes made, it is the enlisted or discharged men. I speak only for that part of British Columbia which I have the honour to represent. In my constituency at least a dozen men have been so discharged and they now find themselves without positions or funds with which to keep themselves or their families.
There is another matter I should like tc bring to the attention of the government. It may seem a small matter, but as far as the mental attitude of our men is concerned these small matters sometimes mean a great deal. There would seem to be unequal treatment accorded to the members of the three different branches of the service in connection with
transportation. On my way to Ottawa to attend this session of parliament I saw a platoon of forty army men on the train who had left Vancouver island to go overseas. I went through to the coach to inspect the conditions under which they were travelling and found that the men had been accommodated in a colonist car without any mattresses or bedding of any kind. One must be fair about it and say that the men were not kicking very strenuously.
The officers in charge, however, wanted to know why their men should be singled out for that kind of treatment when men belonging to the air force and the navy were accommodated in tourist cars and provided with beds. This may seem a small matter, but in my opinion we have not paid as much attention as we should in this war to psychology. All our efforts have been directed to material things. The enemy, however, is thinking of these small matters. It may be interesting to the house to know that prior to the fall of Dunkirk, Hitler gave orders that when men who belonged to Scottish regiments were captured they should be treated somewhat better than those who belonged to English regiments. He did not do this because he had any love for the men of the Scottish regiments-he had reason to feel otherwise-he did it for the simple purpose of sowing dissent among the British troops. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) is not in the chamber at present, but I would ask him to see that the men who come under his department receive the same treatment as the men of the air force and the navy with regard to transportation.
The matter of free transportation has been mentioned, and my views accord with those of many other hon. members. It has been said that it would not be possible to grant free transportation to all. There is, however, one service which I think should be singled out for special treatment. I refer to the boys and seamen who may have been at sea for months and months on end, not coming near to land for weeks, let alone being able to go home. I was glad to hear the Minister of National Defence for Naval Affairs (Mr. Macdonald) say that consideration will be given to this class of the service.
Whilst I have every confidence that the government is doing everything possible in connection with our war effort. I am of opinion that many of our cabinet ministers are overworked. Some of them have far too many responsibilities to give attention to all matters which should receive attention. Not that I have heard any one of them complain,
The Address-Mr. Reid

but our war effort is getting so great that even members of parliament find it difficult to know all the boards which have been set up or even to find their telephone numbers. We are getting into a maze of boards. I would remind the government that the only voice the people of this country have is that of their elected representatives, and I ask the government to see that the elected representatives do not become the "forgotten men" of this war. While it may not be the fault of any single member of the government, all kinds of boards have been set up and it might very well happen that at the conclusion of this war some of these boards will be left in charge of important Canadian industries. I view with some alarm this tendency and deem it my duty to draw it to the attention of the government.
I have one other criticism to offer with regard to our war industries. The new factories which have been set up so far have been, generally speaking, centralized in two provinces. I feel that is a most unwise policy, both nationally and for the safety of the nation. WTho is there in this house who would dare to say that this country will never be invaded? Nay, I will go further and say that there is a possible danger of invasion. If that is so, are we then going to continue the policy of grouping Ontario and Quebec with all the major industries engaged in our war activities? I say to the government that this is an unwise policy from the point of view of the safety of the nation, and it is just as unwise as a matter of national economics.
I heaird one member of the house speak this session about the farmers in his community who, he stated, were closing up their farms because of lack of help. The help was going into war industries at more remunerative wages. That was most interesting to those of us who come from British Columbia because there, for a very different reason, we find farmers closing up their farms or, in other instances, hanging on to them precariously. The farmers in British Columbia are faced with an abundance of produce in their cellars and bams, and at the same time witness large quantities of farm products from across the line brought in by the use of Canadian funds and sold at lower prices. Our farmers see this produce coming in and passing by their doors while their own produce lies at home without a market. I mentioned this matter in my last speech, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat it now, and make the further assertion that if the industrial plants of this country are to continue to receive high protection, so should the farmers.

Before passing from that, I am going to make one further suggestion to the government, and that is with regard to overtime being worked in our war factories at the present time. So long as there is help available and an abundance of it, both skilled and especially unskilled, as there is in British Columbia, no overtime should be allowed. It is not good for the worker himself and it is certainly most unjust to the unemployed.
We have been wondering about the enthusiasm of the people in this war. We have witnessed the splendid spirit which has been exhibited by the British people, and while that spirit is indeed splendid, it is noteworthy that almost everyone in Great Britain who has been able to do any work has been employed in war efforts in one capacity or another. But in this country we have people both able and willing still -wondering what it is all about. I would ask the government to take note of the surplus labour we have in some of the provinces and see if something cannot be done about the matter.
A short time ago we heard a wonderful speech by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner).


An hon. MEMBER:: Not so wonderful.


Thomas Reid: 
Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: What price do they pay for wheat?


Thomas Reid: It is around $1.40 per 100
pounds, which works out at about $1 a bushel.


Mr. COLDWELL:: What grade?


Thomas Reid: No. 5, I believe. That price cannot be wholly attributable to freight rates, of which I shall have more to say later in the session. When such a high price obtains, it is evident that something is radically wrong, and I would suggest that the wartime prices and trade board take note of it and ascertain why the people of British Columbia or any other province should have to pay such a high price for wheat when outside of Great Britain we have no market for our Canadian wheat to-day.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), in his speech the other evening, gave it as his opinion that the people of Canada are not taking this war as seriously as he thinks they should. I am rather inclined to that view, and I am frank in saying I cannot give any reason why it is so, because, as every hon. member and all other people in Canada know, conditions are serious indeed. But if such a state of mind does prevail, I believe it is the duty of this parliament to investigate and, if possible remedy it, for we must not let our war efforts or enthusiasm lag. Enthusiasm should be maintained from one end of Canada to the other until we are victorious.
People ask about conditions after the war; and this afternoon one hon. member inquired as to Canada's peace aims. While it is important that we give some thought to the aftermath of the war, all our thoughts and energies must now be directed to the present conflict, to assure that first of all Hitler and his forces shall be defeated. We are not only fighting for democracy, at the present time we are fighting for our very lives, and that is all-important. He would be a bold or wise man who to-day would attempt to predict what will come after this conflict. But, knowing the weaknesses of our own system in the past, and realizing the sorrow and suffering which some of those weaknesses imposed upon many of our citizens, I pray that our fight will be on behalf not of yesterday, but of a to-morrow, and that it will lead to the remedying of those conditions and the bringing about of a more lasting peace and happiness in the lives of untold millions of people.

The Address-Mr. Diejenbaker


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am in agreement with many of the ideas expressed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Reid) who has preceded me, and particularly with the concluding words of his address, that while the expression of our peace aims should be kept before us, at this time our duty as a parliament is to do our best to ensure that first things shall come first, and that this empire shall be victorious.
Our main purpose in meeting in this short session is to hear the reports of the various ministers of the crown. As I listened to the comprehensive report of the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) I was thrilled, as other hon. members must have been, at the magnificent record of the Royal Canadian Air Force. Coming as I do from Saskatchewan, it will be understood what pride I have in the fact that the commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force overseas, Squadron Leader McNab, is a native of my own province. During the eloquent address to-day of the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald), in which he told of the vigilance of the Royal Navy and also of our Canadian fleet in protecting our shores and in guarding our convoys, I thought of those young men from the prairies in the Canadian fleet who had never before gone down to the sea in ships, and many of whom until the outbreak of this war had never seen the sea. The record of our air force, the courage and the initiative of our navy, and, above all, the heroic resistance of Britain during the last months, have revived and revitalized our empire.
Someone has said, "Who dies if England live?" I paraphrase those words this evening and say, "Who lives if England die?" The attitude of this empire was epitomized the other day in the words-the immortal words- of Captain Fogarty Fegen of the Jervis Bay, "We are closing in closer to the enemy." Faced as he was with overwhelming odds, he went into action, counting not the cost, and in death he saved the lives of others. Parliament is convened at this time to assure the Canadian people that Canada is closing in on the enemy, by a redoubled and ever-increasing contribution to the empire's waT effort. To-day, in consequence particularly of the resistance of the people of London, predictions are freely made of an offensive shortly to come. All of us in this parliament, irrespective of political faith, are agreed that there must be no apathy and that the war effort of this nation shall be relentlessly pursued. That is why we are here-to contribute our individual share to the end that there shall be an ever-widening effort on the part of Canada.

We of the opposition have, as I conceive it, a duty to perform. The last speaker stated and I agree with him, that it is not for us to indulge in carping criticism. It is our duty fearlessly to place our views before this parliament and this country. It is not for us to be overwhelmed by the government's superiority in numbers. If we indulge in unfair criticism, ours is an improper part. In this war, party considerations and prospects should be forgotten in a common endeavour to secure the highest and utmost degree of aid to the empire. In the United Kingdom there is active cooperation by all political parties, with the one reservation that individual members have reserved to themselves the right to criticize. But they cooperate. The Churchills, the Beaverbrooks and the Bevins, irreconcilable in many major matters in time of peace, are united in the hour of the nation's danger. We on the part of this opposition are denied active participation in the affairs of the country at this time, but we do claim the right of cooperation and the right of constructive criticism.
If I understand the vote in the last election, it amounted to this. The people of Canada wanted the party system of government to continue, but they did not want, nor did. they vote for, partisanship in the conduct of this war. Democracy can function only when an opposition is prepared fearlessly to spur on the government where it lacks and lags and at the same time to cooperate where it succeeds.
Lord Tweedsmuir, in his book, "Memory Hold-The-Door," has set out that view of democracy in these words:
Democracy-the essential thing as distinguished from this or that democratic government-was primarily an attitude of mind, a spiritual testament and not an economic structure or a political machine. The testament involved certain basic beliefs-that the personality was sacrosanct, which was the meaning of liberty; that policy should be settled by free discussions; that normally a minority should be ready to yield to a majority which in turn should respect a minority's sacred things.
We on this side of the house, in the interests of an ever-widening war effort, again plead with the government of the day to give us a secret session of parliament, not in order that we may be able to ascertain matters that may be of assistance to the enemy but in ord'er to enable us to ask questions and make suggestions that cannot be submitted in this house without danger of benefiting the enemy.
The spirit in which I approach my responsibilities as a member is this, to offer fair criticism, because it must never be forgotten that during the days of 1914-18 in this house, owing

The Address-Mr. Diejenbaker
to the criticism of members of the opposition, many millions of dollars were saved Canada in the matter of contracts; and in Great Britain, in consequence of criticism, at first ridiculed and later accepted by the government, the shell shortage which at one time threatened to bring down the empire was ultimately remedied.
There are many who say that democratic rights are being lost to-day, but with that view I do not agree. Some of these rights are being suspended on account of the greater need of national safety. Freedom of speech is one of these rights; it is of the essence of democracy. I admit, however, that in time of war there must be a pronounced degree of censorship. In what way have the people of Canada an opportunity of questioning the administration? If all members on the government side were to follow the example of the last speaker, the government would realize the attitude of the country. To-day the press of the country is in many instances subject to -too censorious a censorship. Have the Canadian people an opportunity to express their views over the radio?
The last speaker mentioned the propagandist value of the radio. What about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? It is a public body, a creation of parliament. Is it tending to become the creature of this government? Two weeks ago there appeared in Toronto Saturday Night an article entitled, "It is your two and a half bucks." In that article there are set forth in detail certain principles governing the broadcasting -corporation, one of which may be summarized thus: that anyone may use the radio in this country so long as he complies with the law, subject to this proviso, that he endangers himself and also the particular station over which he speaks if he indulges in anything of a nature that might undermine the war effort of the dominion. In that article by "Politicus" these words appear:
Instead of leaving that section alone as the policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to-day, plus the provisions of the defence of Canada regulations, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has put responsible groups of parliament on.the banned list. And without a public announcement to those parties.
The people of Canada have a right to know whether that statement is correct. They have a right to know whether a ban has been placed on political parties. If it has, by whose authority was it imposed? In my opinion it is the negation of democracy.
We of the opposition can make ourselves heard only over the radio. If that right or privilege, the right of free and untrammelled discusion of public affairs, with a view 14873-15
to the creation of public opinion, has been denied to us, the essence of democracy has been destroyed. The Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) is not in his seat at the moment, but I suggest that immediately there be instituted an investigation of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; for, if the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has become a party vehicle, parliament and the country should know -the facts. Why has that investigation been refused by the Minister of Munitions and Supply? Has the day come in this dominion when a publicly owned corporation may become a vehicle for the dissemination of information tinged with partisan bias and yet be above examination by a parliamentary committee?
We have not the numbers on this side of the house to enforce our demand for the setting up of a committee to investigate the matter of radio, but I am asking members on the government side of the house: Will you not support us in our stand that such an investigation take place?
There is one phase of help that we might give to this empire that has not yet been dealt with except by the last speaker. As I apprehend it, this parliament should be concerned with -the building up of morale in the empire as well as in Canada. As the last speaker stated, the United Kingdom needs a healthy and increasing export trade to Canada. Her increasing import of war materials requires an increase in exports in order to finance it. Recently in an editorial in the Manchester Guardian the following words appear:
We can win the war only if we can pay for it by our exports after all our other resources in gold, foreign securities and services have been exhausted. Exports therefore can be counted as munitions of war.
What do we find? British exports to all parts of the world are decreasing. For last July, exports from Great Britain decreased by 22-7 per cent compared with the corresponding month in 1939. The volume of British imports increased during the same period by 11-2 per cent. Britain cannot continue her maximum war effort unless all parts of the empire increase their purchases from her. In an editorial in the Regina Leader-Post these words appear, summarizing the view I am endeavouring to place before hon. members:
Armies, navies and air fleets are vital in the winning of wars, but the " economic arm " also plays an essential if less spectacular part. Canadians are helping to win the war with the formidable aid they are giving on land, sea and in the skies, but they can also help by buying British goods on as liberal a scale as possible.



The Address-Mr. Diejenbaker
My suggestion, to the government is, launch a "Buy British" campaign in Canada. This campaign need in no way injure Canadian business or, in particular, Canadian Manufacturers. I have a table here which with the leave of the house I should like to place upon Hansard. In it are set out in detail the exports from Great Britain and Japan of cotton goods during the years 1937, 1938, 1939 and the first nine months of 1940, showing generally that during that period of time Britain's exports to Canada have been continually decreasing, while Japan's exports to Canada have been continually on the increase, phenomenally so. The table is as follows:
Towels

Cotton (in pounds)
Year	United Kingdom	Japan1937	960,073	74,3161938	708,680	275,7811939	714,483	329,4211940	(9 months)...	308,919	139,9461937	Sheets-Cotton	(in pounds) 286,852	2,1651938	187,780	40,3631939	106,507	165,3071940	(9 months)...	31,227	20,547Quilts and Counterpanes (in pounds)	1937	167,137	1,3991938	141,854	8,1061939	106,293	44.9731940	(9 months)...	44,765	4,024
Handkerchiefs-Cotton (in pounds)
1937	
394,896	139,4551938	
328,985	162,3191939	
326,269	350,6871940	(9	months)...	190,889	237,442
Woven Fabrics-Cotton (in pounds)
1937	
112,145	87,6181938	
33,836	88,9351939	
19,642	112,6161940	(9	months)...	27,576	140,635Cotton Flannels-Sheetings and Pillow Cotton (in	pounds)1937	
404,502	3,3511938	
216,329	2,0041939	
242,519	300,519
Great Britain during that period of time has been getting the short end. My suggestion is that this condition could be improved by such a campaign as I suggest, thereby giving material aid to Britain.
What of the home front? What of the situation in Canada as a whole? There is no denying the fact that throughout Canada to-day there is a growing feeling of resentment at the failure of the government to cut down controllable expenditures, at the fact that many appointments to high positions are being made that savour of political considerations. In that connection I mention 
particularly the Department of National War Services, that omnibus department, appointments in which sometimes reveal that political fitness is apparently a prerequisite qualification. Then there is a suspicion that contracts are being awarded in some instances to mushroom companies which have sprung up in recent months, and whose main capital is political fitness.


Mr. CLEAVER:: Name them.


Mr. HOMUTH:: The hon. member will get them; just let him wait.


John George Diefenbaker: I will give him one, a corporation set up in the city of Prince Albert to do construction work, the National Construction Company Limited. It never was in business before; it is composed of six men, unqualified in that work, whose one qualification is political fitness.


Hughes Cleaver: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Hughes Cleaver: I know him, I think he would.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, I will permit a question.


Hughes Cleaver: Would the hon. member suggest that that contract awarded to the National Construction Company was not awarded to the lowest bidder?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: That is not what he is saying at all.


John George Diefenbaker: I suggest that if it was, there were sufficient delays that that company finally knew what the lowest tender would be.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is that the way you did it when you were in power?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not claim that there is any monopoly in patriotism on the part of any party. I remember some conditions of 1914-18, but I remember that when there was wrongdoing those who did wrong were punished under the orders of the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden.
The suggestion I want to make is this: There are millions upon millions being spent on war contracts, and we have no information as to the prices paid. Regularly a book is issued by the Minister of Munitions and Supply, setting out the contracts awarded-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It tells you nothing.

The Address-Mr. Diejenbaker


John George Diefenbaker: -but it gives no particulars of the prices paid and therefore is worthless, except that it shows that the government is spending money.


Hughes Cleaver: And shows the contract price.


John George Diefenbaker: It is apparent that the hon. member has not read the reports in question.


Hughes Cleaver: I have read the reports, and they show the total contract price, not. the unit prices.


John George Diefenbaker: The annoyance
shown by the hon. member is enough to arouse one's suspicion. What I am asking is, in the public interest and in the interest of our war effort give us particulars as to prices. It may take some time. If the prices are reasonable-and I hope they are-the publication will tend to restore confidence. Concealment can only breed suspicion, and suspicion can only breed disunity. Publicity will do no harm with the vast majority of patriotic manufacturers or other suppliers of war requirements, who ask only a fair profit. But it will be an instrument of fear to the minority who would take unfair advantage of the sacrifices of this nation and empire at this time to charge monopolistic prices. I advance this argument in all sincerity, not with a view of political advantage to any party.
Look at the situation in connection with the last war loan. The response was dilatory. Why? Because on every hand people were saying, Is it possible that things are not right and that maximum benefits are not being received from the expenditure of money? Such publication would do away with that suspicion.
I suggest further that there be set up in this parliament a public accounts committee, giving it power to examine contracts, not of a year ago but up to date. There need be no political partisanship in the deliberations of such committee. Have the investigation or examination behind closed doors, if you will. You insist that there be no suggestion of partisanship. I point to the committee that met here last session, composed of members from all parties in this house. We met together for a period of more than three months, and while there may have been some shortcomings, our whole aim was to make sure that this nation should be free from subversive activities. Set up such a committee; no one need have anything to fear so long as reason and judgment prevail. Is there anything out of the way in thalt suggestion? We must keep up the morale of this 14873-l5i
nation, and we can do that by having people realize that the money they contribute and the sacrifices they make will not be dissipated.
I should like now to say a word with regard to our soldiers and sailors. We all agree that the morale of our fighting men and their dependents must be maintained. I join in the demand that these men in the service be given free transportation during their official leaves. At the same time I suggest that a regulation be passed assuring these men, who are spread all over Canada, of a minimum length of time at home. To the man on service nothing matters so much as his home. I also commend to the Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock) the suggestion advanced by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) that free postage be allowed on all mail to and from men in the service. That would not be costly, but it would be a tangible recognition and appreciation of their services.
Again returning to the home front I should mention the magnificent work being done by women in connection with the Red Cross and other charitable works and aids ito the soldiers. They did wonderful work in the last war and are doing wonderful work again in this war. I think they merit the highest commendation and, What is more, recognition by the government. I suggest to the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner) that women be given representation in that department, in order that they may correlate and organize the work of women throughout Canada. According to recent statistics of the Department of Labour there are in Canada to-day 52,500 employable men who are still unemployed. Bearing in mind the development of industry on every hand, I believe the time will come when it will be necessary to utilize the services of women in industry to take the places of men who are on service. To-day voluntary organizations are to be found across Canada, from Vancouver and Victoria on the west coast to Halifax in the east, receiving instruction in first-aid training and home nursing, and in motor mechanics. These organizations should be recognized; and I suggest to the government that in anticipation of the need for women in industry, courses be set up at once in connection with munitions ' manufacture, aeroplane construction, motor mechanics and gas-mask manufacture. Provision might be made for the enrolment of women along the line of the army auxiliary corps in the last war, in which women were enrolled for the period of the war, not under the war department but under a government department similar to the Department of National War Services.
22S

The Address-Mr. Diejenbaker
I shall conclude by referring to agriculture. In common with British Columbia, which was referred to by the last speaker, Saskatchewan has not benefited to any extent as a result of the development of war industries. In fairness to that province I think some of these industries should be established there. The services of many trained mechanics are not being utilized. Small machinery plants, that could turn out munitions as they did in the last war, are not being called into service. I am sure the speech from the throne will be received with deep resentment, certainly with great disappointment, all over western Canada. It contained no announcement of any policy designed to relieve the plight of the wheat farmer. Therefore I have no apology to make for supporting the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), which states:
And this house further regrets that despite the serious condition of agriculture no effective action is proposed to alleviate that condition and to ensure to the Canadian farmer a just, fair and reasonable return for his products.
I had hoped that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) would have something to offer. He spoke at some length. He made a political speech, to start with; then, instead of enunciating a policy which would be of some immediate benefit to the wheat farmers he expressed a speculative hope that at the end of five years all would be well, or at least that the surplus would have disappeared. It was not a five-year plan; it was a five-year hope. The western farmer wants to know: first, is the government going to do anything to assure him of a fair, just and reasonable return for his wheat; second, is the interim payment that was promised in the election of 1940 going to be paid, and when; third, is the government going to make advances to the farmers on the wheat held in storage?	To all those questions no
answers were given, no reference was made.
Then the western farmer wants to know whether the government intends to do anything to remove the injustice suffered by him to-day in the matter of grading wheat. The farmer is paid on the basis of 70 cents a bushel for No. 1 northern wheat at Fort William, but wheat that should grade No. 1 is being graded No. 2, No. 3 and, in some instances, No. 4. Is that for the benefit of the Canadian farmer or is it for the benefit of the elevator corporations, who to-day all over western Canada are building large storage facilities which, according to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) will pay for themselves in three months. And what is more, under the arrangement entered into by the government and these companies, the cost

of these facilities will be written off as depreciation within two years.
I have one further question to ask. What is going to be done about the payment of the bonus? In my constituency a substantial crop area was destroyed by drought and hail. The farmers want to know why they do not receive the bonus in November instead of in May. How are they to carry on through the coming winter? Is there any justification for the continued postponement of the time when a decision must be made as to whether or not the bonus will be paid? Surely this parliament has the right to know that. The Minister of Agriculture did however, make one admission. On April 5, 1939, he announced in this house that a farmer could produce wheat at from 30 to 40 cents a bushel, but speaking in the house the other day he said, as reported at page 102 of Hansard:
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.
Not one thing did he say as to the future, except to express a hope of what might happen five years hence. He did, however, make one statement which I hope does not represent the considered opinion of the government to which he belongs. At page 94 of Hansard the following appears:
Why should this government change its policies on agriculture? The policies are essentially Liberal. The policies were endorsed in peace-time by the farming population of Canada when proposed in 1935. The policies were put into practice for four years and endorsed in war-time no later than March 26 last.
What does that mean? Apparently he forgot the results in the Saskatoon election which was fought after the farmers of western Canada began to realize that the promises made in the last session were not being put into effect.


An hon. MEMBER:: Saskatoon is a city
seat.


John George Diefenbaker: Saskatoon is a city, but there are 1,500 rural voters and most of them voted against the government. What do those words means? Do they mean this to the western farmer: Why should we do anything for you; why should we change? We secured your votes, you purchased what you are getting and your eyes were open when you voted. Is that the answer of this government to the western farmer? If it is, it means this: This is your dish of crow, Mr. Western Farmer; this is what you bargained for. The

The Address-Mr. Blanchette
western farmer has been told bluntly that he alone of all the .producers of the necessities of war must continue to produce at a loss and be the forgotten man in the mobilization of this dominion's war effort. I protest against that attitude. Until the farmer is assured of a fair return for his products, the morale of western Canada will not be maintained.
During the last session of parliament the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) claimed that a policy would be announced as soon as possible. He spoke in Winnipeg on September 12, 1940, and according to the Winnipeg Tribune he stated that the war committee of the cabinet, which consisted of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), the	Minister of Mines and
Resources (Mr. Crerar), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) and himself, had always been ready and willing to advance money against farm stored grain. If they were and are, then make the advance. I quote further from the report in the Winnipeg Tribune.
He disagreed with the claim that the current problem of western agriculture was primarily a dominion responsibility; rather it was one for the provincial governments.
What do those words signify? What is their meaning? Do they mean that the government will do no more than it has done? Do they mean that even though the farmer has wheat in storage on his farm, he will have to depend on relief assistance to carry him through until he is permitted to sell that wheat? All I can do in this regard is to raise my voice in protest against the treatment that is being accorded to the western farmer, as evidenced by the speech from the throne. This protest will be of no avail until members representing western Canada in this house rise in their places, and, irrespective of their party affiliations, demand a fair, reasonable and just return to the western farmer and an advance on the crop at present in storage on his land.


Mr. J. A. BLANCHETTE (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I think the house at large is greatly appreciative of the excellence of the speeches which we have heard since the calling of parliament, especially those of the mover (Mr. Claxton) and the seconder (Mr. Jutras) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. These hon. gentlemen are of different racial extractions, but they each gave to the people of their respective races admirable advice, which, if carried out. cannot do anything but help to solidify all the people of Canada into a true spirit of Canadianism. The moderation of their speeches, the seriousness and sincerity of their remarks, the profound knowledge of their theses and the
absence of political insinuations in what they said, I think struck a true keynote for the speeches to follow. The first speaker who followed was the hon. leader of the loyal opposition (Mr. Hanson), but he departed to some extent from the keynote of the speeches of the previous speakers. His first words as reported in Hansard are:
Macdonald! What a name to conjure with. And Macdonald of Kingston! How that takes our memories back seventy-five years; yet what a difference we see. After all:
What's in a name? That which we call a rose,
By any other name would smell as sweet.
Yet one of the greatest assets of the hon. gentleman is his name.
A somewhat similar compliment could be paid to the leader of the opposition, even to the extent of the poetical tribute and annotation. As we all know, the initials of the leader of the opposition are "R.B.". R.B.l What a name to conjure with. R.B. of the loyal opposition! How those initials must take back the memories of the opposition; not so many years. We can say with the poet:
But 0 for the touch of a vanished hand, *
And the sound of a voice that is still!
R.B.! What a name! What a source of inspiration!
All through this debate thus far there has been one point upon which all members have agreed, namely, that every effort should be put forth to win the war. I am sure that this will be the keynote of all discussions from now to the end of the war. There is no dissension on that point. That thought is unanimous on all sides, and in all sections of the house. In this we are but corroborating what an eminent writer of our day has said, namely, "What democracy has to do, and what makes it possible for democracy to continue as a functioning method of government, through the process of discussion, is to find areas of agreement on essentials." But if the end to be attained is agreed upon by all groups in the house, the same cannot be said of the means to be employed in arriving at that end. Here is where there is a parting of *the ways among the various groups in the house.
We have first the group of the loyal opposition, which contends that the government's efforts since the declaration of war by Canada have not been sufficient, that more men should have been sent overseas, that more material and equipment should have been available in our military stores, that our efforts were not properly coordinated, and finally it maintains that the government has continued to "soothe the Canadian people regarding the
The Address-Mr. Blanchette

war effort of the nation, thereby creating a false sense of security when a clear-cut call to action is desperately needed."
The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group criticizes the government for not having conscripted our industries, with all that that entails, immediately upon our entry into the war.
Finally the Social Credit group is critical of our war effort because the government has not had recourse to monetary reform.
The leader of the opposition stated in his speech of November 12 last, and rightly so, that it is so easy to criticize. An eminent English writer, in discussing the operation of democracy in England, says:
We pay the minority to oppose the government, to take the maximum advantage of the government's mistakes, to insist that it is ruining the country, and to flood the electorate with propaganda intended to show that the government is doing the worst possible things in the worst possible ways.
It has also been stated that a strong and free nation comes of strong and free men, and our method of government assumes that the criticism of the opposition works in the long run for the common good of all.
At this stage of the debate it might be advantageous and I think proper for all of us to follow the oft-repeated current admonition, let us face the facts, if we wish to obtain a true perspective of what this government represents and of its achievements during the present war.
First and foremost, in my humble opinion, there is no one who can speak more truly for the majority of the people of Canada than the present government-this, whether we like it or not. The groups representing the various schools of political thought in Canada have just had an opportunity of expounding their principles, theories and programmes to the supreme authority, the electorate of the country, who pronounced themselves in no uncertain manner at the last election. In other words, the Conservative party was weighed in the balance by the electorate and was found wanting. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and its programme were also scrutinized, and that group, too, has been found wanting. Finally the Social Credit group was examined by the electorate, which, as shown by the results, decided to reform the composition of the house by decimating the representatives of that group, rather than to reform the monetary policy of the country. So once again, whether we like it or not, the present government stands out as the truest form of expression of the attitude of the Canadian people.

There are groups in this house, and outside who claim to speak for the whole people of Canada or for the majority of the electorate, but by what authority is not known. In 1932, sixty per cent of the United States press opposed Roosevelt as a candidate for the presidency. In 1936, eighty per cent of the United States press again opposed him, and ninety per cent of the United States press opposed him on November 5 last, with results that we all know, thereby revealing that at times the most vociferous are out of step and tempo with the aspirations of the electorate of the country at large.
And now if I may have the liberty, Mr. Speaker,.I should like to set out in a brief and cursory way the accomplishments of this government since the declaration of war by Canada in September, 1939, even at the risk of repeating what has already been stated in the house by persons of much greater authority than I, and remembering always the state of our equipment for army, navy and air when this government assumed power in 1935. Practically nothing had been done in the previous five years in the way of expenditure on our military, naval and air forces, but to-day the total strength of the Canadian active service force is 167,417; non-permanent active militia, officers and men, 65,000; navy personnel as of November 7 last, 13,034; recruits under training each month in thirty-nine camps, at least 25,000; air force, total number of officers and men, 30,599; enlistment of air crews as of November 2 last, 6,884; or a total of 307,934.
We have to-day in commission 140 vessels, 17 corvettes, 4 mine-sweepers and 12 destroyers. Contracts for munitions, war supplies and equipment as of November 4 last, total $443,000,000; and capital expenditures for plant construction and extensions, $235,000,000.
Plans have been accepted for the manufacture of 3,000 tanks, and at the end of the first year of the Bren gun contract _ there should be three times as many guns delivered as were called for by the contract.
The establishment of the war-time prices and trade board and the foreign exchange control board is an achievement of which this government may well be proud owing to the beneficial results derived therefrom by the Canadian people.
Let us not forget, too, that the unity which we find throughout the length and breadth of Canada to-day was not a product of spontaneous generation but was brought about rather by good judgment, able leadership and far-sightedness.
Last but not least, I believe that in large measure the people of Canada and of the whole British empire are greatly appreciative of the Ogdensburg agreement of August 17

The Address-Mr. Blanchette
last. This agreement may not have been accomplished to the blare of trumpets and the beating of drums or with astronomical figures affecting our economy or the treasury, but often the greatest events in history are predicated upon simplicity, quietude and farsightedness.
Let us not lull ourselves into the belief that this accomplishment was an inspiration which came to the United States overnight, especially since it wras announced during the course of an election campaign. It was brought about through the continued amicable relations and interviews which occurred between the United States and this country under Liberal administrations. One of the greatest acts among the many outstanding to the credit and achievement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is the consummation of the Ogdensburg agreement, a magna charta in the history of democracies. It is patent to us that this is one of the effects of the friendly relations which the Prime Minister has always fostered, nurtured and developed with the great republic to the south. I do not wish to convey the impression that the advantages of this agreement are only unilateral, but I feel that it is of the greatest importance for the aim which all free countries have in view, namely the crushing of bandits and gangsters on the international highways of the world.
These are some accomplishments of the government since the declaration of war by Canada. As has been truly stated, the government does not have to defend or justify its achievements; they defend themselves. That there may have been misgivings or misjudgments here and there may be granted. But what country has not made mistakes in its transition from peace to war activities? For example, in 1937 France manufactured throughout the whole year only thirty-eight aeroplanes, while Germany was making 100 a month, or 1,200 in a year. In the eight months prior to September, 1939, there were working in the Renault arsenal shops in France only 7,000 men out of a force of
30,000	which was the regular peace-time strength; 23,000 of those artisans were doing manual labour in the army.
In January, 1940, apart from the Canadian division no one could show us a corps of troops superior to a battalion. If we take our efforts as a wrhole and visualize them as such, I believe that no one with an open mind will deny that what we have done shows a really epic effort, a thoroughly united effort. If we grant that this government may have made mistakes, where is the guarantee that the critics of the administration might not
have made miscalculations and misjudgments? If we establish a true comparison between the efforts of this government during the first fifteen months of the war and the efforts of the administration which was in power during the last war, this government stands up favourably in all its fields of effort, and the preponderance wiLl not be spurious.
I have clipped from this morning's Montreal Gazette an article headed, "Canadian war costs to date over 1914-18":
London, November 18.-Hon. Vincent Massey, Canadian High Commissioner, said in a broadcast to-night that Canada has nearly as many men under arms now as at the end of the last war, and that her war expenditures since the outbreak are greater than in the whole four years of the 1914-18 conflict.
As has often been stated in this house by responsible ministers of the crown, corroborated by persons in high command in England, our cooperation with England has been of the fullest, and I feel that the Canadian people are satisfied with the efforts of the present government. In accordance with the true spirit and essence of democracy let us all cooperate, as much as possible, not only by word but by thought and deed, in this our supreme effort in the history of Canada and the British empire.
There are other matters, referring to the agricultural interests of the country, which I should like to bring to the attention of this house before taking my seat. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is to be commended for bringing back to this country the agreement which he did. It is noted, for example, that we shall be able to sell bacon to Great Britain to the extent of $69,000,000.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: At what price?


Joseph-Adéodat Blanchette: We shall be able to export cheese in the coming year to the volume of 112,000,000 pounds at 14-4 cents; condensed milk to the extent of some $3,750,000; frozen fish of the value of $12,100,000, and fruit and honey to the amount of some $4,500,000. It is to be hoped that by such a diversion of dairy products the butter market will be enhanced during the producing time of the year. I know that at the present time butter obtains a fair price, but unfortunately the majority of farmers got 20 cents for their butter which is now selling for 30 to 35 cents, the difference going into the hands of those who bought at the low price and stored the product for enhancement. At 20 cents a pound for butter, the farmer is receiving about 72 cents a hundred pounds for his milk which is costing him between $1.69 and $2.04 to produce, depending on the
The Address-Mr. Blanchette

size of the herd, as per data obtained during a recent survey in the county of Deux Montagnes, a survey made under the direction of Professor Toupin of l'Institut d'Oka. These conditions have been prevailing for a number of years in the butter industry, and the attention of the government is drawn to this disparity between the cost of production and the return upon same during the producing time of the year.
If the wheat grower, the apple grower, and the potato grower must receive the attention of the government in order to carry on, surely the same consideration is more necessary for the farmer who is engaged in the production of butter, which needs a farmer's attention 365 days of the year. I trust that the government will devote its most sincere consideration to this branch of the dairy industry. If I may be permitted to offer a suggestion, I would say that a reduction in the transportation cost of feed would be of great assistance to the dairy industry; or again, the providing of storage facilities, with interim government payments to the producer, would enable the butter producer to gather all the profits derived from his production, which he is not at present getting, and this with no increased cost to the consumer.
Another matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the government is heating with wood to aid our war effort. A timely editorial in this regard appeared in the Sherbrooke Daily Record in which it is stated that, where practicable, Canadian householders can achieve the dual objective of aiding in winning the war and at the same time reducing their annual expenditure for fuel by the increased use of wood for domestic heating purposes, according to information gathered by the forest products laboratories of the Department of Mines and Resources.
Each year, for domestic consumption in Canada, quite apart from industrial uses, about 3,400,000 tons of anthracite coal and about 1,800.000 tons of bituminous coal are imported. In addition, homes equipped with oil burners necessitate the importation of a considerable quantity of crude oil from which fuel is derived. Under present conditions, when every effort is being expended to conserve foreign exchange, it is important that Canada's outlay for imported fuels be reduced by drawing on her abundant resources in fuel from low grade wood. At present Canada uses approximately 10,000,000 cords of wood a year for domestic fuel. This is equal in heat value to 6.600.000 tons of anthracite. Effective heat obtained from one and one-quarter cords of good hardwood is equivalent to the heat obtained from one ton of anthracite coal.

While burning wood may entail more work and inconvenience in stoking than some other fuels, in most instances a substantial saving can be made by its use. As a measure of national economy reliance on Canadian fuel resources is important, and places within the reach of every householder a means of furthering our war effort.
I have already made this suggestion to the Department of National Defence as well as to the war supply board, in connection with the 39 training camps throughout the country, when practicable, and trust that the suggestion will be considered, as a means of conserving our foreign exchange, giving more work to our own people in lumber districts, and finally as a tangible proof that the government is carrying out the recommendations of the forest products laboratories which can be done in training centres located near lumber regions.
The war-time prices and trade board has been doing effective work in the protection of the consumer against undue profiteering, and it is to be commended for it. Undue profiteering may be derived either, on the one hand, from a price higher than a fair price, on a produced or manufactured commodity, or, on the other, by paying too low a price for the producing or manufacturing of that commodity. I believe that the war-time prices and trade board, or, if not in its jurisdiction, the departments of labour, both federal and provincial, would be well advised to be on the alert, in the way of survey and inquiry, in connection with corporations which are deriving undue benefits and profits in their handling or manufacturing of certain products and commodities. In doing so it will be rendering a great service to the producers of our basic industries, and to our labourers, both of which classes of the community need our constant attention and care.
To refer in passing to matters of provincial jurisdiction, newspapers of Quebec city, under date of November 16 last, mention a news item to the effect that the Quebec provincial government may establish a fixed price, a minimum price, on pulpwood that settlers and farmers cut on their land, and that a commission may be instituted in that regard, with powers similar to that of the dairy commission. Such a commission would render invaluable services to all concerned and I only trust that this long felt-want will become a reality in the very near future. I understand that it is a rule of thumb with the paper mills to be able to pay for pulpwood at the mill 30 per cent of the current price of newsprint as delivered at New York. This price is not being paid at present. The fact that this commission will be created speaks

The Address-Mr. Shaw
very well for the efforts of one of our former colleagues, Hon. Paul Emile Cote, who is directing, as minister, the department of lands and forests at Quebec.
Finally, in closing my remarks, may I refer to the frequent mention which is being made in the country at present of encouraging our youths in bilingualism? I have been favouring bilingualism for a number of years and would be remiss in my belief and duty if I did not profit by this occasion to state to our Canadian youth and to our educational institutions that no better preparation could be devised to develop and foster unity in the dominion and to ensure the economic success of the person so equipped. Paul Reynaud once asked, "Jeunesse, quelle France voulez-vous?" The youth of this country have already replied to this question by being in the military camps to-day. If our educational institutions are to be true to preparing our youth for the future, a fostering of bilingualism on a larger scale than has been done before cannot do otherwise than have the most beneficial results in the social, economic and national fabric of Canada.


Mr. F. D. SHAW (Red Deer):: During
the course of the past week we have been privileged to listen to a number of addresses which I will classify as follows: First, those addresses delivered by ministers of the crown in an attempt to inform members of the house exactly what the government of the day is doing and has been doing with respect to Canada's wrar effort. Second, we have had those addresses by members of the house who are genuinely concerned about Canada's war effort and also genuinely concerned about what the outcome is going to be. Third, I believe I am quite safe in saying that there are those who are so surprised at having been elected that they cannot resist the temptation to boast about it. I believe we have just had a typical example of that.
We in this group have had reflections cast upon us from time to time, but it will be noticed that it does not stop us. One such reflection was that we have come back with reduced numbers. May I say this to the members of the house. We went to the country on a definite programme and we are still following it, whereas there are others not far away who went to the country on a definite programme which they deserted at the first opportunity. We have nothing to be ashamed of.
I was deeply interested in the addresses delivered by the ministers; most of them were quite enlightening. Much that we heard gave us courage, but there was much to depress us In dealing with the depressing aspect of 14S73-16
a certain speech, may I refer to that one delivered here on November 15 by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). This is one statement which he made:
... we still have to face the fact of a serious shortage in equipment and armament, and we shall probably have to face that fact for a good while yet in many instances.
First I wish to congratulate the minister upon being very frank. I believe that if there are shortages we the people of Canada should know about them. But I say this further, I believe that if this government five years ago had listened to the suggestions of members of this group they would not have had the same reason for stating that there are still shortages of equipment and armament. Furthermore, in connection with that same matter I say that if they were not prepared to take our advice in 1935, surely by 1937 there was ample reason for doing so, and how much better still was the reason for accepting it in September, 1939. I would make a further assertion, namely, that if the minister's statement is correct, as I have no doubt it is, there can be little good reason for there being any idle factories in this Canada of ours. There can be very little justification for there being any idle men in this country. I was appalled during the last month or two as I travelled by car through western Canada to see the great numbers of young men walking up and down the roads with packs on their backs. I made it a point to pick them up; I ascertained very early in my discussions with them where they were from and why they were out of work. There is absolutely no justification for young men walking up and down our roads in idleness at this stage of this terrific conflict.
May I refer again to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) delivered in this house on November 14? I turn to his prognostications relative to the wheat situation. I notice his speech was literally filled with the word "assume"; assuming this and assuming that, said the minister, this will be the outcome. What did the Conservatives call it-lulling and soothing us. That, I take it, was a typical example of what they were referring to. He said in effect, assuming that the blockade is lifted, assuming that we increase consumption internally, assuming that we can sell certain quantities to the United Kingdom, assuming that we have so many years of war, and assuming that we can sell certain quantities to those countries which are not blockaded, at the end of the five-year period we shall find that we fall short by fifty million bushels of supplying the world's demand for wheat. When I heard

The Address-Mr. Shaw

the minister make those statements I almost had to classify him as the master seer, or the very personification of optimism, or an arithmetical genius. But when I observed on another page of Hansard that he referred to the fact that in the last general election our party was cut in two, which meant that half of sixteen is ten, I could place but little faith in the value of his guesses, if I may use that word, with respect to the wheat situation.
It may be a very fine thing to tell the Canadian people that there is hope in five years. I believe the Liberal party is used to things happening in five-year cycles. That is, they are either elected or defeated, and I think they cannot get the idea of elections out of their minds.
The statement of the Minister of Agriculture with respect to wheat did absolutely nothing to satisfy the farmers of western Canada who have at the present time vast surpluses of wheat, in many instances lying out without shelter in the open fields. I say, enough of these prognostications, enough of these lulling and soothing utterances, as our Conservative friends would describe them. I still think we shall have to turn to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) in order really to get an announcement with respect to the government's wheat policy.
If, Mr. Speaker, I abstain from lengthy discourse upon this occasion, it is not because I believe that parliament should abrogate its proper function, that of carrying on a debate to the fullest measure for the purpose of furthering Canada's war effort. Hon. members would be remiss in their duty if they were to leave unsaid those things which ought to be said, simply because Canada is in a state of war.
May I digress for a moment to pass one comment about the constituency which I represent. My constituents in the constituency of Red Deer are blessed in many ways. Within the bounds of that constituency we enjoy a wide diversity of activity. We have grain growing, mixed farming, dairying, mining, lumbering, manufacturing if only to a limited extent, flour milling, and the oil drilling industry even though it, too, may be only in the experimental stage. We are relatively free from the ravages of drought and insect pests, and with a few excepted areas our agricultural productivity is comparatively constant. Located in a parkland area, as we are, I assure you that much of our scenery is unsurpassed. Further, and possibly this is most important, my electors have for a good twenty years been able to
fMr. Shaw.]
reject the wooings and constant advances of all the isms, including Liberalism and Conservatism.
One would naturally assume that we have strong justification for being extremely happy. And we are. But still there are some things which have a tendency to depress us. One thing that I find depresses my constituents a great deal is the outlook for the post-war period which will come upon us just as sure as we are here. I know I may be criticized for dealing with the post-war period at this time, but I have not heard a logical argument against giving consideration to that period now. I believe that to-day is the day bo prepare for to-morrow, if we are going to be successful in meeting the conditions which will face us to-morrow.
Most hon. members who have spoken during this debate have laid a great deal of emphasis upon Canada's present objective. I realize as well as anyone does that our foremost objective is to win this war. We are fighting to win; there is no doubt about that. We have undertaken a tremendous task; there is no doubt about that either. We are making a supreme effort to protect our freedom against the dictators who would destroy it. But let us not foe deluded. We are not fighting to preserve the state of affairs which has prevailed in this country during the past decade. We are not fighting this war to preserve governments which have brought us poverty, relief, unemployment, s.qualor, hardship, the bankruptcy of agriculture and the ruin of primary industry. We are not fighting to preserve a government which will tolerate these things. We are not fighting the war to preserve a man-made set of economic rules which would work beautifully if we were living in an age of scarcity but which dismally fail to meet a condition of abundance. Those boys who left the relief lines and who dropped off box cars to enlist are not offering their lives to preserve a demoralizing existence, without hope and without prospects. I think the sooner the government of Canada realizes these facts, the more genuine will be Canada's war effort.
While referring to those boys, I believe I am quite safe in saying that although thousands of them are in uniform, willing to make the supreme sacrifice, there is in their minds an element of doubt. I will have to enlarge upon that statement in order that hon. members may know what I am getting at. I have talked with many of these young men, and they have said to me, " What is to become of us when this war is over?" To further elaborate that point I should like to read a statement appearing in the November

The Address-Mr. Shaw
16 issue of the Montreal Standard. This is just a sentence taken from a letter written by a young soldier now in a prison camp in Germany. In writing home he said:
Shall be returning home when this is all over, and settle down, I think, that is, if there are any positions open or available.
That is a good indication of what that boy is thinking about at the present time. So I say, if we are going to get the maximum effort from these boys, the very least we can do is assure them that when this war is over, they will be guaranteed economic security, such as we know this rich Canada of ours is able to provide.
We know that we must defeat the dictators, because if we do not, they will take from us freedom of speech and freedom of action. But I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we must also fight against those forces at home which would deprive us and our boys of the fruits of victory. So I say our duty to-day is twofold: first, to put every ounce of energy into the war and, second, to lay the foundation for a new society at home, a society built upon economic security which, in its new found strength, will be bound to destroy any dictatorial force which may ever face us. We must guarantee, to every boy now in uniform that when he returns he will find a way of life worthy of his noble achievements. To-day is the day to prepare, not to-morrow. We must declare openly that there shall be no starvation and no privation in a land where people are accustomed to boast about their vast surpluses of all kinds of commodities. To me, there is nothing more disgraceful and nothing with less justification than to see, in a land such as this, vast quantities of food and of materials for making clothing, and at the same time hungry and ill-clad children on every side. While we in this group have been belittled from time to time for making statements of this kind, I have yet to hear anyone, from his place in this house, or on the public platform, attempt to justify such a condition. I dare say no one would even try to do so.
I turn now to the monthly review of the Bank of Nova Scotia dated September 26, 1940, which contains these words:
One thing is clear; that the years of the last decade have in reality been years of growing warfare and cannot be regarded as a desirable standard for the future.
I commend these further words to hon. members:
A sane world has no place for millions of hungry people and great quantities of unsalable foodstuffs.
I am in absolute agreement with that states ment. When this war is over, our government must not endeavour to bring about better times simply by trying to stimulate production, as we have done in the past. That has been one great weakness of governments in days gone by; they have tried to gear up production to even greater speed in order to meet every little ill that has cropped up throughout the country. I say, and it has been said here time and again, that when this war is over, the problem we shall face will not be that of stimulating production; it will be that of distributing the abundance which we shall still have here even if this war lasts ten years
I should now like to quote just two or three paragraphs from an editorial headed, "After the War is Over," appearing in the Globe and Mail of August 9, 1940:
The problem of this century is one of distribution. The old problem of production to meet the needs and demands of the people has been solved.
When next the dominion parliament meets, it should begin to consider ways and means of providing change-over from a war-time economy to a peace-time one, bearing in mind that want shall not be necessary, and that unemployment shall not be justified on the grounds that there is no work to do-it can be explained only by the fact that we have not discovered yet how to employ labour to advantage.
A nation never goes bankrupt in the sense that it is helpless to provide for itself and its people. It can only go bankrupt according to certain financial standards which, because of the very fact that they show it as bankrupt, prove nothing but their own incompetence to reflect reality. No nation is ever bankrupt so long as it has tilled acres, uncut lumber, untapped mineral zones and so great an establishment of plant and equiment that it can produce a volume and variety of goods and services many times greater than its population can profitably utilize at the prevailing standard of life.
We are a rich people. We shall be even richer after the war. But we must begin to consider how we can best reorient our economy so that our latent capacity to produce wealth will be utilized fully and the resulting output equitably distributed.
I sajr, and I believe I am correct in saying, that the Toronto Globe and Mail is an orthodox publication. If that is true, then it would appear that even the orthodox thinkers are waking up. When I went before the people during the last general election I stated that the one thing I would press for would be the setting up of a house committee to deal with post-war problems. I was greatly pleased when I noticed in the speech from the throne of last spring the following statement:
... it is desirable, as far as may be possible, to plan for the days that will follow the cessation of hostilities.
I was pleased further to notice that on the Votes and Proceedings of the same date
The Address-Mr. Shaw

was a notice of a resolution under the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to set up a select committee of the house for the purpose of dealing with this matter. 1 was, however, chagrined when on June 18, as recorded on page 864 of Hansard, the Prime Minister saw fit to withdraw his resolution. When I returned to my constituency after the adjournment, my constituents questioned me about the attitude of the government.- toward setting up a committee, and I had no alternative than to tell them the truth. They were greatly depressed when they learned of the withdrawal of this resolution by the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister was speaking on that occasion he stated that if it were considered advisable at a later date again to introduce the resolution, it would be done. Apparently it was not considered advisable to do that during the time the house was in session.
About the time that the house reconvened I noticed that the government had set up a subcommittee of the cabinet, made up largely of civil servants, which was to act as an advisory committee to the government in dealing with post-war problems. The thought came to me: WThy was it deemed advisable to set up a committee made up largely of civil servants instead of a committee made up of the elected representatives of the people? No matter what other committees have been set up for the purpose of studying post-war problems, I say in all sincerity that a house committee should be set up forthwith. May I say to this committee, or to any committees that have been set up, that there are certain matters which should be taken into consideration when dealing with this great question.
The first is, what attitude is to be taken with regard to civilian health? Last spring I spoke at some length in this house about civilian health. I was prompted to do so by the fact that after the war broke out, it was discovered beyond all question of doubt that the health of the Canadian people, as reflected by the health of the soldiers who had been examined, was just not good, In this connection I should like to quote from an editorial which appeared in a recent issue of Health. I enjoy quoting from this publication because I find it invariably hits the nail on the head. This is what they say in the autumn issue with respect to this question:
Soon it will be possible for our authorities to estimate with reasonable accuracy the number of young men in certain age groups who are fit-and by the same token those who are unfit to serve in the army.
Of course in piping times of peace such things are "impossible". One recalls debates in the House of Commons W'hen at the end of interminable talk following a resolution by a 
patriotic medical man to the effect that there should be periodic physical examination of our population the conclusion was reached that the thing was utopian and impossible. And yet shortly with the incentive of war we discover that it is possible and that we have done it.
It is surprising what the Canadian people or the Canadian government can do when faced with such a tragedy as war. The editorial continues:
The percentage of disabilities to be found will doubtless be high. It was high when similar examinations were conducted during the operation of the Military Service Act during the last -war. The revelations made then and about to be made now prove conclusively that from the standpoint of health we constantly neglect large sections of our population.
Thinking people are beginning to wonder what we are going to do about it. Why should we wait until we are faced with a serious war before we begin to take stock of our human assets? Why is the health and welfare of the average young man and woman not an essential objective in peace-time as well as in war-time?
If one desires to ask a further pertinent if not an impertinent question one may enquire why it is that in spite of the increasing disabilities which may be expected from either a financial depression or a war frequently the first thing a government thinks of under such circumstances is to reduce health expenditures instead of increasing them.
That is something that has always been in my mind, and I believe I expressed my feelings when wTe were considering the estimates of the health department. The editorial continues:
When one considers that in war the fit are sacrificed on the altars of Mars and the unfit left at home a situation is discovered which should demand the attention of all political leaders.
Our statesmen on the ivhole have given very little consideration to the subject.
I do trust that these committees and the government will see fit to give proper consideration to the question of health. If we are seriously tackling the problem, the first thing for us to do, because a prerequisite to good health is adequate food, clothing and shelter, is to assure the Canadian people that they shall be provided with the necessities of life so long as we are able to provide them, and if the present financial policy of Canada will not enable the government to do that, there is only one thing for the government to do and that is to change the financial policy.
One thing comes to my mind in that connection. In a recent address the president of the Canadian Bankers' Association is reported to have referred once again to "funny money," and it is significant that he referred to "funny money" on the evening of the same day on which the leader of the Social Credit group spoke in this house.

The Address-Mr. Shaw
I say to the president of the Canadian Bankers' Association that if he wants to talk about "funny money," all he has to do is to talk about his own bankers' money because in the depression we were using the so-called bankers' money, and it must have been "funny money" indeed to bring upon us such conditions as prevailed then during a period of great abundance. So I say that when the president of the Canadian Bankers' Association talks loosely about "funny money" and cautions the government to have nothing to do with it, he is really giving the government a hint to cast him adrift and start building up a financial policy which will provide for the people of Canada those things which are physically possible and desirable.
I wish now to make reference to one question that came up in the last session of parliament, namely the processing tax as it applied to wheat which is gristed in the local mills, where the miller keeps a part of the wheat to pay for the cost of grinding. On August 3 last the question was asked in this house whether the miller would have to pay the processing tax if he took part of the farmer's grain as payment for grinding the balance into flour. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) gave it as his opinion at the time that the miller would have to pay the processing tax. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) then stated that his opinion was that this was no ordinary transaction and therefore he did not think the tax would apply. May I add that the Minister of Trade and Commerce in giving his opinion said that the tax was designed to help the producer.
I have been giving this matter a great deal of consideration especially in view of the fact that the wheat board in its circular of August 16 stated that the processing tax would apply. The farmers take their wheat to the local mills to be ground into flour. How, then, can a processing tax which is charged against that farmer be said to be designed to help the farmer? I have in my constituency at least one privately-owned mill which has been a boon to the farmers of that district for a great many years, and I find upon investigation that the processing tax is a handicap to the farmer. It is an extra charge upon the farmer. How can it be designed to help him if in the final analysis it does him a great deal of harm? So I say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, do not leave this matter where it now stands, but let us go into it more fully and when the minister has all the evidence before him I believe he will agree with me that the processing tax should not be applied in the
case of the local mill where the farmer leaves a part of his grain with the miller to pay for the wheat he has had ground into flour.
It was announced during the last session that the processing tax would have to be borne by the miller, and I believe hon. members generally were agreed that that was quite proper. I am speaking from memory but I believe early in August we were advised that the large mills could not stand the 16 cent processing tax. That seems strange, I would Say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I do not know upon what basis he came to that conclusion or exactly what factors were taken into consideration, but I do know that very soon after the application of the processing tax, which is passed on to the consumer, the large milling companies of this country entered into a price-cutting war and they knocked their prices down and down and down. That is fine for the consumer. Prices went down nearly to where they should be. But it does not substantiate the argument that the large mills were unable to bear the weight of the processing tax.
It is significant, too, that even with the processing tax, and even after it was passed on plus the price war, the five largest milling concerns in Canada recently declared the second highest dividend in five years, a total sum of $2,040,000, approximately, to be distributed in dividends among the shareholders of these concerns.
I have in my constituency near the village of Penhold one of the service flying training schools. I have been given to understand that when sites were being selected for the' establishment of these schools the engineers-were the ones who determined the location and that a field would not be established in a certain constituency just because a Liberal member of parliament happened to reside there. I am satisfied that the practice of having the engineers determine the location is the proper one, and if that is so I would1 Say to the government, for goodness sake send a letter to the defeated candidate in my constituency and to certain newspapers who are building him up for the next election, telling them that it is the engineers who determine the location, for apparently they do not know it. The people of my district are very happy that that school is being established there. We know that it has had a beneficial effect in reducing local unemployment and that it has stimulated business in the vicinity. But I have had disturbing reports about the part being played in the hiring of men by a certain member of the executive of the Edmonton Liberal Association. I am not making any charges and
The Address-Mr. Shaw

therefore I mention no names, but these disturbing reports have come to me from many quarters, and believe me, if it is at all possible I shall run them down.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: Go
ahead.


Mr. HANSELL:: Agreed.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Thank you, I shall take just
a moment, Mr. Speaker. In the city of Red Deer, in my constituency, we have one of the thirty-day training schools-I know of no better name-and I may say that we are happy to have it there. I had occasion to be in Red Deer on the morning of October 9, when several hundred of these boys detrained at that point, and I was amused to see them march down the avenue; I wondered just how long it would be before they would appear like real soldiers. I happened to be in Red Deer two or three weeks later, and I was particularly pleased to see what grand work had been done in the training of these boys. A good deal of credit is due the officers in charge for their accomplishments. On two occasions I went into the camp. I found among the boys no general resentment at having had to go to camp, but rather they took it like good sports. I had, however, a number of complaints. But I know that the scheme is only in its infancy, and that everything had to be rushed just prior to the opening of the camp. So may I say, Mr. Speaker, this final word, that while I am not lodging any criticism of the camp at the present time, I reserve the right to criticize whenever I believe that criticism is due.
Mr. J. E. S. EMMANUEL D'ANJOU (Rimouski):	(Translation) Mr. Speaker, it
is not without deep emotion that I rise to address the house after an absence of sixteen years. Indeed, I was fortunate enough to be elected in 1917 to represent the electoral division of Rimouski in this house where I sat until 1924. In 1940 the electors of the same county of Rimouski did me the honour of choosing me as their candidate in circumstances almost identical with those of 1917. At that time Canada was at war and conscription was in force. In 1940 Canada is taking part in the war, but, thank God, there is no conscription for overseas service. I came forward as a candidate in Rimouski with the same programme that I had in 1917. I was the candidate of the Liberal party led by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), and it is as such that I conducted my campaign. I told my electors that
FMr. Shaw.]
I was the official candidate of the King-Lapointe Liberal party. I have come to this house to give my full support to the government in its free and voluntary war effort.
In 1917 I stated to my electors of Rimouski that I was opposed to compulsory military service overseas, and I told them the same thing this year. I declared on many occasions, however, that should circumstances require it I would be the first to shed my blood for the defence of Canada, but that I should refuse to do so outside the country. My views have not changed. I have pledged myself to oppose in this house any move to impose conscription for service overseas, and that promise I will keep. The following words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier represent my views:
Canada first, Canada always, Canada only.
However, when the mobilization act was placed before parliament I did not hesitate to support it.. Section 3 of this act is quite clear:
The powers conferred by the next preceding section may not be exercised for the purpose of requiring persons to serve in the military, naval or air forces outside of Canada and the territorial waters thereof.
My constituents have recognized with me the timeliness of that mobilization act providing solely for the defence in Canada. Those who live in my constituency are justly proud to number among their own people two gallant soldiers, Jean Brillant and Joseph Kable, who, during the last w7ar, had the honour of winning the highest military decoration, the Victoria Cross. How many constituencies in Canada can boast of men to whom such honours have been awarded? I am proud of representing in this house a constituency where national registration has given such splendid results. Every one heeded the call and the registration was complete. Such a wonderful result was largely due to the wise and enlightened directions given by the priests of my constituency, to whom I tender my respectful and sincere thanks. Since the beginning of the session, much has been said about our participation in the war and our war effort but although Canada is at war, we must not overlook the problem of agriculture which is of vital concern to all parts of our dominion. Many hon. members who have preceded me have dealt with agriculture and, I, for one, represent a constituency where agriculture is very progressive, and I should consider myself unfaithful to my duty if I did not deal with this subject to-night. Last year, I requested the Minister of Agriculture to grant, as had been done previously, a sum of S2,500 to the local exhibition in the county of Rimouski.

The Address-Mr. D'Anjou
The grant was refused on account of the heavy expenses which the war entailed. Therefore the exhibition was cancelled. As a rule this exhibition is held in the centre of the county of Rimouski and all the farmers cooperate in sending their various products. Notwithstanding the wide character which the war has assumed, I would request the Minister of Agriculture to grant that amount as he formerly did. He would thus do something useful. While our soldiers are the nation's defenders, the tillers of the soil are not without importance. In order to enable our soldiers to fight, we must feed them and the farmers have to supply them with the necessary foodstuffs. Land is the great provider and it seems to me that without lessening our war effort we should, as far as possible, help the farmers and encourage them as we have done in the past.
Like all those who have preceded me, I must offer my congratulations to the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada for having met the President of the United States and concluded with him an agreement regarding the joint defence of the two countries, since we Canadians are also, after a fashion, Americans. Canada is an American country and it seems to my mind only fair and logical that such an agreement should have been signed. I am convinced that all Canadians, whatever their racial origin, were extremely pleased at the meeting of these two statesmen and heartily approve the agreement arrived at.
I also wish to congratulate and thank the government for having established in Rimouski county a training camp and flying field. I am very grateful to the Minister of National Defence for Air, thanks to whose good offices we were able to obtain these facilities. The establishment of a training camp and flying field in Rimouski county has enormously helped the training of our young men, and has been welcomed by the whole population.
I listened the other night to the excellent speech given in French by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Chambers). In my opinion, the hon. member thereby gave a lesson to a great many members from the province of Quebec who, either through snobbery or for other reasons unknown to me, rarely speak French in this house. When one wishes to preserve a right, it has always been my belief that he must exercise it. Some may consider the matter unimportant; yet I remember an occasion in 1924, the Hon. Mr. Lemieux was speaker at the time, when I arose to make some statement in the house and, turning my eyes towards the clerk's desk, I saw on it a calendar printed in
English only. I then asked the Hon. Mr. Lemieux to be kind enough to give us the bilingual calendar. Two days later we had it. After an absence of sixteen years I returned to the house and, upon entering this chamber, my first impulse was to look at this same calendar to see if it was still bilingual. I am pleased to observe that it is. While visiting the senate chamber the other day, I noticed that their calendar is not bilingual. I trust that some senator from the province of Quebec will be found to request a new one similar to that of the House of Commons.
I also wish to congratulate the government for the excellent appointments it has made in recent weeks. There is always a great deal of eagerness to criticize the government, yet its aceomplishmnts are rarely mentioned. There is nothing like comparison to establish which side has been more beneficial to the country. A close study of the different parties that have held power in Canada and of the various governments which have administered the country since confederation will convince us, and I refer especially to all French-Cana-adians residing in the province of Quebec, that we have enjoyed under Liberal administrations wider recognition of our rights than under Conservative regimes.
Therefore I say that when the government show their willingness to recognize our rights, we should at least have the decency to congratulate them instead of forever criticizing them. As I said, our government have recently made a few commendable appointments. They have appointed Mr. Sirois to the Unemployment Insurance commission. They have appointed Mr. Edmond Cloutier to the position of King's Printer. They have appointed Mr. Leduc to the Supreme Court. And there are many more appointments that I might mention. While admitting that we do not fully enjoy our rights in this country, we should never fail, when the occasion arises, to express our gratitude to the government for whatever they do along that line.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the right hon. the Prime Minister of this country for the splendid speech he delivered the other day and especially for what he said about France. He said that the French-Canadians, and more particularly those who live in the province of Quebec, now have the honour of perpetuating French culture not only in Canada but in the world. On that occasion, the Prime Minister spoke as a great Canadian. But, after all, blood will tell. The right hon. the Prime Minister of this country is the grandson of William Lyon Mackenzie, the patriot who in 1837 fought alongside Papineau for the defence of our most cherished rights. I am sure that French-
The Address-Mr. D'Anjou

Canadians from the province of Quebec and from all Canada will be grateful to the right hon. Prime Minister for the stirring words he spoke on behalf of France. No, Mr. Speaker, France is not dead and will not die. The France of the martyrs, and the missionaries-France, the eldest daughter of the church, cannot die. She will arise, radiant as before. The France who brought to Canada not only the torch of civilization1 but also the cross of Christ, will arise again in all her glory, for, I repeat, France cannot die.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we French-Canadians are not free from defects. The defects of our qualities, perhaps. As I was just saying, we do not always recognize merit where there is merit. The statesman who is the Prime Minister's chief lieutenant-I refer to the right hon. the Minister of Justice-is the subject of considerable attack, not only in certain sections of Canada but also in the province of Quebec. Political failures unworthy of unloosening his shoe-strings are constantly attacking this man who, as he stated in his radio addresses, is our defender. When congratulating the government on their recent appointments from the French-Cana-dian point of view, I saw in these appointments the hand of the Minister of Justice. Instead of doing justice to our public men while they are living, we always wait till they are dead. To-day we render justice to Chapleau, Mercier and Laurier. I suppose justice will be done to the Minister of Justice after his death. He will occupy a high place in the history of our country. Monuments have been erected to the memory of Laurier and Mercier. Lapointe will have his monument, carved in the granite of the Rocky mountains. That monument will remind our grandchildren and great grandchildren that the Minister of Justice was a great Canadian, a benefactor of his race. If we always kept in mind the motto of the province of Quebec "I remember", we should not forget those who have shed lustre upon our race and who have fought for our rights. I pray the Lord to give long life to the right hon. Minister of Justice, who has inherited Laurier's unblemished mantle, so that he may remain for many years at the helm of our country, not only in the best interests of Canadians of all nationalities, but to ensure that our rights, the rights of French-Canadians of the province of Quebec shall be respected.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I have been happy to do justice to the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada and especially to a man who is denied justice, but whose name shall be written in gold in the history of our country, the right hon. Minister of Justice.

On motion of Mr. Taylor the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 10.52 p.m.
Wednesday, November 20, 1940.