1941-11-14

RESTRICTION OP DELIVERIES TO SERVICE STATIONS SUSPENDED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a short statement. In my statement of November 7 to the committee I pointed out that the present system of controlling gasoline consumption by cutting deliveries to service stations, while effective from the viewpoint of reducing gasoline consumption, is not satisfactory either to the service stations or to the public. The system places the problem of rationing supplies on the shoulders of the service stations, and rationing to the public may or may not be equitable, depending on the policy adopted by the service station operator. At the same time I stated that a system of coupon rationing will be introduced as soon as necessary preparation for so doing can be completed.
The situation has been reviewed in the light of present stocks of gasoline, prospects of future deliveries, and lower gasoline consumption through voluntary conservation, and account has been taken of the fact that winter weather is in itself effective as a control on use of gasoline for pleasure driving. Fortunately, there has been no recent change for the worse in the prospect of transportation facilities, on which our supply situation depends.
Taking all these factors into account, it has been decided that regulations restricting
Privilege-Mr. Bertrand

deliveries of gasoline to service stations will be suspended, pending introduction of the coupon system of rationing. The restricted hours of sale will continue as now in force.
The present situation still demands conservation. In my recent statement I pointed out that our refinery inventory position as of October 1, 1941, is 1,422,721 barrels less than at October 1 of last year. I also pointed out that the transportation facilities necessary to meet our requirements are short 3-5 ocean tankers of 100,000 barrels capacity each, after giving effect to the savings accruing from the Portland-Montreal pipeline. It is in view of the reduction in the normal demand for gasoline for private motor cars during the winter months, and my confidence in the willingness of the public to continue to cooperate, that the decision to eliminate quota restrictions has been arrived at. The lifting of the quota restrictions is directed toward saving public inconvenience, embarrassment to station operators, and inequalities that undoubtedly arise from the rough and ready system of curtailment that was improvised in an emergency, both in Canada and in the United States.
I make the strongest possible appeal to the public to continue voluntary conservation of gasoline during the winter months. I urge that no step that has been taken in the direction of voluntary curtailment be retraced, on account of action now being announced.



HIGHWAY ACCIDENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply arising out of the eighty-two deaths from automobile accidents which occurred in the city of Toronto this year. The minister now has a federal transit officer in Toronto making a study of the transportation system of that city. In view of the great loss of life from this cause throughout Canada will the Minister of Munitions and Supply study the question of widening the powers of the federal transit officer, so that when parliament meets in January we may have a survey made and a report given to the high court of parliament on that great scandal in Canada? Will the minister study the matter along these lines and give a reply?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to look into that.
TMr. Howe.]



PRIVILEGE-MR. BERTRAND REFERENCE TO USE IN BROADCAST ADDRESS OF DOCUMENT IN HANDS OF INTELLIGENCE SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ERNEST BERTRAND (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) made a statement in the house, and has asked questions respecting a document that I read in a radio speech made by me some time this summer, and I believe the hon. member's statement reflects on my character. Had I been in the house when the hon. member spoke I would have answered him immediately.
The reference was to a document I used in two broadcast speeches on the network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation last summer. I had known about this alleged secret document long before it was ever discussed in the committee on the defence of Canada regulations. As a matter of fact, as a member of that committee I asked repeatedly that the officers of the Department of Justice read the document to the committee, because I thought it was important that they should know about it. After it was read to the committee I asked permission to speak about the document on the radio, and I obtained it from an officer of the Department of Justice. My addresses before they were given on the air w'ere sent to the mounted police, received their approval and were then returned to me. So that I did not commit any breach of secrecy or anything of the kind. After I had given the addresses, all the daily newspapers in Montreal and in the province of Quebec spoke very favourably about them, and asked that more of these documents be given to the people so that they would understand why the regulations are so strict.
I do not feel that I have committed any breach of secrecy in the matter, and I take this opportunity of making that clear to the house.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply. I am informed that twenty-six men, employees of the Allied Brass company, in Montreal, have been laid off because of lack of work. I am informed that the Allied Brass company is a government-owned plant operated on a

Internments
managerial fee basis by the Canada Wire and Cable company of Montreal. It manufactures brass caps for shells. Can the minister tell the house the reason for this lay-off? Is it because of a shortage of materials, or because it is considered that we have all the shell caps that are needed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can assure my hon. friend it is not due to any lack of material or lack of orders; but I have no knowledge of the matter in question. I shall be glad to make inquiries, and possibly give, later in the day, the information my hon. friend requires.



INTERNMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. DORISE W. NIELSEN (North Battleford): Mr. Speaker, I believe it is in order at this time to place a petition before hon. members of the house. So far as I have been able to ascertain the petition is quite in order, under standing order 68. It begins with the usual superscription to "The honourable the House of Commons in parliament assembled," and then goes on in the usual manner, stating that the "petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth," and so on.
The subject matter is set out in several paragraphs, as is usual with petitions, and it concludes with the formal prayer. In this instance the petitioners are citizens of Canada now interned in the gaol in the city of Hull, Quebec. It is signed by seventy-eight men.
The material allegations contained in the petition are briefly these: That these antifascists have been interned for, some of them, as long as seventeen months. First they were interned with anti-fascist prisoners of war, and since August 20, 1941, in the gaol in the city of Hull, Quebec. They have sent sworn affidavits to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice.
Mr. SPEAKER:: I am afraid the hon. member is not permitted to read the text of the petition. She may present it, however, as briefly as possible.


Mrs. NIELSEN:: I am not reading the
petition. I am simply placing the contents of it before the house in brief form. I have looked up the proceedings in Hansard, and I have found that when the petition with respect to old age pensioners was brought to the
house the allegations contained therein were stated by the hon. member who presented the petition. I am doing the same thing.


Georges Parent: The hon. member has
already stated sufficiently the contents of the petition, so that hon. members may understand what it contains. I suggest that she should now lay it on the table of the house.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: So far I have mentioned only one of the allegations contained therein; there are a few more. May I be permitted to proceed?


Georges Parent: The hon. member must
realize that at present there is nothing before the chair. The petition should be sent in, to see that it conforms with the requirements respecting such petitions, and so that the house may have an idea of what it contains. After, the petition is laid on the table there will be opportunity to decide whether it falls within the rules respecting petitions, and therefore I suggest that the hon. member lay it on the table.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you deny me the right to mention the allegations?


Georges Parent: I have not denied a right. All I have said is that the hon. member, in the statement she has given, has summarized the contents of the petition to an extent sufficient to enable hon. members to judge of its contents. That is sufficient for her purposes. A petition laid on the table of the house is a document of the house which any hon. member may read in its entirety.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: But I understand that 1
am complying fully with the regulations set out in standing order 68.


Georges Parent: The hon. member is complying with the regulations respecting the form of the petition, and I believe she has already stated its contents. That is in conformity with the rules of the house. But having made the contents of the petition known to some extent I suggest it is then the duty of the hon. member to lay it on the table of the house, so that hon. members may satisfy themselves as to what it contains.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: I really am sorry to have to persist, but I see no reason why this petition should not be treated the same as the petition respecting old age pensioners, because on that occasion the hon. member who presented the
Internments

petition did read a number of the allegations contained therein. Possibly they were not read actually as presented, but they were stated briefly.


Georges Parent: The hon. member will
aave to accept my ruling, which is in compliance with standing order 68 (7) which reads:
On the next day following the presentation of a petition the clerk of the house shall lay upon the table the report of the clerk of petitions upon the petitions presented and such report shall be printed in the votes and proceedings of that day. Every petition so reported upon, not containing matter in breach of the privileges of this house, and which, according to the standing orders or practice of this house can be received, shall then be deemed to be permitted to be read and received.
I must rule that the hon. member has satisfied the requirements of the standing order in respect of the form of the petition. I would now ask her to lay it on the table of the house.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: Do you mean, Mr. Speaker, that I am not allowed to quote the form of the prayer at the end of it?


Georges Parent: The hon. member is entitled to quote the prayer; that is part of the requirements in connection with the petition. But I suggest she may not read the contents of the petition.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: I will proceed to read the prayer.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Just a moment, please. I think it is important that we should follow the rules of the house. Standing order 68 reads as follows:
(1)	A petition to the house may be presented by a member at any time during the sitting of the house by filing the same with the Clerk of the House.
That is the first step.
(2)	Any member desiring to present a petition in his place in the house must do so during routine proceedings and before introduction of bills.
(3)	On the presentation of a petition no debate on or in relation to the same shall be allowed.
(4)	Members presenting petitions shall be answerable that they do not contain impertinent ar improper matter.
(5)	Every member presenting a petition shall indorse his name thereon.
(6)	Petitions may be either written or printed; provided always that when there are three or more petitioners the signatures of at least three petitioners shall be subscribed on the sheet containing the prayer of the petition.
The following is a paragraph to which 1 should like to direct Your Honour's attention:
..CO On the next day follow'ing the presentation of the petition the Clerk of the House shall lay upon the table the report of the clerk of 
petitions upon the petitions presented and such report shall be printed in the votes and proceedings of that day. Every petition so reported upon, not containing matter in breech of the privileges of this house and which, according to the rules or practice of this house, can be received, shall then be deemed to be permitted to be read and received.	.
(8) No debate shall be permitted on the report but a petition referred to therein may be read by the Clerk of the House at the table, if required; or if it complain of some present personal grievance requiring an immediate remedy, the matter contained therein may be brought into immediate discussion.
I could read several citations that refer to the matter, but the rule is as clear as it can be. A petition must be presented to the Clerk of the House, and until the Clerk of Petitions has reported to the house that it is correct in all its form it cannot be discussed one way or the other. Your Honour has ruled accordingly, and your ruling should be respected.


Georges Parent: The hon. member should lay the petition upon the table.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: I have not finished reading the prayer.


Georges Parent: I am afraid the hon. member will have to lay the petition on the table in accordance with the rules without any further comment.
(The petition was laid on the table.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South): Would the Prime Minister indicate to the house whether we are to sit to-morrow if we do not finish our business to-day, or adjourn until Monday?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: If we do not conclude our business this afternoon, the house will sit to-night, and I would hope that the house would give its unanimous consent to sitting to-morrow if we do not conclude to-night. If that unanimous consent is not given, then the proceedings will run over to next week. Hon. members will understand that the government has many matters to which it wishes to give attention. Ministers have been constantly in the house this and last week and all of us are desirous of getting on with some of the war work in other directions. Therefore I think the more the house can expedite its proceedings, the better.
NOVEMBER 14, 1941	[DOT]
The War-Finance-Price Ceiling



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if an application has been received from the government of- Saskatchewan to have a crop failure area declared according to section 4 of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and, if so, will such area be declared this year?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Some weeks ago the Saskatchewan government made application to have an area in Saskatchewan declared a crop failure area and submitted a number of townships which they believed were under five bushels to the acre. A check is now being made by the officials of the prairie farm assistance office at Regina but the final report is not yet in.



SOLDIERS' DEPENDENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: Will the Prime Minister be in a position before the session concludes to let hon. members know what is being done about the payment of a bonus to soldiers' dependents? I know of many cases where these people have no fuel.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe it is the intention of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, to make a statement either later this afternoon or this evening. The statement is in the course of preparation at the moment.


Thomas Langton Church: It will be given before we conclude our business?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.



THE WAR

[Stage Direction]
INTERNATIONAL SITUATION SINCE JUNE 14, 1941- Canada's war effort
The house again in committee of the whole, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South): Mr. Chairman, I regret that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has left the chamber. Last evening the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) suggested that to-day we go on with the Department of Labour, but I had hoped to ask the Minister of Finance a question. However, as the Prime Minister is
in his seat I can put it to him; in fact, my question rather turns on a statement which he made over the radio some three pr four weeks ago last Sunday.
When the Minister of Finance was dealing with the price ceiling a few days ago I asked him if he would elaborate upon the question of rents. There are times when the Minister of Finance shows a little pettishness and he said he could not do it; therefore I had no opportunity then to ask him about a ceiling for rents.
The situation in Canada is that only about five per cent of the territory is under the rent controller. I believe the first rent controller was appointed in September of last year. I have written many letters asking that a controller be appointed for our district, which might take in the counties of Waterloo, Brant, Wentworth and Wellington, in order that an ever-increasing rent situation might be curtailed. The replies have always been to the effect that this was a matter for the municipal councils; if the municipal councils were prepared to recommend that a rent controller be appointed, such an appointment would be made. To my mind that was passing the buck; it was simply bringing the prerogative of government down to the level of local politics. The mayors, reeves and councillors hesitated to deal with this matter, and no controller has been appointed.
When the new rent controller was appointed I wrote to him and he sent me a most gracious reply. In fact, I thought so much of that letter that I had it published in the local press. It seemed to offer the assurance that rents would be controlled. The rent controller stated that the Prime Minister had made a statement over the air and undoubtedly when the various details were worked out, rent control would be set up in our district. What do we have now? We have the Minister of Finance coming along and placing a ceiling upon prices and a ceiling upon rents. But the ceiling that has been placed on rents is the rental in existence from September 15 to October 11. In the larger municipalities where a rent controller has been appointed a rental is set that represents a fair average level for that district as of one year ago. The order is therefore very unfair to people in those districts where there is no rent controller. Many people have had their rents raised to a point that is absolutely unreasonable, but there being no rent controller for the district there was no one to whom they could appeal to set a fair rental. The price ceiling order sets all rentals at the figure prevailing in the period of four weeks prior to the
[Stage Direction]
The War-Finance-Price Ceiling
making of the order, and in that period rents were thirty, forty, fifty and in some cases seventy-five per cent above the rents that would have been set by a rent controller had there been one appointed for these districts.
I do not want to delay the committee, but I do feel that if we are to set a ceiling on rents the people of my district and of other districts similarly affected should have an assurance from the government that the board which is to regulate the price ceiling will have power to say to these tenants, "You have been charged an unfair rent," and power to say to the landlords, "You have charged too much rent and we will make a retroactive order applying to the months in which this high rental has been charged." Many tenants have come to me and said, "What am I to do? I cannot move out because I cannot get another house." I have said to them, "Stay there, because I am sure the government will provide regulations to cover such cases. You cannot move out because you have no place to go. Pay the increased rent which is asked, and which you have been paying for the last few months, because I feel that eventually the enforcement officers of the government will make the landlord repay to you the extra amount you have been charged and that a fair rental will be set." I think we should have some statement from the government. The situation is a serious one, and it concerns the Department of Labour and the Minister of Labour because rents, of course, are an important element in the cost of living.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that the subject he has mentioned is one which I think should very properly come up at this time. It is simply one of the many cases of which those charged with the administration of this policy will have to take account, and I would say to my hon. friend at once that I am sure the board of administration will look into the particular matter he mentions and similar matters with a view to seeing that whatever is done will prove to be as equitable as possible.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Thank you.


Angus MacInnis: When I spoke in this committee on November 4 I asked the minister a question in regard to a statement made by him to the representative of the employees of the National Steel Car corporation at Hamilton. I read a paragraph of the letter which he had written to Mr. C. H. Millard which I should like to read now-it is very short-and I would ask the minister: Is this definitely the government's 
policy, and if so, how does the government harmonize it with the provisions of P.C. 2685? The minister in his letter to Mr. Millard said:
I believe that you will understand that Mr. Bruuning, as controller, couild not negotiate with the union as a union, or sign an agreement with a union, but the regulations which are agreed upon between all parties should form fair and reasonable conditions under which the work of the plant should be carried on.
Now' I read section 7 of P.C. 2685 of June 20, 1940:
That employees, through the officers of their trade unions 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.
I should like to knowr if the government will recognize the regular trade union movement in this country in the matter of collective agreements in government-owned or -controlled industries.


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour):: The question which the hon. member for Vancouver East has asked is a rather broad one. It does not apply only to the National Steel Car Corporation of Hamilton to which he referred. The situation there is this, that the controller in charge recognizes two unions. One is the steel workers' organization for Canada, and the other the employees' association.
I believe that in the majority the employees' association has the advantage. My hon. friend, however, brings up a question which has given me a considerable measure of worry, and one that I intend to ask the National War Labour Board to consider at the earliest possible moment when it starts its activities. I think my hon. friend and the committee know pretty well the situation in Great Britain; no union in government departments is recognized that is in affiliation with any outside union. In the United States the situation is a little different. They do recognize in some instances, and some only, unions that are affiliated with outside unions.


Angus MacInnis: Whom does the minister
mean by "they"?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I mean the government in connection with the civil service. The problem arises in this country in connection, for example, with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the national harbour board, and other organizations, and what I propose to do as soon as the national war labour board is established is to ask them to make recommendations in connection with solving that difficult problem.

The War-Mr. Maclnnis


Angus MacInnis: How many different kinds of organizations will be recognized in any one industry? It seemed to me that the policy at one time was to take a vote in the industry. I understand that such a vote was taken in the National Steel Car plant under a board set up by the Department of Labour, and that the vote was four to one in favour of the steel workers' organizing committee as the bargaining agency for the men. But on the refusal of the controller, on the advice of the government in carrying out government policy, to make a collective agreement with the steel workers' organizing committee an attempt was made-how successful I do not know-to build up with the assistance of the government an employees' council or company union in that plant. I am just wondering how many unions are going to be recognized in any one particular industry. This is really a new policy that is being adopted by the government in refusing to recognize outside unions, if you wish to call them such, as the bargaining agency in any industry in which the government is interested.
In the case of the Canadian National Railways, the post office, and a number of other organizations, the government have been negotiating and making agreements with the unions for a number of years. It was not until last May, when a question was asked in this chamber with regard to the association of technical employees and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, that I became aware there was a change of policy. To me it is an astounding state of affairs: no wonder that the situation existing between the Department of Labour and the organized labour movement of this country is as it is.
When the minister spoke on November 6, he chided both the leader of the opposition and myself for suggesting that there should be some compulsion in certain relations between employers and employees. I suggested that the matter of the recognition of organized labour should not be a question for either arbitration or conciliation; that once the employees had determined by a vote the bargaining agency, that agency should be recognized without further ado. But the minister says he is very much opposed to compulsion. Yet when I read P.C. 7307 I wonder whether the Minister of Labour is really opposed to compulsion; and if he is, I tremble for what is going to happen when he favours compulsion, because anything which is more compulsory than this order would have to go a pretty long way. I doubt whether either Hitler or Stalin ever issued an order more compulsory in effect than this order.
I am not going to read the order in full. It is dated September 16, 1941-and, let me point out, it was passed without consulting the national labour council, which was formed, we were told, for the purpose of consultation with labour in matters of this kind. The minister might explain why .the council was not consulted. It seems to me that the national labour council was formed under protest, as it were, by the government. It always irked them to have to bring matters to the council. It was merely an advisory body, having no power and really no functions except to look at documents which might be placed before it. But it was a link between the government and organized labour, and, weak as it was, the government could not stand for even that measure of labour recognition.
Section 2 of the order reads:
2.	If it be the desire of the employees to strike or to take a strike vote, they shall before going on strike or taking a strike vote notify the minister that such is their desire, and upon receipt of any such notice if the minister is of opinion that a cessation of work would interfere with the efficient prosecution of the war, he may order or direct that a strike vote be taken under the supervision of the Department of Labour upon and subject to such provisions, conditions, restrictions or stipulations as he may make or impose.
Pretty strong language for a person who is opposed to compulsion!
3.	In any case in which the minister makes an order or direction as aforesaid, all employees who in his opinion are affected by the dispute or whose employment might be affected by the proposed strike-
That is fairly wide.
-shall be entitled to vote and the voting shall take place within five days from the day upon which the minister received notice that the employees desired to take a strike vote.
It seems to me that in a strike vote, only those employees who would be affected by any agreement which would be arrived at between the employers and employees should be allowed to vote. Let me tell the committee that representatives of the miners of Kirkland Lake had to come to Ottawa in order to have the ballot which was taken last Saturday modified. On the ballot as first prepared, everyone in the employ of the mining companies, including office workers, and excepting only the directors and the management, were included among those entitled to vote. The employees' representatives had to come from Kirkland Lake to the Department of Labour at Ottawa in order to get that provision
The War-Mr. Maclnnis

changed. I insist that a department which intended to be fair or which wanted to be fair to the workers of this country would not stoop to that kind of tactics.
4.	Unless a majority of the ballots of those entitled to vote are cast in favour of a strike, it shall be unlawful for any employee to go on strike.
That policy represents a new principle. Supposing we in this house adopted that principle, so that it required a majority of hon. members to pass any legislation which was presented to the house for approval; the consequence would be that a number of members, by remaining outside the chamber, could prevent any measure, although passed by a majority in the house, from becoming law. It is the most ridiculous provision of majority rule.
5.	Any employee who goes on strike contrary to the provisions of these regulations and any person who contravenes or fails to comply with any of these regulations or any order or direction made or given by the minister thereunder, or who incites, encourages or aids in any manner any employee to go or continue on strike, or any person to contravene or fail to comply with any of these regulations or any order or direction of the minister thereunder, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months, or to both fine and imprisonment.
And the Minister of Labour is opposed to compulsion! I ask again, what is going to happen to the workers when the minister favours compulsion, seeing how far he has gone while opposed to compulsion? But I have noted, ever since this war began, that whenever the minister has to exercise compulsion, it is never exercised upon the employers, but always in respect of the workers.
I said fhe other day that there was not a labour organization nor a representative or spokesman of labour in Canada that had a good word to say for the Department of Labour.
I have in my hand a statement made by Mr. A. R. Mosher, President of the Canadian Congress of Labour, on behalf of the executive committee of the congress, with reference to the passing of order in council P.C. 7307. Mr. Mosher states:
In passing order in council P.C. 7307, which virtually abolishes the right to strike, the government had demonstrated once again its inability or unwillingness to understand the purpose and function of the labour movement and the basic principles which should underlie the relationships between employers and workers. Since this order in council imposes still further restrictions upon rights which have been won by the workers after genera-
tions of struggle and sacrifice, without providing any means of removing the causes of industrial unrest, it will have the effect only of increasing discontent and distrust in the minds of the workers, and thus hindering our war effort.
There is more to the statement, but I will not read further. However, it clearly shows what the congress of labour, one of the influential bodies of organized labour in Canada, thinks of the government.
I have also before me a statement made by Mr. Tom Moore, president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, the other large national body, following the issuing of the wage-freezing order in council. Mr. Moore says:
Both in its terms and in the manner of its introduction, the government programme is the longest step yet taken by any democracy
toward the establishment of a totalitarian state.
Mr. Moore and Mr. Mosher are not radicals by any standard you may apply to them. As a matter of fact, they are very conservative labour leaders; they are responsible men. And this is what each of them says about the government's labour policy. I think it is time the Department of Labour took stock of itself; it is time the Prime Minister took stock of the Department of Labour and tried to change conditions that there may be more confidence between the department and the workers who make the munitions of war which our soldiers when on the field of battle must have. The morale of the working forces of the country must be kept up; otherwise I am very much afraid for our war effort. Not only that, I am also afraid of what is going to happen when the war is over. There is now a certain degree of government control, there is some social compulsion. The employers are compelled to give some recognition to organized labour; but when the war restrictions are removed the struggle between labour and employers will begin again and with greater ferocity than ever before in the history of this country.
Labour-industrial relations in Great Britain were mentioned several times in the house during debate. In the June 23 issue of the New Republic there appears an article by William Steele McCauley, an instructor in the department of government of Harvard. He had been allocated to study Britain's industrial mobilization and labour policies. His article is entitled, "Why Britain has no labour problem."' By the way, I thought the article so good that I wrote to the minister and suggested to him that he should get a copy of the magazine and read it. I have not only read it, but I have read it many times.

The War-Mr. Maclnnis
In the first place Mr. McCauley points out that the reason for better industrial relations in Great Britain than those found on the American continent-conditions in the United States are pretty much the same as in Canada -is that the workers in Great Britain are better organized. There are 6,234,000 members in the British trade union movement, almost as many, with a population of about one-fourth, as there are in the two organizations in the United States, the American Federation of Labour and the Committee for Industrial Organization. Members on both sides of the house when referring to this latter organization speak as if they were referring to criminals or gangsters. C.I.O. are the letters first used to designate the Committee for Industrial Organizations. Industrial organization is the opposite of. the craft form of organization. Mr. McCauley points out that in Great Britain the C.I.O. principle-that is, the industrial organization principle-has gone much further than it has in the United States, and as an example he gives the membership of the transport and general workers' union, of which Mr. Ernest Bevin, the present Minister of Labour in Great Britain, was general secretary before he went into the cabinet. Mr. McCauley points out that the transport and general workers' union is an amalgamation of 36 organizations, once independent, with a membership of over one million. It is regrettable that there had to be a split in the American Federation of Labour in order to organize the workers on an industrial rather than on a craft basis, but the evolution is an historical and economic necessity, because industry to-day is organized not on the craft basis, but on the basis of mass production. The fact is that machine production has eliminated a good deal of craft skill.
An agreement was entered into between organized labour and the government in Great Britain to end strikes. Perhaps I might read this paragraph to show what was done:
It must be remembered that in England strikes were not outlawed by an impatient parliament overriding the opposition of labour. In effect, the workers, acting through the Ministry of Labour's advisory council, and Ernest Bevin, formulated and imposed the ban on themselves. As the British law has not yet been enforced, it is in fact merely a declaration of industrial policy.
Strikes are continually going on in Great Britain, but they are not strikes for the recognition of a union or strikes for the right of this or that organization to make a collective agreement with an industry. Mr. McCauley shows that in the first few months of the war there were five important strikes in aircraft factories, involving nearly
twelve thousand persons. Four of these disputes resulted from demands for wage increases, and in no case did a strike last more than four days. In two instances they lasted only one and two days. I should like the committee to note this: in the fifth case nearly 1,200 workers struck for four days to enforce their demand that they be permitted to stop work in mid-afternoon to make tea.
Supposing that happened at the National Steel Car plant. What a cry would go up from one end of this dominion to the other! Why, I am afraid every member of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association would have died of a stroke of some kind. But in Great Britain they find solutions for these things. A compromise was reached in this case, when the management agreed to send tea tables around the assembly line. What do my hon. friends think of that? The fact of the matter is that in Great Britain organized labour, and in fact unorganized labour as well, have reached the stage where they say that if the employer can stop off for tea in the afternoon -and all British employers do-we have the right to stop off for tea also. I have for many years been connected with a trade union, and I remember occasions when the union of which I was an executive was negotiating an agreement with our employer, who was an Englishman. About four o'clock in the afternoon, in the midst of our discusssions, when very likely we were lambasting each other, he would say, "Gentlemen, would you like to have a cup of tea?"
I wish to say that the situation that exists in Great Britain has come about because organized labour is recognized; and, indeed, Mr. McCauley points that out in these words:
But the most important difference between the labour movements of the two countries-
That is, between America and Great Britain. -is that collective bargaining has been universally accepted in England as an essential condition of healthy industrial relations. Organized associations of trade unions are recognized and dealt with by organized associations of employers. British industrialists are not more tolerant than Americans, but they are more mature.
In other words they are more civilized.
Britain years ago passed through her disruptive period of labour organization. The fear of labour as a subversive class has given way to the practical necessity of admitting labour's right to organize and to be treated as a respected element in the industrial community.
Until employers in Canada, and the government of Canada, come to the same conclusion, that labour must be accepted as a respected element in the industrial community; until they are willing to make agreements with labour on the understanding that labour is
t-108
The War-Mr. Maclnnis

just as much interested in the welfare of the country as they are, and perhaps more so- until that time arrives, whether in war or in so-called peace, we can have nothing but industrial unrest.
I do not know if it is necessary for me to say any more on this matter, but I plead with the Prime Minister, because after all hr is responsible. Some people tell me that I am foolish in appealing to him; they say he was the originator of company unionism on the American continent. But I leave that aside and plead with the Prime Minister to take stock of his Department of Labour, to try so to organize that department that it can obtain the cooperation and the respect of the organized labour movement in the Dominion of Canada.
Mrs. DORISE W. NIELSEN (North Battleford): I feel that I should take a few moments to support much of what has been said by the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Maclnnis). It seems to me there is no question in Canada at this time which is of greater importance to the ordinary people than that of the relationship betwen industry and labour, and the amount of work that can be accomplished during the difficult days that lie ahead. It is all very well to put our trust in armed force; but to-day, in the type of battle that we are waging, no armed force is going to win a victory unless it has the necessary supplies, which the industrial army alone can provide. We have these two great forces, the workers and private industry, or the employers; and it is of the greatest importance to the nation at large that harmony should prevail between these forces if the greatest possible amount of work is to be accomplished.
As has been stated already by other hon. members, there is widespread dissatisfaction among the working people of this country. Labour has pledged its support unequivocally; time and again it has said there should be only one consideration in mind, that everything possible should be done. Not only has labour made statements; I am told by some men employed in war industries that the workers have taken it upon themselves to form in the various industries committees which discuss ways and means of increasing production in the various plants. They also consider methods by which they may eliminate waste, so that everything possible may be done to assist the war effort. Certainly it is something that should be appreciated, when we see the workers themselves taking the initiative in this drive for greater production.
I have listened to the reports presented in the house by the various ministers, particularly
I Mr. Maclnnis.]
the Minister of Munitions and Supply and the Minister of Labour. These reports have been interesting; numbers of figures have been given with regard to production, with regard to labour and so on. But I must say that there is a great difference between listening to the ministers report to the house and going around the country talking to people who themselves work in factories. During the past summer I travelled over a considerable part of this country. I talked to a number of trade union leaders; I was a visitor at the two trade union congresses, and I listened to and talked with those who, with their strength, their power, their initiative and ability and skill, do the actual physical labour that has to be done. And I know that from one end of Canada to the other there is a growing unrest, a growing feeling that the labouring people are not getting a square deal, are not receiving the consideration from this government which is theirs by right.
This has been stated before; it is not a new thought, but I consider that in a time like this it is a crime and a disgrace that after two years of war the government have not enlisted the services of more working people upon the boards which help in the direction and promotion of the war effort. There is a labour supply council acting as an advisory body. Beyond that, where do we find the workers from the factories, the mines and the shops? Where do we have them actually advising the government, giving their opinions, giving their points of view, giving some of the help I know they could give? Where do we find them helping to cut down the waste and speed up production?
There is no use trying to get awray from it: among the working people of Canada there is a vast reservoir of potential energy, initiative, intelligence, and skill, and I would say most decidedly that the government is not taking the fullest opportunity to make the greatest use of that vast reservoir of competence and desire. Thinking over the situation as it exists to-day in Canada I would say that the greatest dam holding back the democratic will to action on the part of the working people is the control of private industry and its practical direction- I might say its sole direction-of the war effort.
I noticed a short time ago something Mr. Priestley is reported to have said in criticism of the British government. Mr. Priestley is well known to Canadians, because he has spoken over the radio to the Canadian and British peoples. He has a criticism of the

The War-Mrs. Nielsen
British government which I suggest could be applied with equal force to this one. In a brief paragraph he says:
Let me give you two examples that affect production. Firms doing essential war work are often allowed to think too much about what is going to happen to them after the war. They should be told brutally that such long-term planning now is disastrous, and that unless they concentrate entirely on the work in hand there may be no post-war for them.
To-day, in speaking to some of the trade union leaders across the country, and to some who come from the shipbuilding yards at Halifax and at the Pacific coast, I hear tales and stories of the men who check in in the morning and then idle their time away throughout the day because there is not sufficient for them to do. There has been a lack of planning, a lack of consideration by the government of the possibility of a full utilization of the workers' time. These are skilled men who want to work. There is nothing more demoralizing for a man than to stand around idly and not be able to get on with the task in which he has his whole heart and interest.
At the meeting of the trades and labour congress held this summer the representatives of the plumbers' and steamfitters' union were actually asking for a royal commission to inquire into waste and inefficiency at one of the Pacific coast shipbuilding yards. There was nothing but a desire on the part of the workers to eliminate some of the waste and to get on with the job which has to be done. While at the meeting of the congress I was given a brief which was submitted to the congress by the representatives of the Montreal aircraft workers, lodge No. 712. I should like to quote one or two paragraphs from that brief, because I believe it demonstrates first of all that the FrenctnCanadian working people are just as solid as any other Canadians in their desire to give more than they are giving at the present time to the industry in which they are interested. I quote from the brief:
It has become evident to us that those in high places to-day have no formula for the winning of the war against Hitler. We present our views on the matter in the following statement, together with some of our proposals for the carrying out of a real campaign for victory. . . .
This war, especially as it affects us as workers and trade unionists, is a war of production- the difference between going forward to a better life, or of going backward to barbarism under the nazi heel.
This being the case, we in Canada can best serve our country and humanity by producing -for the brave British people and their allies- the greatest possible amount, in the shortest period of time, of aill the armaments and munitions which we are capable of doing.
To this end every other consideration becomes subordinated-
Showing their desire at all costs to go ahead and give the maximum amount that they can do. It continues:
*-even our very natural and healthy desire for improved social services, and a higher standard of living.
Anything or anybody who stands in the way of the production of war materials must be overcome or removed.
We in the aircraft industry in Montreal know that the production of planes is not a fraction of what it could be. We speak from our own experiences. . . .
There is the attitude of the employers toward the war effort. We have received the impression that certain of the employers in our industry are no longer interested in producing planes as fast as possible. Instead, they seem to be concentrating only on the possibilities of amassing huge profits.
Due to poor planning in production, mass loafing is enforced in certain spots. Often workers who are honestly anxious to get on with the job are forced, because they have no job to do, to read magazines or make trinkets for themselves.
Who is responsible for this state of affairs? . . .
Certainly it is not the employees.
The blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the manufacturers who, though they are themselves only learning how to produce planes in quantity, look with contempt on the workers who could supply the solution for 90 per cent of the trouble.
These people in the aircraft industry certainly want to give assistance, but they are being blocked by the owners, the industrialists who have sole control of the effort being made.
Certainly the workers in the steel industry are not working to the fullest capacity. There are times when the men in the steel and automobile industries are working only a few days in the week, and certainly are not working full time. In connection with the government's policy respecting labour it would seem that the industrialists of Canada who have control of the war effort, and of industry itself, are allowed to have such complete control. In many instances it becomes apparent to the workers that private industry in Canada is becoming more interested in the battle against labour forces than in the real battle against fascism.
The question of collective bargaining, which has already been discussed, is one which looms up as something of the greatest importance. At Kirkland Lake we have an instance of private industry in the shape of gold mining corporations versus the miners themselves. There has never been any question in my mind, or, I believe, in the mind of any thoughtful person, that the miners themselves are in any way disloyal. They have given their sons, and they have done everything

The War-Mrs. Nielsen

they could. It is simply that they feel that the democratic right which belongs to them is not receiving the attention and the protection this government should be prepared to give it. After all is said and done, no one can say to-day that the mining companies in northern Ontario are not receiving a fair share of war profits. I notice in an article appearing in the Northern Miner of June 14, 1941, that the dividend payments by Canadian mining companies for the first six months of this year, after deducting excess profits tax, reached the sum of 853,775,773, an increase of over a million dollars over the same period last year.
In his speech the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) said that we are asking sacrifices of the workers. The workers are justified in asking this question: what sacrifices will the Minister of Labour ask private industry to make? If there is to be equality of sacrifice there is no reason why private industry should not be called upon to bear its share of the sacrifice. This thought has been expressed in certain editorials. I notice in the Fort Erie Times-Review some pertinent remarks with regard to the Kirkland Lake situation. This editorial, Which is quite brief, reads:
A great many self-appointed leaders of public opinion have been preaching on the subject of labour's duty to the country; have been insisting that, while this nation is at war, wage-earners have no right to strike; that any disagreement with employers must be composed by peaceful means which will not cause any interruption in production. In short, labour is told that its part in this war is to labour- under whatever conditions an employer chooses. To strike against such conditions is held to be a betrayal of the nation. But what is to be said of employers who have so little regard for the country's welfare or its war programme that they announce their unalterable opposition to the recognition of a union, and refuse to have anything to do with any conciliation proceedings unless they are first assured of having their own way-at least on that particular point at issue? Are men in the fighting forces and those in the ranks of labour the only ones who must make sacrifices in order that the war may be won? Must the worker make all the concessions-or be exposed to charges of _ disloyalty and sabotage-while the employer is free to sustain an intolerant, dictatorial manner with impunity, and without regard for the consequences of his arrogance ?
This right of collective bargaining is something to which I am sure the Minister of Labour must give the most earnest consideration. The principle has been established already; I believe it was established back in 1919 by a royal commission. It was agreed to by the League of Nations and was covered by the treaties to which this government was a signatory. But it is not enough to have a principle enunciated. A short while ago I read a booklet on collective

bargaining written by a very eminent Canadian lawyer, Mr. J. L. Cohen. He gave as a typical illustration the pedestrian versus the motorist. He said it was all very well to establish the principle that the pedestrian should have the right to cross the road and that the drivers of vehicles should not be allowed to speed and to take the life of pedestrians, but no government would be foolish enough to stop with just the declaration of that principle; it would be necessary to pass laws providing that vehicles must drive only a certain number of miles per hour, that pedestrians must be protected and so on.
In this struggle of the workers versus the employers, it is not enough to establish the principle, as P.C. 2685 does, that collective bargaining is agreed by the government to be correct; it is necessary that we should hav? laws to enforce the principle and to see to it that private industry does not ride roughshod over the democratic rights of the workers. If the labour policy of this government is not enforced by law, if the rights of the workers are not protected, then this government will go in the same direction that the government of Vichy went before the betrayal of the French people into the hands of nazism. Let us not travel in that direction. Let us not travel in the direction which limits and curtails the rights of our workers and leaves them unprotected. Let us travel in the other direction, the direction which Great Britain and the United States have taken, toward the protection of labour.
I plead with the Minister of Labour at this time. Before the house opened I went up to Kirkland Lake and spoke to hundreds of the women of that town, the wives of the miners and the business men. Those women are solidly behind the men in their desire to maintain peace in the town. They have no desire that their husbands should go out on strike. Nobody wants to go out on strike. The miners of Kirkland Lake have never wanted it. But if the gold mine owners are not curbed by governmental action, by governmental intervention, there will be nothing left for the workers but to retire to the last trench of democratic defence, which is the strike, and try to force democracy to function in this country. These women are afraid of the bloodshed and distress which may occur in Kirkland Lake, and yet I am happy to see that they stand solidly with their men in upholding the democratic rights of the workers.
As the hon. member for Vancouver East has indicated, much has been said in this country about the intervention of the Congress of

The War-Mrs. Nielsen
Industrial Organizations. The international president of the mine, mill and smelter workers' union, Mr. Reid Robinson, was held up for several hours when he attempted to enter Canada. He had intended to go to Kirkland Lake to speak to the miners there, but he was questioned for such a long period of time that he could not keep his engagement. This received some comment in the United States. In the News magazine of Toronto of November 1, 1941, their Washington correspondent remarks:
There may be blushes up there in that big dominion of yours soon over the deportation of Reid Robinson. The head of the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers is working on a programme which may make him a major contributor to the supply of vital armament to Britain.
Mr. Robinson is studying the copper situation. The article continues:
If the programme is as good as promised, Canada may find that in deporting Reid Robinson it deported a good friend of Britain and of its defence against naziism.
This talk against the C.I.O. unions and the work which they are doing had better be stopped. We are finding out that these unions are actually helping the defence projects in the United States. We should welcome anything of the kind that they can do instead of acting as we have done and trying to make out that they are disruptive and spoiling the war effort of this country.
There is no doubt that the working people can be forced to fight. The working people of Germany have been driven to fight. The working people of a democracy want to fight as free men and women. They should be given a chance to have some of the beauty and fineness of life which working people appreciate as much as others. The labour policy of this country is being criticized. To some extent we are being held up to ridicule in the United States of America. I do not know whether hon. members noticed the article which appeared this week in PM a magazine which has a large circulation in the United States. Under date of November 10 there is an article headed, "Canada Suppresses Labour to Fight People's War." I should like to read one paragraph to show what the people of the United States are reading about our government's labour policy. It is as follows:
Labour has been given no real representation in the determination of war policy, shaped by Liberal party functionaries and dollar a year industrialists.
While it has frozen wages and imposed other curbs on labour, the Canadian government has failed to enforce the declared right of workers to bargain collectively through unions of their
14873-278J
own choice. After enunciating this right on June 20, 1940, the government has continued to disregard it, not only in private industry, but in its own war contracts and even in its own plants.
The article then goes on to say:
Canada has carried its war time restrictions to the point where they not only rip at the basic fabric of democracy, but threaten successful prosecution of the war against Hitler.
. I would ask the Minister of Labour if at this time it is not all-important that our own Prime Minister and our own government should do everything to instil into the minds of the American people that Canada is leading the way in the western hemisphere. Articles such as this are followed with the report in Tuesday's paper that "Canada interns union leaders without trial"; and in Wednesday's paper that Franeeschini, who had been interned, was freed; and in Thursday's paper that the Canadian mounties and the Minister of Justice teamed up on interning twelve union leaders. Of course the question of the internment of labour leaders does not come specifically under the Department of Labour but on the other hand you will find that the American people, especially their trade unions, are very much concerned about the policy of the Minister of Justice which has resulted in the internment of some of our labour leaders. In fact the concern over this in the United States is so great that a state representative of that country is going to intercede on behalf of one of the international unions leaders; that is in the case of Mr. Jackson.
It seems to me that all these things need to be considered so very much more by this government and that the expression of democracy with regard to our whole labour policy should be given with the fullest freedom. It is even said that certain conditions with regard to our labour movement are being used by the isolationist element in the United States with a view to preventing and impeding the fullest participation of the United States working people. This is something which I bring to the attention of the house. These articles have only recently been written, just this week, and I would advise hon. members to read them for themselves and judge whether the policy of our government with regard to labour is not going to have an adverse effect on the worker in the United States.
I would remind the minister that Mr. Bevin in England said:
Let bitterness and discontent get into the hearts of my army of workers and then, by God, we have lost the war.
The War-Mr. Gillis

The Minister of Labour, if he is close enough to the working people of this country, must realize that the government's policy with regard to labour and wage-freezing, which the majority of workers regard as the actual freezing of democracy, is beginning to have the effect of bitterness and discontent. I know the workers will go on. They know that if fascism should ever win, they will be the ones who will suffer and bear the brunt of repression. On the other hand I would beg and plead with the Minister of Labour to see that government policies allow the Canadian workers to fight in this war as free men and not as slaves.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: It is rather difficult at this time to
say anything on the question of labour that has not already been said by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) or the hon. member who has just taken her seat (Mrs. Nielsen). But there are a few observations I wish to make.
On another occasion in this house I made the statement that I considered the Department of Labour the most important war department in government. While the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Munitions and Supply have their own functions to perform with respect to organizing the defence machinery necessary to the prosecution of the war, the Minister of Labour has definitely under his department the job of organizing and mobilizing the workers of this country, who in the final analysis will produce the sinews of war without which the Department of Munitions and Supply and the Department of National Defence are helpless. I am disappointed that there are not more members in the house to take part in this discussion, because upon a clarification of the problems of the workers rests, in my opinion, the most necessary thing at this time with respect to this war prosecution about which so many talk.
I should like to make it clear that I do not look upon the Minister of Labour personally as an individual responsible for the present labour policy of the government. I realize that he is merely one of the instruments which are used by the government. The real government, I believe, does not sit in this house. They are on the outside of this house, those who direct the economy of this country, and the Minister of Labour is in the position of having to bring into this house legislation that was manufactured outside of the house.
I would like to introduce a new angle into this discussion of the government's labour policy. I have heard it stated many times,

both outside and inside of the house, that the government has no labour policy, that it is merely following a haphazard course and endeavouring to meet problems as they arise. Personally I do not see it in that way. I believe that the government has a well-defined. labour policy, one which has been carefully mapped out and which did not have its origin either this year or last year. As a basis for that statement, and in order to build my case around the legislation that has been passed up to the present time, I would draw the attention of the committee to an article in the last issue, September, 1941, of the Canadian Forum, written by a man who I think is fairly well informed on the problem he discusses. He is an economist, and has always taken an active interest in public affairs in this country. I am going to read only two short paragraphs, and from them I shall endeavour to prove that this government has a well-defined labour policy and is travelling on a road which it has clearly mapped out. The article is written by Mr. Eugene Forsey. He says in one paragraph:
Mr. Tom Moore, in 1919, summed up Mr. King's plan in these words: "There are many ways of destroying trade unions, and they have nearly all been tried except the one of agreeing to them but seeing that they do not operate and function" (a reference to the "no discrimination" clause in the plan); "and this is the design of the plans which are based on the Rockefeller plan."
Further on he says:
Mr. King has professed to regard his plan as introducing a "constitution" into industry. But the proviso, which he himself declared "essential", that the employees cannot choose "outsiders" to represent them, violates one of the basic principles of the British constitution: that the elector may choose his representative from anywhere he pleases, inside the constituency or outside it. That principle Mr. King should be the last to deny.
What do I see in this company unionism plan or shop committee plan which has been tried over a period of years both in this country and in the United States? Let me say in passing that it is stated that the Prime Minister of this country was the originator of. this plan while he was employed by the Rockefeller people in the United States. Proceeding on the assumption that the article which I have quoted is correct, and I do so because the legislation which the Minister of Labour unfortunately has to defend in this house is travelling on exactly that road, P.C. 26S5 in regard to this shop committee plan definitely sets out recognition of the principle of the right of the workers to organize. It is couched in very fine language. But it is the only order in council which has been passed by the government that has no

The War-Mr. Gillis
legal status. It is not obligatory under any conditions on the part of the operator to recognize a union of any kind. In that connection, they have recognized there in principle the right of the workers to organize; and, as Mr. Moore sets out, the only scheme which has not been tried is to render the movement impotent and not allow it to function. That is well exemplified in P.C. 7440, which follows the plan through by rendering the movement impotent-recognizing it in principle, but not allowing it to function. That order in council has definitely relegated to the background the recognized unions which have been doing collective bargaining over a long period, some of them as long as thirty years, signing agreements, working out their own conditions through committees conferring as between the union and the employer. The order in council has absolutely usurped the bargaining powers of these legitimate trade unions, to say nothing of the difficulties it has put in the way of those who are endeavouring to organize unions.
The main function of a union once it is set up is to bargain collectively with the employers on the basis of the ability of industry to pay. It has therefore a definite function to perform. But under P.C. 7440 the unions may no longer bargain with the employers. They consult the conciliation boards set up by the government. The order in council freezes wages, so taking away the normal function of the unions to bargain with the employer. This is why I say the legitimate trade union movement is rendered impotent. No longer do the unions negotiate; no longer do they sign agreements; no longer do their membership get a referendum vote as to whether or not an agreement is acceptable. All these were functions of unions in the past. But the trade union movement to-day^ is nothing more nor less than a dues-collecting agency.
In addition to taking away all the democratic functions which the unions exercised in the past, the government have taken away completely their right to settle grievances; they have usurped the powers of their grievance committees, by setting up, at least in Nova Scotia-and I assume the same thing has occurred in other parts of the country-a board which deals with grievances. Upon that board in Nova Scotia sit two representatives of the coal companies who have the final say in any matter which may be under dispute.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not follow the hon. member for Cape Breton South. To which board does he refer?


Clarence Gillis: I do not know whether you call it the mediation board-I mean the board which was set up by a provincial conference in Halifax, under the Minister of Labour. There
sit on that board, J. W. McLeod, district superintendent of the company, and A. W. Mathieson, another district superintendent.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The hon. member is not referring to any board appointed under the new order in council?


Clarence Gillis: Oh, no. I mean that in accordance with principles laid down in order in council 7440, this mediation board is set up for the settlement of disputes, is given the final say in connection with these disputes, and there is no appeal from its decision, which rests with two superintendents of the company and one member of the union. They have the disposal of any grievance which may arise under the contract-


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but is this a board of conciliation, or is it a board appointed by the government of Nova Scotia?


Clarence Gillis: It is a board appointed by the government of Nova Scotia for the purpose of settling grievances, but it is in line with this order in council 7440. The fact of the matter is that that conference was held for the purpose of trying to work out some medium of settling grievances, and was based on this order in council 7440. The trade union movement, by the establishment of these company unions, has been rendered impotent; and as I see it, the policy which the Minister of Labour is here to defend is not his policy or the policy of parliament; it is a policy which was laid down some time between 1916 and 1918 in the United States with respect to the establishment of company unionism. We might as well understand that this policy is well defined, that this is the road which it is travelling, and that it has as its final objective the complete elimination of trade unionism as we have known and understood it in Canada during the past thirty years.
Following the plan through, the effect of order in council 7307 is to take the franchise completely away from the established unions. That was well exemplified in Kirkland Lake. They do not deliberately take away the ballot, but the order places upon the Minister of Labour or his department the responsibility of decision, and there are no regulations with respect to the taking of the ballot. He can do it in one way in this section, he can do it in another way in that section, as illustrated by th^ vote taken down in Windsor at the Ford plant, and that taken at Kirkland Lake. The vote at Kirkland Lake was in my opinion a deliberate attempt on somebody's part to befuddle the men there into voting for a company union. I read that ballot the other
The War-Mr. Gillis

day; and it would show a very high standard of intelligence for a group of men to go in there at a moment's notice, without having seen that ballot before, and cast a vote on that question. The vote at the Ford plant was absolutely fair. Yet it all goes to show that the Minister of Labour has in his hands, provided he wishes to exercise it, a complete dictatorship with respect to the question of the establishment of a union.
This trend of interference with the franchise is, to my mind, a very dangerous one at this time, and legislation on these lines is not in accordance with the laws of democracy. Many people out in the country are beginning to wonder whether we are not moving in the wrong direction by interfering with the vote for the establishment of democracy in industry.
In addition to that we have had the experience of the deliberate disfranchising of men in uniform in the last election in Nova Scotia. In that election not one man in uniform who was outside the province was enabled to vote. Many of our boys were training in Ontario, many others in New Brunswick, and many more were overseas in England, prepared to lay down their lives for democracy. Yet the government of Nova Scotia disfranchised these men and so deprived them of the very essence and basis of the democratic life. They were given no opportunity of saying who should represent them during the war or the aftermath of the war. This trend to belittle the franchise, to cast it on one side, either in the provincial election or under the provisions of this order in council, is in my opinion a dangerous tendency and one which should be checked immediately-that is if we expect the people to make the effort which we want them to make during the process of fighting this war.
Another matter to which I should like to call the minister's attention is the cost of living bonus, which comes within the province of his department. In fact it is not a cost of living bonus; if it were, a man would receive it whether he was working or not, because you are living seven days a week whether you are working or not, and the cost of living is exactly the same. The proper definition of this so-called cost of living bonus is that it is a steady work bonus, because you get it only for the days you work; it is based on the actual number of days you work. So that instead of being a cost of living bonus to offset increased living costs, it is a bonus based on your earnings and the number of days you work. That is how it operated in Nova Scotia. We had considerable difficulty there

this summer. It is a long story which I do not want to resurrect here. It serves no purpose to rake old straw or open old sores.
I wish now to refer for a moment or two to the cost of living bonus. After a good deal of difficulty it was decided that a certain bonus would be paid. A delegation came here and waited on the government, and the war-time prices and trade board decreed that a certain bonus should be paid to the miners of Nova Scotia. What I am concerned about is that those who should have paid the bonus, the operators, did not pay a cent. The entire cost of paying that bonus to the miners was passed back to the already overtaxed consumer. The company was permitted by the war-time prices and trade board to increase the selling price of coal twenty-two cents a ton-that is, coal mined and sold in Nova Scotia-and therefore the burden of the bonus was placed upon the coal consumers in that province exclusively. The strange thing is that the only people that did get a bonus were the company. While the government decreed that there should be twenty-two cents a ton additional in the selling price of coal, the company increased the price twenty-five cents, so that the miners are paying back a portion of the bonus to themselves, the actual consuming public paying the rest of it. It would cost twenty-two cents a ton to offset the total cost, and the company charge twenty-five cents, so that they are receiving three cents a ton bonus on that coal mined and sold in Nova Scotia.
I understand that the government at that time was supposed to make an investigation into the ability of the company to pay, and to ascertain whether the set-up there at the present time, that is to say the link-up of the different companies, retarded in any way the negotiations of the miners' unions with the coal companies. I do not think these recommendations have ever been put into operation. In that particular instance the application of the cost of living bonus, or the steady-work bonus, which it really is, was passed back to the consumers, and the people who really got the bonus were the company.
There are many things which one might talk about this afternoon. I have no desire to keep the house in session; I have no desire to repeat anything that has already been said. There is, however, another question which I would bring to the attention of the minister. It may not come exclusively within his department; nevertheless it affects people that do come within the jurisdiction of the department.

The War-Mr. Gillis
Let me mention briefly order No. 68, consumers' credit regulations. This order sets out a long list of articles which, I take it, are to be regarded as luxuries.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Is the hon. member referring to an order in council?


Clarence Gillis: No; I am referring to the regulations. The matter comes within the province of the war-time prices and trade board, but it has a definite relationship to the section of the country I come from, and I mention it because it restricts the lending companies in making loans for the purpose of enabling miners to purchase certain articles which are listed under the regulations. Loans are prohibited for the purpose of purchasing such necessities as bedding, springs and all that sort of thing, which are absolute household necessities. Throughout the whole of Nova Scotia, but very definitely in the section of the country I come from, there are credit union movements which are exclusively miner. In the past many of the people in that section have been aided by these credit unions. These people are on a weekly wage; their earnings are not large, and whenever they wanted to purchase furniture, bedding or other necessities of that sort, they were obliged, before the establishment of the unions, to go to some merchant and pay 25, 30 or 35 per cent more than they would if they were buying for cash. In that way they wasted a lot of money. By means of this credit union movement we have practically cured that situation and saved a considerable amount of money for our membership.
These credit unions are not lending institutions; they are formed for the purpose of establishing the credit of the small income groups who reside in the community, and they perform this definite function, that when a person wishes to purchase articles-many of them listed here-for $100 or $150, he goes to the credit union and gets a loan. He makes the purchase for cash, thus saving 25 or 30 per cent which he would pay if he were buying on the instalment plan. The loan is paid back to the credit union in small instalments at a low rate of interest, and that interest at the end of the year comes back to the miners themselves in the way of dividends. The whole turnover is in their own interests, and they really save a large amount of money in the purchasing of ordinary necessities for their homes, many of which necessities are listed in this order, No. 68, that has to do with consumers' credits.
I am wondering whether the Minister of Labour or the minister under whose department it comes exclusively will take this matter
into consideration. I am reasonably sure, in fact I have been told, that this order applies to these credit unions, and the people who deal with the unions are therefore placed in an unenviable position. All that will be accomplished will be to drive them back to the condition from which they were rescued by this very movement, and the result will be that a good deal of money will be wasted through purchases on the instalment plan instead of through the medium of the credit union set-up.
May I now say a few words with regard to the situation in Kirkland Lake. I have been there; I have seen the place, and I know that the Minister of Labour is familiar with it. I know he is doing what he can with a view to arriving at a settlement. But the propaganda that appears in the press is not fair to the men in that section. I know that everyone in Kirkland Lake desires to see a settlement which will not disrupt the community. There are 26,000 or 27,000 people in the town of Kirkland Lake, surrounded by mines which will be affected in the event of a strike, and the entire life of the community will be disorganized, much damage done, and many sores opened up that will take a good deal of time to heal, if a satisfactory settlement is not reached. We find in the press from time to time the statement that something foreign is being injected into the situation there, that it is led by foreigners, outside organizations, and all that sort of thing. That is absolutely untrue. Every official of the union in Kirkland Lake is employed in or around the mines and is a resident of that town. The only man who has any relations outside, assisting the organization, is an administrator, working through the international union. I know him very well, and I can say that he is one of the most sensible, one of the sanest labour leaders in the dominion to-day. He has his feet on the ground; he knows where he is going, and if there is any difficulty or a strike in that section it will not be Tom McGuire's fault. It will not be the fault of the man who is endeavouring to assist the men there with their organization.
This propaganda about outsiders is most unfair, coming from such an industry. Many of the owners of that gold-mining industry, the people who draw the dividends, do not live in Canada. Some of them left the country and went to the Bahamas in order to avoid paying income tax. They have shirked their responsibility to this country. The local management who deal with the men have not, in my opinion, much more to say with regard to the management of the industry than I

The War-Mr. Gillis
have. Absentee ownership directing the industries of this countiy is, I think, largely responsible for the difficulties which the Minister of Labour and the government are having in connection with this question of union recognition.
As I see it, after thinking the matter over and reading this article by Forsey, the trend at this time is toward the usurpation of the legitimate trade union movement and the setting up of an organization in Canada based on the company union or employees' plan. I know personally that this does not work. In the city of Sydney they had; in operation for a good many years a plant council, and there was nothing but trouble, turmoil, low wages, misery and degradation. About three, years ago, under an act passed by the provincial government, the steel workers of Sydney were enabled to set up for themselves a legitimate bargaining agency. Since the establishment of that union they have increased their wages by 25 or 30 per cent. They have had harmonious relations with the employers, and have improved the whole life of the community. They are taking part in various activities throughout the section of the country in which they are organized, activities in which they never took part before, and I have not seen any strikes or heard of any difficulties. They have eliminated much of the prejudice and misunderstanding that existed previously.
This company union plan does not work. You find perhaps one per cent of the men acting on committees, going round with the foremen and becoming friendly with the superintendent. You have the other ninety-nine per cent sitting back disgruntled, knowing they are denied their legitimate rights to join a union, knowing that their grievances are not properly presented. They are fertile soil for anyone who wishes to come at any time and stir them up. In my opinion the proper way, and the only way, to establish harmonious relations between the employer and the employee is to get them together in a signed agreement, which gives recognition to the basic rights of the men themselves, which permits a committee of the men to meet with the operator and; understand his problem, then go back to the men and explain the exact situation. That is the only way that can ever be done; and as long as we sit back, accept no responsibility, let the operator have his way-though he may be influenced and forced to adopt a certain attitude by people whose only connection with the industry is to check their dividend slips occasionally'-we are going to have the situation that now exists.

I should like to see the Minister of Labour get tough, in any way he may consider necessary. We have a definite job to do in Canada. As has been stated many times in this house, civilization is on the brink of destruction. Hitler is not stopped yet, by a long shot. It is going to take everything we have in this country to stop him, so we must get together. We have passed laws giving certain rights to industrial workers. The minister has declared that industrial democracy should be more closely woven into the fabric of our industrial set-up in Canada. If he means that, then I think he should get tough when that becomes necessary. When the workers have followed the legal procedure provided by the government, bad as that procedure is, and hard as it is to follow, the government should step in. That procedure was followed in Kirkland Lake where the workers, after a vote, said, "We want collective bargaining." In this case I think the minister should do what Bevin would do< in the old country; he should tell the operators, "This is democracy. They have voted; they have indicated what they want. They are legitimately entitled to it, so you sit down around a conference table and iron out this matter with your employees, or else." The minister has the machinery to enforce any such order. Wages have been frozen, and the workers must accept that situation. This was done by order in council and must be accepted by the workers, whether they like it or not. In Kirkland Lake, as in every other section of the country where labour is unorganized, the operators are defying the laws of the country; and if the government is not prepared to enforce its own laws, then I think we are headed for destruction.


Mr. A. W. ROEBUCK (Trinity):: I would like to pay a tribute to the labouring population of this dominion for the way it is carrying on at the present time with reference to our war effort. Last night one hon. member said that he had attended the sittings of this house but so far had learned little. Of course that was his affair; it is sometimes hard to get a bright idea through a dull head. Surely no one could have sat in this house during the last few days, listening to the statements of the ministers, without learning something about what is going on in Canada.
My purpose at the moment is to pay tribute to the men and women who are doing perhaps more than any other class to bring success to British arms. We have enlisted a large army, navy and air force. The growth of our forces in the field is one of the most remarkable things in modern times. But perhaps even greater than our work in the field has been what we have accomplished

The War-Mr. Roebuck
through the cooperation of management and labour in our factories. The statements that have been made indicate that the factories of Canada are now producing as much as fifty-million rounds of small arms ammunition per month, and that in the course of the next few months that output will be trebled. When one considers that the armies of Hitler number only four or five million men, the importance of fifty million rounds per month, as part of Canada's contribution to the munitions of the allies, appears as of very great importance. We are producing more than a million artillery shells per month; we are building heavy artillery; we have launched as many as seventy-seven corvettes, of which we have actually delivered some fifty. We are turning out something like seventy million pounds of explosive per month. The clothing, the food and the supplies that we are sending across to our allies in England and Russia are playing a real part in the world war. I was impressed by the statement that since the commencement of this war Canada has shipped across the ocean and safely landed on the quays of Great Britain as many as 7,000 cargoes to warm the hearts and maintain the courage of our allies in Britain; that as much as 42,500,000 tons of freight has been transported across the sea from the factories and farms of Canada, carried by the shipping of the world, and convoyed in no small part by the Canadian navy.
I emphasize this because people are apt to lay too great stress-though not too great credit-on armed forces alone. My suggestion is that the effort which Canada is putting forth in her factories is even more important than the effort she is putting forth in the field.
In that connection, I wish to pay tribute to the workers of Canada. There is not very much difference between the man who fires off the shell and the man who manufactures it, or the man who turns it in a lathe. Both are necessary to the final result. Perhaps the man who makes the shell is the more important of the two, because it certainly cannot be fired off if it is not made. Anything wihich interrupts our war effort in the factories is a matter of supreme importance to the Canadian people.
I want to say something about the attitude which should be adopted toward labour and the working people. It has been my fortune in the past, as attorney general of Ontario, to control the police forces of that province. I have been minister of labour of Ontario, and I know something about the difficulties which face a minister of labour. I know the forces which are ever driving him to drastic action.
I have forgotten which one of the previous speakers referred to compulsion. He said that in his judgment all the compulsion was against the workers. That was an exaggeration; it has not been quite in line with my experience. It is true that the fixing of wage levels is a very serious action on the part of the government. I shall watch with a great deal of care and interest how it works out. The new rules made by the order in council are to be judged, not in advance by one's imagination but rather in retrospect, after they have been in force for perhaps six months. I say that because their success or failure, their advantage or disadvantage to the worker, will depend in large part upon their administration.
When the freezing of wages was announced I was concerned. I called upon one of the men in the Department of Labour, a very well-informed official of the government, and expressed to him my concern. I said to him, "The government is taking the place of the unions; the government will cripple the organization of the unions, if it proceeds to freeze wages." I got some comfort from this man. He pointed out to me that there are in Canada w'hat he called depressed areas, places where wages are abnormally low. He might have gone farther and said that there are spots all over Canada where wages are altogether too low. He mentioned certain depressed areas in Canada where wages are outrageously low, and recalled the fact that wages generally are based on the lowest wages paid, and that if you can raise the mud sills, you raise the entire structure. He pointed out to me that the new order in council provided for regional boards, with powers of investigation, and fairly wide powers of compulsion in the matter of payment. He expressed the hope that in the comparatively short time in which the legislation would be in effect, it would bring to light conditions which to-day are under cover, and might, he hoped-and I hope, too,-bring about their rectification.
Labour will overlook an opportunity if it does not require the regional boards to make the inquiries permitted by the order in council, and so create a condition whereby wages in the depressed areas will be forced up. It will then become less difficult to raise the wages throughout the country generally when the legislation disappears.
Speaking to some of my unionist friends at a great union meeting in Toronto recently, I said that this was their opportunity, and that if they allowed their organizations to go to pieces on account of paternal legislation at present temporarily in effect, they would do a great disservice to the Canadian people. They

The War-Mr. Roebuck

must hold their organizations now, if ever, and thus prepare for the time when the soldiers will be marching home, and the munitions factories will be emptying their staffs upon the streets.
That will be the testing time of Canadian labour. Labour should be preparing for that day. But we cannot prepare by making extravagant statements. I deplore at this above all times any show of anger. Compulsion has been placed upon labour, it is .true, in connection with the increase of wages. But to my knowledge there has also been compulsion with respect to employers.
I had the honour of being nominated by the running trades of the railroads of Canada, comprising some 125,000 men, to sit on a conciliation board whose duty it was to interpret order in council P.C. 7440. I may confess now that the majority of the board decided against labour, and in favour of the contention offered by the railroads. Naturally I took the side of labour; and I look back with pleasure upon the fact that though the majority of the board had disagreed with me, the government of Canada agreed with me, and settled the matter by order in council. Compulsion was brought upon the railroads, and to-day the railroads are paying the bonus to something like 125,000 railway working men.
Therefore do not let us be too extravagant in our condemnations. May I point out to the committee that probably the toughest job any man in the parliament of Canada has held in the last two years has been that of the Minister of Labour. I believe I may say that sweepingly, because he is dealing with men, not with machines. He is dealing with human beings who react to treatment, and he must be wise in his actions.
We talk about compulsion; I know something about it. I remember when the government of Ontario was pushed into action because people were striking, and sent tanks, barbed wire and machine guns to Stratford, in the quiet province of Ontario. Oh, yes, they suppressed the strike to some extent; but they left a wound in that city and neighbourhood which has not yet healed. The people who were responsible for that despotic action are still looked upon with anger and dislike by the labouring people of this country.
There are those who would like the Minister of Labour for Canada to call upon the police or the soldiery. It was suggested to me that the strike at St. Catharines could have been settled by simply putting in the volunteers. I objected and said, "You do not suggest that in this industrial province of Ontario we should coerce the working people at the point of the bayonet." The answer was, "Why do

you not back up a few buses and carry off the leaders?" These are thoughts that are actually abroad. They are pressed upon the authorities. It is urged that action of that kind be taken.
While there may be criticism here and there, and discussion is good, the fact remains that the Department of Labour of Canada has resisted that policy. So far it has been able to get along, perhaps not one hundred per cent, and our factories in consequence are running, men are working, and products are developed and shipped across the sea. A little conciliation, kindness and understanding, even though that method may be slow, will win in the end as against more drastic methods.
We hear that there are no strikes in England. I noticed in a recent issue of the British Labour Gazette that some 285,000 man-days had been lost in Great Britain in a single month. No such losses have been occasioned here, but of course our population is not so large. Mr. Bevin has said that they have "practically no strikes." By that he means that the situation could be so much worse that a loss of 285,000 man-days is practically nothing. If Mr. Bevin can say that with respect to the labouring classes of Great Britain, our Minister of Labour can say it with much greater force with regard to the working people of the Dominion of Canada. I pay tribute to the patriotic way in which workmen are refusing to discuss minor matters in order that they may not overlook the important ones.
We hear references to compulsion, and I have just one more remark to make. A man is to be judged, not entirely by the things he does, but also by the mistakes he avoids, the things he does not do although tempted to do, the things which he might be forced into doing but resists. In the last few months we had the spectacle of the premier of Ontario bringing the wives and daughters of farmers to act as strike-breakers in Toronto, in order to beat some tomato factory workers in the east end of the city. The plea was made that the tomato crop was being saved, but as a matter of fact what was being saved was an increase of 2J cents an hour to the workers in that factory, and recognition by the employers of the union chosen by those poor people.
Sometimes it is good to make comparisons. In all the stress of this war there has been nothing of that kind to be charged against the Department of Labour of the Dominion of Canada. It has been said that sometimes they are slow, but there is virtue in deliberation.

The War-Labour
Steadily, quietly and sympathetically we have carried on the industry of Canada. We have raised the Canadian contribution to a point that is even greater than that of the United States, if we count out the production of aeroplanes. We are not in position to make many aeroplanes, and, excluding aeroplanes, the munitions of war which we have produced in Canada have been greater than the production of the United States. That is a startling statement, but it is true. It is due to the wisdom with which we are treating labour, to the hope which labour has of better things in the future and to the patriotism of working people.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Before the minister makes his statement, I should like to draw his attention to a rather disconcerting statement which appeared in the press. I do this because as Minister of Labour he is responsible for the protection of the working classes of this country and because he represents the constituency in this house in which Windsor is located. I quote from the Montreal Gazette of November 11, as follows:
Windsor, Ontario, November 10-Job seekers cannot get work in Windsor factories unless they have obligated themselves to subscribe "for a fair proportion" of war savings certificates, according to Donald W. McGregor, chairman of the local war weapons committee.
He said that Windsor is confident it will go over the top in the present drive to gain subscribers for wrar savings certificates and termed "an ace in the hole" the fact that unless job seekers can show badges showing them to be subscribers they cannot get work.
The minister said something about being opposed to compulsion, but this certainly is the most discriminatory form of compulsion. For the last two years when the budget was brought down this group asked the government to institute a compulsory non-interest bearing loan. The government refused to do this upon the ground that it did not desire to use compulsion and levy upon the basis of ability to pay, but preferred to finance the war by means of voluntary contributions, not upon the basis of an ability to pay but upon the basis of a person's sense of patriotism and responsibility. According to this article there has been a conscription of wealth, but conscription from those earning the least.
I have no reason to believe that the action mentioned in this article is not being carried out. Mr. McGregor, the gentleman in charge of the war weapons committee, must be a fairly reputable citizen, and he would hardly give this statement to the press unless it were correct. If we are to use this bludgeon upon the workers and say that they cannot get jobs
unless they are prepared to pledge what he calls a fair proportion of their wages to purchase war savings certificates, then the working groups in the city of Windsor are not being adequately protected. I wish the minister would give some attention to this. He may care to say something about it when he is making his general remarks.


Mr. McKINNON (Kenora-Rainy River):: When the minister is making his statement I wish he would endeavour to give us a review of the youth training scheme and how it has worked out. A ceiling has been placed upon salaries and wages and upon what is paid to men in executive positions, and I should like to know why professional fees have not been included.


Mr. SHAW:: I should like to have some information from the minister as to the division of authority as between the provincial government and the federal government in connection with the enforcement of conditions of employment, hours of labour, rates of pay and so on as they affect contractors carrying on federal government work in the provinces.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Mr. Chairman, I think the last two statements, while they were most brief, involve a wider discussion than almost anything else that has been said in this debate. It was my thought, and I think it was that of the committee generally, that after I had made my statement questions might quite properly be asked. I suppose it is an entirely unusual and improper attitude for a minister to take to say that he has been rather disappointed that more questions have not been asked.


Angus MacInnis: We have not finished yet.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I shall be very glad, if they are asked later. Perhaps I should make a statement, not too detailed, in connection with some of the observations that have been made. My statement will require to be less detailed on account of the address of the hon. member for Trinity, who dealt with some of the observations that I propose to make.
I would say this, that speaking generally, I cannot help paying definite tribute to labour in this country for the splendid manner in which they are carrying on their war effort. That is illustrated by the figures we have, strike figures for the month of October. These figures show that in that month we had fewer strikes than we have had in any month for some years. I think perhaps they may rival any in the history of this country. I should like to place them on record because
14873-270 J
The War-Labour

they are, I believe, impressive. There were- and I am speaking from recollection-in the month of October, 750 men on strike, and the number of man-days lost was fewer than 1,500. This means less than two days per man for each man who was involved in a labour dispute. If that is resolved into terms of percentages, the percentage would be so small in relation to the total working population that it would be almost ridiculous to discuss it. I mention that figure again for this reason. It is a tribute not only to the working people of Canada but to those who are the responsible labour leaders in this country.
It has been suggested that in orders in council which this government has passed where penalties have been involved, we have put the penalties against labour but not against industry. In order that that question might receive consideration from this committee I have had a statement prepared. In the nine orders in council which we have passed since the war started, two provide penalties for both employers and employees, six for employers only, and only one for employees only.


Angus MacInnis: Which are these orders?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Would the hon. member like me to read them?


Angus MacInnis: I should at least like to get the numbers or the titles of the orders in council.


Norman Alexander McLarty: P.C. 3495 of November 7, 1939, which extends the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act to cover all industries; P.C. 6286, of November 7, 1940; P.C. 4642, of June 25, 1941, which is the labour enticement order; P.C. 3884 was repealed and replaced- the fair wages order; P.C. 4758, of June 27, 1941, dealing with the reinstatement of returned soldiers in employment, providing penalties on the employer; P.C. 4844, of July 2, 1941, setting up the industrial disputes inquiry commission and containing provisions against discrimination on account of union membership; P.C. 7307; P.C. 7679, of October 4, 1941, which is the new order with regard to minimum wages in war industries; and the wage stabilization order in council of October 24, 1940.
The point I wish to make is that the suggestion that penalties have been put on labour but have not been put on industry are absolutely refuted by these very facts themselves.
The suggestion has been made that in the recent order in council we are what is called "freezing" wages. The word "freezing" is an unfortunate term. It suggests a static condition that is incapable of change. That condition does not exist in that order in council.

If wages are low, they may be increased. If they are not fair and reasonable, they are not frozen.
We are setting up a national organization, a national war labour board, to which any man or any organization may apply, in order to ensure that there is no freezing, and that the condition that fair wages shall prevail shall be the order of the day. We are not doing this with the idea of putting a ceiling on wages. We are doing it with this idea in view, that we want to make real and nominal wages one and the same thing. In the statement I gave to this house a short time ago I pointed out the condition that arose in the last war. I pointed out that the cost of living inevitably rose higher and faster than wages, and that it was in the interests of the wage-earners of this country-not to hurt them, not to hold them down-but to assist in their actual real purchasing power that that order in council was passed.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River mentioned the war emergency training programme. We are substantially ahead of our programme in the training for war industries. Speaking from recollection, I believe the estimate for this year, made about a year ago, of those who would be trained in the vocational schools, for example, was 50,000. It will run over 60,000 for the current year. Further, based on 803 plants canvassed, industry is training, under the direction of the Department of Labour, an additional 70,000. In addition to that, the bureau of technical training, under the capable chairmanship of Mr. Little, is training through the newsprint industry, the utilities industry and the mines industry, other workers who either will take their place in war industry or will allow present employees in these industries to take their place in war industry, to be replaced by those now in training. In other words, the training programme is moving along in a splendid manner.
May I refer for a moment to unemployment insurance. That, as hon. members know, came into force on the 1st of July last. The number of books taken out by 143,000 employers is in the neighbourhood of 2,700,000. Up to date there has been collected in excess of $14,000,000 for that fund. In fact, the interest in that fund, invested in government securities, which assists our war-time effort, is in excess of $16,000. I mention that because I think it will be of interest to the members of this house.
Might I say one or two things in connection with remarks which have been made. The hon. member for Vancouver East asked which union we recognized in the National Steel Car corporation. At the present time the situation is this. There are two unions there. One is the

The War-Labour
steel workers' organization of Canada and the other is the employees' association. But I would not wish the hon. member to get the belief that that employees' association is a company union. There is no preference shown to either union. Neither one has premises in the plant. They are both organized on their own, on a self-sustaining basis, and in the matter of actual contact there is no discrimination shown as between them. I am advised that the employees' association has more members than the steel workers' organizing committee, but as to whether or not that is correct I am not definitely prepared to say.
May I refer to the observations of the hon. member for Cape Breton South relative to Kirkland Lake? I think it would be inopportune for me to deal with that under present circumstances, because I have requested both employers and employees-the operators and the members of the union-to come here on Monday next. I believe that any statement which I made in connection with the hon. member's remarks might not assist but perhaps retard any effort, which I trust will be successful, to come to a conclusion that will avoid a strike.
I do not know that there is a great deal more which I need to say. As the hon. member for Vancouver East said, there may be some other questions, and I shall be glad to deal with them, but I do not wish to open a wide range of subjects which have not hitherto been referred to.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister again with reference to the statement which I brought to his attention. Are employers to be allowed to carry on that programme?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I intended to reply to the question of the hon. member for Weyburn, and I apologize for not having done so. I have not seen the article. I have not heard that Mr. McGregor, who is an estimable citizen, as my hon. friend has suggested, and is carrying on the war savings campaign for the Department of Finance in Windsor, has made the statement. It does not exactly horrify me if he had. On the other hand-[DOT]


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It should.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I should like to make sure that he has. I do not suggest that no man should obtain a position unless he buys war savings certificates. I have, however, a little sympathy with those who are trying to promote the sale of these certificates. I do not think the purchase of these should be made a condition of employment; it should not; let us admit that quite freely and frankly. On the other hand, I suppose it is one of those
methods of promotion which is adopted by those who perhaps are a little more zealous for the sale of wyar savings certificates, which are to the advantage of this country.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: It is a very poor method.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Would the minister care to deal with the matter which I brought up a few moments ago, having to do with a division of authority as between the provincial governments and the federal government with regard to certain matters such as rates of pay to men, such as truckers and others, engaged on federal government projects in the provinces?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not think there is any division of opinion as to the appropriate authority of the dominion and of the provinces in this matter. In so far as they are dominion government projects, the dominion government has the sole jurisdiction as to rates of wages paid and working conditions in connection with those contracts. In other wrords, wages generally speaking, are a provincial responsibility. But in the case of dominion government projects the dominion government has the authority.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Has the authority to enforce provincial rates been delegated to any provincial government up to the present time?


Norman Alexander McLarty: If they are provincial rates, there would be no need of delegation. Do I understand the hon, member to suggest that the dominion government has delegated to the provinces the right to fix rates in connection with dominion government projects?


Frederick Davis Shaw: No. But in some provinces they have minimum rates of pay for certain types of work. If a contractor takes a dominion government contract in a province where those legal rates prevail, must the contractor pay those rates? That is really what I want to know.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The answer is, very definitely, yes, the dominion rates. Primarily, of course, the matter of wages is a provincial responsibility, it being a matter of property and civil rights. But in connection with dominion projects the dominion is responsible in fixing those rates, and as far as I am aware there has been no delegation of any authority to any province to fix these rates in connection with dominion government contracts in any province.


Angus MacInnis: In my opinion the minister looks altogether too leniently upon the action referred to by the hon. member for Weyburn. This is blackmail-quite definitely so. When
The War-Labour

a promoter or a salesman of anything-I do not care what it is, whether it is war savings certificates, or blankets, or something else- says to a person, "You have to buy so much or you are not going to get a job", it is blackmail. Remember that when it is applied to workers it is particularly serious, because the job is the worker's life; it is his livelihood; if he does not get a job, he starves. Yet, regardless of his circumstances, he is compelled to subscribe to so many war savings certificates before he can go to work. After all, this is a free country, or it was until quite recently. This man is paying the taxes which have been deemed right and sufficient by the government of Canada. After he has paid those taxes it is no one's business what he is going to subscribe to, and it should not be made a condition of his getting a job. What would happen if the government of Canada were to say through someone-and if the government allows it the government is saying it -that before a contractor shall get a contract he must undertake to buy so many war bonds or war savings certificates? The Minister of Labour should make a statement here that such a thing will not be allowed, and that if it has been made a condition of employment at Windsor or at any other city it must be discontinued forthwith. The minister owes a statement of that kind to the committee.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Mr. Chairman, I think that when an hon. member uses the word "blackmail" he is probably going entirely outside the intention which would be behind this action. "Blackmail" suggests very definitely some personal advantage which is accruing to the blackmailer. In this case the chairman of the war savings certificates committee is trying to sell war savings certificates for the benefit of the government and the people of Canada. To call it "blackmail" is hardly fair to him. There may be a difference of opinion as to the desirability of having it done, but to suggest that the chairman of the war savings certificates committee, because he is endeavouring-perhaps unduly-to promote the sale of war savings certificates, is guilty of blackmail, is something which I do not believe will appeal to this committee.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: "Coercion"!


Norman Alexander McLarty: I have dealt with the matter of coercion, and I do not think I need go into that at length. Before making a statement to the committee on this matter I should like to get some actual facts. I have seen in newspapers accounts which may be a little highly coloured, and probably this is highly coloured. I would say now that I seriously question if it is a condition precedent to
I.Mr. Maclimis.]
any man obtaining a position in Windsor that he has to buy war savings certificates, and although I have read the statement in the press I would want more confirmation of it than the article now read. I quite agree that no such condition should be attached to a man's getting employment.


Charles Edward Johnston: If it is true, the minister would not permit it?


Norman Alexander McLarty: As to the matter of permission, I do not know that that would come within my authority. I would say it should not be made a condition precedent to obtaining employment; that is all.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: A project was begun in my constituency this summer by the Department of Agriculture under the prairie farm rehabilitation branch. Representations were made to me that while a rate of thirty cents an hour was paid to unskilled workers, certain groups of workers who came from Regina were paid forty cents an hour for the same kind of work. I brought the matter to the attention of both the Department of Labour and the Department of Agriculture, and I have been advised by the Department of Labour that some clauses will be put into force in connection with rates of pay. The attitude of the Department of Agriculture was that they did not want to pay wages which would interfere with wages paid to farm help. That is a policy which is open to some criticism. Agriculture is in a depressed condition throughout Canada and particularly in the west, but that is not a good argument for paying men who are unemployed in towns a large part of the year a very low wage because farmers roundabout always pay very low wages when farm prices are at low levels. Can the minister make a statement as to the policy that will be carried out in connection with projects that are being carried on by departments of the government?


Norman Alexander McLarty: This is the first time that the matter has been brought to my attention. When the hon. member speaks of a policy, I believe his question is more or less confined to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. If I remember correctly, I do not think the Department of Labour has any specific policy with reference to that. The only general policy, so far as wages are concerned, which we have that would be applicable is the minimum wage law, which applies to all dominion projects.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What are the rates?


Norman Alexander McLarty: For men we increased the rate from thirty to thirty-five cents and for women the rate was increased from twenty to twenty-five cents.

The War-Labour


Mr. WRIGHT:: Will this minimum wage law apply to a company supplying goods to the government? Take a lumber company selling 25 per cent of their output to the dominion. Would the minimum wage law apply to that?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes; if they were selling that amount, the minimum wage law would apply.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister has made
certain statements which I think are creditable. He said that it is fair to say that the Department of Labour has in every way sought, first, to protect every worker by establishing fair wage standards and to prevent industrial strikes, and second, to protect the lower paid workers against the attempts of unscrupulous employers to deny them the minimum compensation to which they are entitled. We have in operation in northeastern Saskatchewan a lumber company which I believe is the largest company of the kind in the province, the B. F. Harris company. They not only operate their own limits but buy a considerable amount from other dperators in the district. They have a minimum wage rate of 224 cents an hour plus the cost of living bonus. They work their employees on double shift, twelve hours in each shift. Seventy per cent of their employees are receiving less than thirty cents an hour and 70 per cent of the employees are working a twelve-hour shift. This company are not only selling their own products, but buying from the smaller operators in the district on the basis of the present fixed prices for lumber in this country. At the same time, according to the information I have, they are exporting approximately 50 per cent of their products and receiving for that, according to the Minister of Munitions and Supply yesterday, 20 to 40 per cent more than the domestic price. If my information is correct, they are also selling to the government 20 to 25 per cent of their output. What action does the minister propose to take in such a case?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I know that the hon. member will no* expect me to pass judgment on the particular circumstances of an individual case such as that. All I can say is that I shall be glad to have the matter investigated and checked up in order to see what can be done to bring it into line, assuming, as he suggests, that it is out of line.


Mr. ESLING:: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall be glad to meet the hon. member's request to see whether the matter is one which can be dealt with by the United States authorities in conjunction with our own. It is an individual case that requires looking into, and I should hope that it would be dealt with sympathetically.
While I am on my feet, may I say that immediately after eight o'clock the Minister of Finance will make his statement on the question of the cost of living bonus in relation to dependents' allowances, veterans' allowances and allied matters. I think we might have it understood that after the minister's statement has been made the time will have arrived when hon. members may regard themselves as free to talk in committee on anything.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.



STATEMENT OF MINISTER OF FINANCE IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS WAR ALLOWANCES

Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Chairman, during the late summer and early fall months the government has received numerous representations from individuals
War Allowances-Mr. Ilsley

and organizations in various parts of the country suggesting that in view of the rising cost of living steps should be taken to provide cost of living bonuses for persons receiving pensions or allowances of various kinds, representing in some cases payments for services being rendered or something in the nature of awards for services rendered in the past, or, in other cases, awards or payments made on the basis of need. In most cases I believe that these representations were made not so much because of existing conditions but rather in anticipation of a continuing rise in prices and the cost of living. I am glad to say that since the policy of establishing a general ceiling over the prices of commodities, rents and services, and of stabilizing wages, was announced, there has been a noticeable falling off in the number of these representations. This is another of the strong arguments for the price and wage stabilization policy adopted by the government, because I think it was primarily the fear that the cost of living would be allowed to go spiralling upward that caused so much anxiety, so much sense of insecurity and of impending hardship on the part of recipients of small fixed incomes. However, I want to assure the committee that all these representations have been the subject of very careful study over a period of several months; and it is the results of these studies and our conclusions therefrom that I wish to announce to-night.
First I will take up dependents' allowances. In the field of allowances paid to soldiers' dependents, the government believes a real case has been made for some remedial action.
When the present scale of allowances was adopted at the outbreak of war, the allowances were deliberately made high in order to take account of the fact that during the course of the war there would undoubtedly be a rise in prices and in the cost of living. Experience, however, has shown that while they are adequate for most dependents, there are certain cases where undue hardship results, particularly in the case of families which have more than two children.
The government therefore proposes, in the case of personnel below the rank of warrant officer class 1, to provide an additional allowance of $9 for the third child, and an additional allowance of $6 for the fourth child. This would mean that the total allowance for a wife with three children would be increased to $68, which with $20 assigned pay, makes a total of $88 per month; and the total allowance for a wife with four or more children would be increased to $74, which with $20 assigned pay, would make a total of $94 per month.
We do not propose to make any additional allowance in respect to children beyond the

fourth child, because we believe that definite steps should be taken to discourage the recruiting of men with large families.
What I have said applies to dependents of men in the army and air force, whose allowances are paid by the dependents' allowance board. The allowances to dependents of men in the naval services are paid directly by the Department of National Defence for Naval Services and on a different scale and principle. The question of making adjustments applicable to the naval services will be gone into promptly, and such changes as may be found to be appropriate will be made.
We have also thought it desirable to provide that in certain cases, and in accordance with methods which I will later explain, dependent mothers should receive an increase in the allowance paid them up to 25 per cent of the present allowance. It will be recalled that while the allowance paid to a wife is $35, that to a mother is now only $20, and it appears to be true, in some cases at least, that this differential is too great. Provision will also be made under certain conditions to prevent the mother from being penalized if she is willing to work and make some modest earnings.
It is estimated that these changes will provide benefits for approximately one-third of the present recipients, at an estimated cost of from $8,000,000 to $9,000,000 per annum.
It is very difficult at the present time to make detailed comparisons of the total pay and allowances under these new scales with the rates in effect in Britain and Australia, because complicated changes have recently been made in the systems in both those countries, and I have not sufficient information to make a proper comparison. However, at least until recently the rates of pay plus allowances in south Africa were the highest of any of the English-speaking countries, and the following table shows how the Canadian rates of pay and allowances with the present changes compare with the south African rates:
South Canada Africa
Private and mother	
$ 64	$46.20Private and wife	
74	52.80Private, wife	and	1	child...	86	59.40Private, wife	and	2	children..	98	66.00Private, wife	and	3	children..	107	72.60Private, wife	and	4	children..	113	85.80
A private in the United States army receives pay of $40 a month after one year's service, which compares with $39 a month pay in the Canadian Army, but the United States as yet makes no provision for the soldier's dependents. In the last war, a private in the Canadian Army received pay of $1.10 a day, or $33 a month; his wife received a separation allowance at the rate of $30 per month at the end of that war, and I may add that this was

War Allowances-Mr. Ilsley
at a time when the cost of living price level was very much higher than it is to-day. There were no allowances for children, but the Patriotic fund provided assistance on the basis of family needs.
Even with these changes there will be special cases of difficulty which will require special treatment. The government is determined to afford the most adequate protection to all soldiers' dependents, and, after going most fully into the matter, they have found that the problem is not just a matter of financial assistance, which is susceptible of treatment by any uniform rule. There are special cases involving special or emergency consideration and special forms of assistance, as, for instance, when the family has had the misfortune of serious illness with heavy medical expenses, or when there are older children deserving special training or education, or when the family is large, or the difficult case of the change in status of a dependent mother when the son marries. Such special conditions create special needs which cannot be covered by any reasonable change in the standard rates ' and require assistance which will vary with the size of the family, conditions in the particular locality, and other special circumstances. The government therefore has tried to find some way to bring into play all the administrative resources available in the country so that the dependents of our men overseas should be given protection and service suited to the circumstances of the particular case.
We have therefore concluded that we should make provision for what might be called a war allowances adjustment fund, the moneys to be provided by a grant from the treasury under the War Appropriation Act, and that this fund should be administered by a national board of trustees appointed by the government, which would be given powers adequate to deal with special situations with a considerable measure of flexibility. This board of trustees would consist of
(a)	A representative of the dependents' allowance board;
(b)	A representative of the veterans' welfare division of the Department of Pensions and National Health;
(c)	A representative of the Canadian Legion;
(d)	A representative of the Canadian Welfare Council;
(e)	A representative of women's institutes, or other person familiar with the problems as they present themselves in rural areas;
(f)	A representative of labour;
(g)	A representative of the comptroller of the treasury or the auditor general; and
(h)	An independent chairman who has had experience in dealing with similar problems.
The national board would have under it a number of local or regional committees which would in so far as their composition is concerned be essentially replicas of the national board. There would, however, be certain differences; for instance, on the local or regional boards, instead of a representative of the dependents' allowance board, there would be local representatives of the Department of Pensions and National Health, or of the soldier settlement board, (varying with the particular community). Also, instead of the Canadian welfare council, there would be a representative of the most appropriate local social agency, or in large communities of mixed population representatives of several local social agencies.
These local or regional set-ups should be worked out by the national board of trustees in cooperation with local authorities, and the national board should appoint the chairman of the local or regional committee.
There would have to be a considerable number of these local committees, at least sixty or seventy, and perhaps as many as one hundred and fifty, if it were desired to expedite the work as rapidly as possible, In the division of the country into local regional districts, it would be intended to take the fullest possible advantage of existing divisions for the purpose of social service administration.
The local or regional committee would deal with applications and make recommendations to the national board of trustees on the basis of principles laid down by the national board. While limited powers would probably have to be given to the local committees to make emergency payments in certain cases, the general procedure would be that application and recommendation would be sent in by the local or regional committee to the national board, which would make the decision and issue supplementary allowance by means of a cheque direct to the particular recipient. In other words, the local or regional committee would not be administrative in character; they would advise in regard to scales of assistance in the particular community, make investigations and verify the special circumstances involved and provide direot personal assistance or advise. They would, of course, use so far as possible the services of experienced social service workers already working in the locality, and perhaps as well, in certain cases at least, the skilled staff of a provincial government. The government hopes that by making use of the special knowledge and skill of such qualified persons, it will be able to get the plan into full operation with the minimum of delay, and also with the maximum of efficiency and equity.
War Allowances-Mr. Ilsley

It will be noted that no large administrative organization would be set up, but rather arrangements made for a pooling of existing administrative resources, and the only cost should be the payment of perhaps a per capita fee to the local social agency for investigations and recommendations.	,
In addition to other special cases, the new organization should deal with cases where supplementary allowance not in excess of 25 per cent of the present allowance would be made to mothers of soldiers, and also with cases where it would be desirable to allow children, by continuance of allowances, to attend high school until they have reached the end of their eighteenth year, if such children have good prospects of matriculating.
The major arguments for the scheme just outlined may be summarized as follows:
([DOT]a) It is far more equitable than any alternative arrangement, providing for the meeting of need or protection against hardship, no matter what the need or the hardship may be, and eliminating a needless waste of taxpayers' funds such as would be involved in any uniform regulation which sought to meet the difficulties of certain special cases by a uniform increase in the standard scale of allowances.
(b)	It is wholly flexible, allowing need to be met in accordance with the merits of the particular case and the conditions of the particular region. It will allow the greatest measure of assistance possible to those who need it most. Emergency and unusual requirements can be met as well as common and recurrent ones.
(c)	It provides for meeting the special needs of special cases by bringing into play the judgments of a considerable number of people who know the local and individual situation.
(d)	It avoids the necessity of building up a large new administrative organization which would involve a lot of unnecessary administrative cost. It will make possible the use of the existing social service machinery of the nation in reporting upon and examining individual cases and, where desirable, in providing more than mere financial assistance.
*(e) It is hoped that this far-reaching and flexible system of supplementary allowances will not only ensure that all dependents are safeguarded against economic dangers, but also that it will give the men overseas the confidence and assurance that all the administrative resources of the community are standing by the home in their absence, and that even in the case of unforeseen emergency at home, their families will be looked after and will not suffer hardship.
In summary we believe that the changes we are suggesting will provide a measure of very 
real social security, democratic and fair in its underlying principles, and efficient and adequate in its administration. Naturally in view of its character, I cannot give any estimate in advance of the funds that will be required to finance it, other than the estimate I have already made of the probable cost of the changes made in regard to the third and fourth child and the mother.
I come now to war veterans' allowances: The War Veterans' Allowance Act was enacted in 1930 to assist in the maintenance of the aged or totally incapacitated veteran in necessity and incapable of maintaining himself. Allowances under the act were made payable to veterans upon attaining the age of sixty years and1 to those of any age who were permanently unemployable.
These allowances are limited in the case of a veteran with dependents to $480 per annum, and income from all sources, including veterans' allowance, must not exceed $730 per annum. In the case of a veteran without dependents the maximum allowance is $240, and income from all sources, including veterans' allowance, must not exceed $365. The act provides that no deductions shall be made in the allowance because of receipt by the veteran of helplessness allowance, clothing allowance, additional pension allowance payable on account of children, grants received by the veteran by reason of having been awarded the V.C., M.C., or D.C.M., and casual earnings not exceeding $125 per annum. In all eases the amount actually paid is based on an investigation of the need of the recipient and there are many cases where the maximum allowance is not paid.
A great many recipients of the war veterans' allowance are also in receipt of pensions under the Pension Act. Quite a number have other sources of income such as mothers' allowances under provincial legislation, rentals from property owned but not occupied, insurance disability benefits, casual earnings, et cetera. There are, however, quite a number who have none of these special types of income and who by reason of age or infirmity are unable to supplement their veterans' allowance by casual earnings. Within this latter group there appear to be certain cases involving actual hardship, and it seems desirable to make provision for additional allowances in special cases after investigation has established actual need. In this connection it is proposed that the additional allowances be limited to a maximum of $5 per month for single men and $10 per month for married men. These additional allowances would only be given after investigation to veterans who are now in receipt of

War Allowances-Mr. Ilsley
the maximum allowances permitted under the act and who have no other earnings or income of any kind.
It may be observed that when the War Veterans' Allowance Act was passed in 1930, the cost of living index stood at 120-8 per cent. In other words, in spite of the increase in cost of living which has taken place since the outbreak of war, the latest index available is still more than five points below the point at which the index stood when the legislation was enacted and the amount of the allowances originally determined,
I come now to pensions under the Pension Act. These pensions are part of the compensation which is paid to a member of the armed forces or his dependents because of his disablement or death. The basic rates of pensions now paid are governed by schedules to the statute enacted in 1925 and are based upon the -rates of pension and bonuses established in 1920 when the cost of living index stood at 150-5. The parliamentary committee which reviewed the problem in 1920 had been of the opinion that in view of the possibility of declining prices in future years increases in pension should in the main be effected by way of a bonus to be continued until such time as the cost of living warranted its modification. As the bonus was included in the basic rate of pension in the schedule to the act of 1925, it has remained in effect notwithstanding subsequent reductions in the cost of living.
In addition to the cash pensions paid on this basis, disability pensioners are free to accept employment, and their earnings do not in any way affect their pension entitlement. Such pensioners of the first great war also benefit by conditions which offer a wider scope of employment for those who are able to work, by reason of a primary preference under the Civil Service Act and preference in all government contracts and war work. In addition, they are given free hospitalization with pay and allowances for disabilities related to service. If over sixty years of age or permanently unemployable or if, despite the preferences granted, they are incapable of maintenance, such pensioners are eligible for assistance under the War Veterans' Allowance Act.
In view of all these circumstances and particularly because the cost of living index is only 115-5 as compared with 150-5 when the basic rates of pension were established, the government believes that no additions to these pensions could be justified at the present time.
I come now to old age pensions and pensions for the blind. Representations have been received by this government asking that a cost of living bonus be added to old age pensions, thereby raising the maximum amount of such pensions above the figure of $20 a month provided in the act. The question is one of extraordinary difficulty for reasons which I am about to mention.
I might remind the committee that these pensions are paid by the provinces, under agreements made by the governor in council with the lieutenant-governors in council of the provinces, in accordance with the Old Age Pensions Act of 1927. The act provides that every agreement shall continue in force as long as the original statute remains in operation or until after the expiration of ten years from the date upon which notice of an intention to terminate the agreement is given by the governor in council to the lieutenant-governor of the province with which the agreement was made.
The dominion's contribution of 75 per cent of the total pension paid is contingent upon the amount of the province's contribution, which is 25 per cent of the total, and therefore varies from province to province. The average monthly pension paid in each province as of June 30, 1941, was as follows:
British Columbia	 $19.12
Alberta	 18.56
Saskatchewan	 16.97
Manitoba	 18.72
Ontario	 18.55
Quebec	 15.72
New Brunswick	 14.71
Nova Scotia	 14.97
Prince Edward Island	 11.26
It will be noted that in several provinces there is considerable leeway for increasing the average amount of pension paid if the province so desires. As advantage is not taken by certain provinces of the leeway which already exists, it is apparent that any provision for an increase in the minimum amount of pension payable would be used very much more by some provinces than by others, which would mean that the additional funds would be distributed very unequally between provinces.
Under the present scheme any increase in the amount of the maximum pension payable would require not only an amendment to the dominion act but new agreements with all the provinces. Several provinces would almost certainly be neither willing nor able to pay their proportionate share of a larger pension. If on the assumption that all provinces would not agree to increase the pension on the present cooperative basis the dominion undertook to pay the whole cost of a supplementary pension, we would be following the
War Allowances-Mr. Ilsley

unsound and dangerous principle of one government bearing the total cost of a service for the administration of which another government was solely responsible. This unsound principle would be coupled with the further objection, already mentioned, that the benefit of the dominion payment would in the main accrue to only a few provinces which are already paying a higher average rate of pension than other provinces which, except in a limited number of cases, would not benefit from the scheme although obviously the taxpayers of the latter provinces would have to bear some share of the higher payments made to pensioners in the former group of provinces.
There is the further fact that the cost of living index to-day, 115-5, is five or six points lower than the level at which the cost of living index stood at the time the Old Age Pensions Act was passed and during the early years of its operation. Thus in 1927 when the legislation was passed, the cost of living index stood at 119-9. In 1928 the index had risen to 120-5; in 1929 it was 121-7; and in 1930, 120-8. It would therefore seem very difficult for the dominion government, in the present war emergency when it is taking nearly 40 per cent of the national income for war purposes, to justify the addition of a general cost of living bonus to a rate of pension which was determined and established at the time when the country was enjoying a peace-time boom and when the cost of living index was five or six points higher than it is to-day.
In this connection it must be remembered that there is a real distinction between the granting of a cost of living bonus, on the one hand, to workers employed by private industries or by governments, and, on the other hand, to persons who are being given an award at the public expense because they may not be in a financial position to provide for themselves. In the former case it must be remembered that wage-earners are forgoing increases in their basic rates of pay and the cost of living bonus is really an arrangement to effect a stabilization of wages in order to make possible the maintenance of a price ceiling and safeguard against an inflationary spiral which would have, it is believed, a disastrous effect on the economy as a whole and would create real hardships for wage-earners as a class and, particularly wage-earners in the lower income groups, and pensioners and others in receipt of small fixed incomes.
No decreases in the amount of the old age pensions were made in 1931 or following years when the cost of living declined to levels far below what it was when the act was passed. It was taken for granted then that the pension

was independent of changes in the cost of living. Because of this, and the fact that the cost of living has not yet even reached the level at which 'it was when the amount was determined by parliament, a cost of living bonus to supplement it would be wholly inappropriate. It would only be a disguise for a permanent increase such as took place under similar circumstances in respect of war disability pensions in 1920.
The question then arises as to whether there should be a permanent general increase in old age pensions in all the provinces at this time, and if so whether the dominion or the provinces should bear it.
The government believes that this problem of making adequate provision for the aged can never be satisfactorily solved until we are in a position to set up a contributory old age pension scheme which would make it possible to commence the payment of pensions at a lower age than seventy years and probably to make the pension payments more generous. However, for reasons which are wholly familiar to the house, such a dominion contributory old age pension programme would be impossible without a constitutional amendment.
The dominion must, I am convinced, take the position that old age pensions of the noncontributory type now in effect are primarily a provincial responsibility, the role of the dominion being that of a contributor financially assisting the provinces to discharge this responsibility. This has been the rule consistently applied since 1927 by all governments. There are excellent reasons for the rule. Apart altogether from the constitutional reason there are the differences in living conditions, cost of living, living standards and social outlook in different provinces. A scale appropriate to one province is not appropriate to others. The figures I have given of average pensions show the differing views which the provinces have as to amounts which should be paid.
The dominion, overburdened as it is with its own responsibilities and obligations, nevertheless does not shrink from assuming further responsibilities in its own fields. As examples I cite the increase in dependents' allowances and war veterans' allowances which I have just announced. But in a provincial field the dominion should not operate in such a way as to throw further burdens exclusively upon dominion taxpayers. Furthermore we should be exceedingly careful not to act in such a way as to place virtual compulsion upon provincial governments and thereby on provincial taxpayers.
On the other hand, our laws should be such that if any province, due to public sentiment or local conditions existing in that province,

Privilege-Mr. Mackenzie King
wishes to supplement the old age pensions paid in that province under our act, there should be no automatic reduction in the pension jointly payable by the dominion and the province on the 75 per cent-25 per cent basis. If any of the provinces desire to do so, the government is prepared to amend the regulations and, if necessary, the act, to ensure that such supplementary payments by a province do not entail a reduction in the pension payable under the act.
Indeed the government is prepared to consider going further than this. It believes that, for the reasons already outlined, it would be impossible to justify an increase in the maximum rate of pension payable if the whole cost were to be assumed by the dominion, and that such cases as appear to present immediate difficulties can be met by the provinces on the basis of established individual need. If, nevertheless, all, or substantially all the provinces should make representations to the dominion government in favour of some increase in the maximum amount of pension payable, the additional cost to be shared between the dominion and the provinces on the same basis as the present cost, I can assure the committee that the government will be prepared to give consideration to such representations.
There is one other matter connected with the administration of old age pensions which may be of some interest to the committee.
Under the act, the pension is not permitted to bring the total income of the pensioner above $365 a year.
By section 17 of the regulations, income includes contributions by children. This expression has been interpreted as including assigned pay. Representations have been made that in many cases assigned pay is not a true contribution within the meaning of the regulation, as it is sent to the parent to be kept for the member of the forces assigning the pay, or for some other purpose not connected with the support of the parent. Distinctions between cases where this is true and where it is not true are impossible to draw as a matter of practical administration, and I am given to understand that all the provinces would be likely to accept an amendment to the regulations providing that pay assigned by a member of the forces to his mother or father in receipt of old age pension should not be regarded as income for the purposes of this act, providing the parent is not in receipt of a dependent's allowance as well.
I am therefore proposing that the regulation in question be amended by adding the provision that in all cases where no dependents'
allowance in respect of the parent or the parent's spouse has been awarded, any pay allotted or assigned, as the case may be, by a son or daughter, grandson or granddaughter who is a member of the naval, military or air forces of Canada, serving on active service, may be disregarded in calculating the income of the pensioner. This will have the effect in many cases of increasing the amount of pension payable to old age pensioners in receipt of assigned pay.



PRIVILEGE-PRESS REPORT OF STATEMENT OF MR. POULIOT ON NOVEMBER 11

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I take advantage of this my earliest opportunity to rise to a question of privilege. It is I think the proper moment to bring the matter referred to to the attention of the house. I saw for the first time a few moments ago in the Ottawa Evening Journal of to-day an article headed "Pouliot provides sensation-says Mr. King saved troops at Dunkirk." The article is credited to the Canadian Press and is as follows:
Considerable discussion has developed among members of the House of Commons over a statement made by Jean-Frangois Pouliot (Lib., Temiscouata) in his speech to the house last Tuesday.
Mr. Pouliot said he felt it his duty to answer "some charges, some insinuations" made about Prime Minister Mackenzie King. He did not identify the charges and insinuations specifically.
Then the article goes on to quote the hon. member for Temiscouata as follows:
"There is something . . . that has not been said either over the radio or elsewhere about the recommendation made by my chief (Mr. King) to the commander of the Canadian army in England (Lieutenant-General A. G. L. McNaughton)". He said.
Then there is a subhead "Takes up hecklers," and the next paragraph is a quotation purporting to be what the hon. member for Temiscouata went on to say. I think the hon. member is reported correctly, as follows:
"It was this, that he should do his best to spare the lives of his soldiers; and the young fools that made some noise when the Prime Minister visited them ignored the fact that if they were still alive, if they had not been killed in the Dunkirk retreat, it was because of the very wise and patriotic recommendation of my leader, the chief of the Liberal party, the Prime Minister of Canada. It is time to say that."
I may say first of all, Mr. Chairman, that when the hon. member for Temiscouata was speaking the other evening I was in conversation with my immediate neighbour, the Liberal whip, and I did not catch this remark myself, but my colleague mentioned to me:
Privilege-Mr. Mackenzie King

"The member for Temiscouata is talking about you." I immediately turned to listen. I had missed what he was saying about myself and at the time I turned toward him he was beginning to speak of the new leader of the Conservative party. I thought it was time for me to get up and say that I felt we had better get on with the business before us, that I understood the hon. member for Temiscouata was trying in some way chivalrously to defend me on some matter. I had not been paying attention to what he was saying, otherwise I should immediately have taken care to correct my hon. friend in the statement he made.
May I say that at no time have I made any recommendation whatever to General McNaughton on any matter. I think, however, I understand what was in the mind of the hon. member for Temiscouata when he spoke. I have at different times mentioned to members of my own party and to others the many reasons I have for having profound faith in the judgment, wisdom and caution of General McNaughton as the commander of the Canadian forces overseas, and I have instanced, and am pleased to instance here in the House of Commons to-night, what he said to me in the last conversation we had together before he left to go overseas. He came to call on me at my office, and I took advantage of the opportunity to repeat what I had said before and to give the thanks of the Canadian government to him for undertaking that great responsibility and to express our deep appreciation, and gave him the assurance of my entire confidence in him and of his being able to count on my support on all occasions. The general's last words to me were that I could depend upon it that he would take care to see that lives were not needlessly sacrificed. I remember those words very distinctly, that he as commander of the Canadian forces would take great care to see that lives were not needlessly sacrificed.
As to Dunkirk, it is now a matter of public record that General McNaughton before he undertook to take his men across to Dunkirk made a survey of the situation himself and made his own report upon it which was, I believe, to the effect that he did not think Canadian troops should be asked to participate in that venture at the time at which he was being asked to consider the matter, that to take that step at the time would be to incur the sacrifice of life to no purpose. I have mentioned that repeatedly to others, and that, I assume, is what the hon. member for Temiscouata had in mind. I was giving it as an illustration, just as I give it now, of why I and the citizens of Canada generally, particularly those who are in the forces and the

parents and relatives of those in the forces, have every reason to have confidence in the present commander in chief of the Canadian forces overseas and be prepared to trust his judgment, that he himself would be cautious in the matter of any directions that he might advise or give.
The hon. member for Temiscouata is quoted in that same article in the Evening Journal as having referred to another matter, an incident that took place at Aldershot, a demonstration by a section of the troops when I appeared on the field to address them. It was a small demonstration. I do not think I need to go into the reasons that occasioned it, but I wish that all present here might have been there to have heard for themselves the alleged demonstration and also the demonstration that followed after I had spoken to the troops. I think I can explain to hon. members the occasion of such preliminary demonstration as was made at that time, because it has come to me from many sources. It was this, and this article helps to illustrate it.
I found on reaching England; indeed, I had heard rumours of it before, that among our troops there was being spread a rumour that the reason why they were being kept in Britain and were not allowed to go to Africa or other parts was because of some direction that I had given or was responsible for with respect to the movement of the Canadian troops, that I had sought to confine the field of their activities with a view to

I suppose it might as well be expressed here-saving the sacrifice of the lives of some of our men. Mr. Churchill has answered that rumour I think quite effectively. He has taken care to express to the troops themselves and to the public generally that the reason why the *Canadian troops have remained in Britain and have not been sent outside has been that those in command feel that the greatest service that it is possible for the Canadian troops to render is that of guarding the citadel of freedom right at the heart of the empire, where the first great attack which would stab the empire's heart would likely occur. I think that some of the young men in our forces had the feeling that I had taken a position of the kind, and when I made a reference to their enforced inactivity they did make it quite clear that it was something which they did not appreciate. But when I also made it clear that as far as the government of Canada were concerned we were placing no restriction whatever upon the movement of the troops from Britain elsewhere, and had given authority to the commander in chief with due regard to ministerial responsibility to do as he might deem best

War Allowances-Mr. Stirling
with regard to movements based on Britain, and to take such immediate steps as he thought it advisable in certain circumstances to take, that impression, I believe, was effectively removed.
There is only one other thing that I should like to say. I was rather surprised that so much importance was given to a matter, which really could only be a misrepresentation of the facts in their true light, by a communication which went out through the Canadian Press from Aldershot on that day. I believe that, if hon. members will look in the 'British newspapers, they will find that there was not a single mention of any incident which was unpleasant in connection with my visit to the troops, and I believe that the representatives of the United Press and other press representatives who were there did not feel it necessary to send out any statement of the kind. But, for reasons best known to the representative of the Canadian Press, that particular report was circulated to all parts of the world, as a means, no doubt, of helping Canada's war effort.
INTERNATIONAL SITUATION SINCE JUNE 14, 1941- Canada's war effort


Mr. STIRLING:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the government has paid considerable attention to the many representations which have been made to it on behalf of pensioners of various descriptions because of the increased cost of living. The minister is to be commended for making this statement-this rather elaborate	statement-before	the house
adjourns. It would hardly be possible to discuss it in any detail this evening. The first portion of it-that which deals with dependents' allowances-is quite easy to follow, but when one gets into the other categories they are not so easy to follow, and certainly I anticipate that the response of the government to the appeal of the old age pensioners will not be very warmly received. It will be of very little interest to the old age pensioner who began to receive such pension within the last few years that the index figure was at such a height and is lower to-day than when the pension legislation was started. The government, however, has given its consideration to what is obviously a particularly difficult matter, entering as it does into a constitutional realm; and it leaves one with the idea that possibly, had the events of January gone a different way, the government might not be faced to-day with so difficult a problem in that regard.
The third category entailed the setting up of a national board, not at any expense, because the individuals who will compose it will be
drawn from departmental bodies and boards which are already dealing with these matters. It will be supplemented by the work of regional boards. I anticipate that these regional boards must of necessity be located in one spot in each of the various districts over which they will hold sway, and I wonder what the minister contemplates with regard to getting information of the affairs of an applicant who desires assistance. Let me put it this way. A person who considers that he needs assistance along these lines, and who perhaps is resident two or three hundred miles away from the place where that regional board will carry out its work, must of necessity, I assume, make application by form or by letter. Then investigation on behalf of that regional board will be necessary before they can advise the national board. Would the minister give us some indication of how the regional board will go to work to get information in detail with regard to the applicant's case?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot give it in any more detail than I did. I said that there would certainly be sixty or seventy, and perhaps as many as a hundred and fifty regional committees throughout the country, and they would consist of or be assisted by trained investigators in so far as those are available. They are available in a good many parts of the country. I do not remember just how the trustees of the Patriotic fund operated in the last war, but I am told that that was a very efficient organization and that it did just this kind of thing.


Grote Stirling: It will do some travelling, I take it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, I do not know about that.


Mr. GREEN:: Have any of the provincial governments made representations to the dominion government that they would be willing to pay their share of a bonus to the old age pensioners? I understood the minister to say that if any province should make such representations, the dominion would give them favourable consideration.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, I did not say that. I said that in the event of an increase in old age pensions being considered desirable in any province, or in respect of particular cases of hardship in any province, the dominion did not feel that it should bear the cost of that itself, because it regarded that as primarily a provincial responsibility. Second, the dominion has no objection to the province bearing that cost. At the present time it may be that, if a province did increase old age pensions, in that particular province the pensions payable
War Allowances-Mr, Neill

under the dominion act would be decreased, because they might- be regarded as income and therefore the result might be some decrease in the pension payable. It is the view of the dominion government that that is not as it should be, and we are prepared to make an adjustment there, so that if a province wishes to bear in any case the full additional cost, it will be free to do so, without that entailing a reduction in the pensions payable under the dominion Old Age Pensions Act.
With regard to the third position, it is this: not, if one province says, "We would like to have the maximum in the old pensions act raised", but if all or substantially all the provinces make representations to the effect that they would like to have that maximum raised, the dominion government is prepared to given consideration to those representations. But I do not believe that, if one province alone, or merely one or two provinces, wanted to have the pensions raised, it would be the duty of the dominion government to get in touch with all the rest of the provinces to see whether they also wanted the increase, because there is a big conflict of opinion in the country. From the province in which the hon. gentleman resides a great many representations have come in favour of an increase in the old age pension, but from some provinces we have had no representations at all; in fact the reverse opinion is expressed a great deal.


Howard Charles Green: In other words, if British
Columbia should increase the pensions or should be willing to pay a cost of living bonus added to the old age pensions, the dominion would not help out?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right. .


Mr. NEILL:: Speaking of a question which the minister raised, I understood him to say that he, as representing the dominion government, would contemplate a general increase pro rata only provided all, or practically all the provinces were acquiescent. I would point out that when the act was originally made, in 1927, the agreement was offered by the dominion to each province individually, and all were open to accept or reject.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: I believe British Columbia was the first one to act. I believe there was no obligation that there should be even a majority of the provinces. Could the minister not give way to that extent at least? It would hearten some of us who are interested in the matter. If one province were willing to pay the extra amount, could he not make an agreement with them the same as he did

before? It would be almost hopeless to expect unanimous action from the nine provinces, and the government realized that in 1927 and made their offer to any individual province. Any province that was willing to do it could come in and accept the agreement offered by the dominion government. There was no compulsion then to go and get the assurances of nine other people. Could he not allow the same condition to exist now?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think the government at this time should embark on that course. I remember exactly what happened after 1927. It became an acute political issue in province after province and elections were run on it. The standing offer of the dominion resulted almost in compulsion on the provinces. That may be all right in time of peace, but I do not think the dominion government could embark on that course now. This is primarily a provincial responsibility, and I think the extent to which I have indicated we are prepared to go is as far as we should go under present circumstances.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) and the government are to be commended for having taken cognizance of the requests that have come from all over the country for further assistance to the people in receipt of dependents' allowances and war veterans' pensions. One cannot say of course, without closer study of the matter, just how much this will help, but certainly it will help a great deal, and every member of the house will be glad that this course has been taken. The people across the country will be exceedingly pleased that the minister has made this clear statement and taken the forward step he has.
With reference to old age pensions, I am afraid there will be a great deal of disappointment. It is difficult for me to follow the minister's logic. I am unable to understand why, in view of the fact that the dominion Old Age Pensions Act is an enabling act, it would not have been possible for the dominion government to raise the maximum. No provincial government is compelled to pay up to the full maximum, but by the dominion government raising the maximum to, say $30, each provincial government would then have it in its power, if it chose, to raise that maximum within the province, and the federal government would still be under the obligation of paying only its share, which is 75 per cent. I am inclined to think that the argument that the index commodity figure for 1927 was higher than the figure to-day will not bear much weight with the old age pensioners across Canada, because if there is

The War-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)
any group of people who have Buffered in Canada as a result of the increased cost of living, it is those people within our economy who have no means of increasing their incomes, people in receipt of pensions, dependents' allowances and so on. For them there has been no cost of living bonus; for them every increase in the cost of living has meant simply a decrease in their standard of living. I hope that this matter is not closed and that the Minister of Finance and the government will give further consideration to the possibility of raising the maximum under the dominion act, leaving it to the provinces to decide whether or not they are in a financial position to raise the maximum in their respective jurisdictions.
Before the committee rose at six o'clock the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) suggested that after the Minister of Finance had made his statement it would be in order for members to discuss anything. I am not sure that this is a departure from the procedure followed during the rest of the week; it is pretty much what we have been doing. I should like to take this opportunity to say a few words about the plight of western agriculture in the light of the government's agricultural policy.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: Would the
hon. member give way and let us have some explanation of old age pensions? I wish to inquire with respect to Nova Scotia and 1 shall be only a minute.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I intend to
take only a short time, and it is possible that we may adjourn to-night.


Percy Chapman Black: The hon.
member is going into a different subject; that is all.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Agriculture
has been pretty well left to the tail-end, which seems to be indicative of many things these days. Here in the last few hours of the last night we are likely to be in session we are to have only a few moments to discuss agriculture. It is commonly acknowledged that agriculture has become the forgotten industry in our economy; I should not like to see it become the forgotten subject in this parliament. While I should be glad to give way to the hon. member, I do not want to see the time slip by without an opportunity for the discussion of agriculture.
I am exceedingly disappointed that no statement has been made either by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) or by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). I have waited each day thinking a statement would be made; for to my
mind there is no more important war industry to-day than agriculture. The production of foodstuffs for embattled Britain has now become as important a question as the production of the actual implements of war, and so far we have relegated the discussion of this subject to the background. I must therefore ask for the privilege of saying these few words and requesting the government to make a statement to the house and the country before we adjourn, to indicate its plans with regard to agriculture, and to western agriculture in particular.
I wish to say something about agriculture, not only in the light of the government's policy but having regard to the recent price fixing regulations under order in council P.C. 8527. As has been said by several of my colleagues, we in this group have never objected to control. In fact, early in this war we suggested that ultimately we should be forced to rationing, and I am still convinced that that is the point at which the government will arrive in the end. We realize that no group of people will suffer more from inflation than the workers and the farmers, and therefore we have never had, and have not now, any objection to price and wage fixing, provided always that prices and wages are fixed on equitable levels so as to give to the workers and farmers a reasonable return for their labour.
The thing that has distressed me most about these regulations is the fact that neither organized agriculture nor organized labour seem to have been consulted. I listened to the Prime Minister making his historic announcement on October 18. I realized that the policy was wide-sweeping; a policy which would affect the economic life of Canada for the duration of the war; a policy that would affect the standard of living of millions of people; and I took it for granted that such a policy would have been considered by the representatives of all the factors concerned in our economy .who would be consulted. I was therefore surprised on Monday, the 20th, to find the Canadian Press carrying statements from Mr. Tom Moore, President of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, Mr. Mosher, President of the Canadian Congress of Labour, Mr. Hannham, President of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and others to the effect that they had not been consulted and were astounded at the drastic nature of these controls. It seems strange that in the bringing down of such a far-reaching measure, representatives of the trade unions, of organized agriculture, of the pools of western Canada-they represent the greatest group of organized farmers in the dominion-representatives of the cooperatives and of the retail

The War-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
merchants, as well as of those other groups that were affected, had not been called in for consultation in an endeavour to arrive at some basis on which prices and wages would be fixed.
We in this group have always maintained that democracy ought to mean something more than merely counting noses. Democracy ought to mean giving to organized agriculture, to organized labour and to the business men a voice in the councils of the nation and an opportunity to exert their influence in shaping their own destiny. That certainly has been denied in the bringing down of these regulations.
As I have said, our quarrel is not with the principle of control. Our quarrel is as to whether or not the basis upon which this control is exercised is fair and equitable. The dominion bureau of statistics says that the cost of living has risen some 15 per cent. Of course that is based on a great, wide, varied assortment of commodities. But if we take the thirty-eight commodities most commonly bought-for there are hundreds of commodities that the common people never buy- we find that actually the cost of living has gone up more than 25 per cent. It is a well-known fact that in the early period of any inflationary spiral the cost of living always outdistances both wages and farm prices. To select an arbitrary period of twenty-seven days, from September 15 to October 11, and fasten prices at the levels prevalent during that period, is to fasten peasantry on the farming population. It will do the same, of course, for the people I mentioned earlier, people with fixed incomes, people in receipt of pensions and dependents' allowances.
Let us look at what the effect will be on the farming population. According to the Economic Annalist, issued by the Department of Agriculture, using 1926 as the basis of 100, we find that in August, 1941, animal products had reached the index figure of 97-9, and field products, 56 [DOT] 7, making an average figure of 72 T for farm products. That figure, low though it is, is not a fair criterion by which to measure farm income, particularly in western Canada, because in Saskatchewan more than 75 per cent of the farmer's income comes from field1 products and only 25 per cent or less from animal products. Therefore even the figure of 72-1 is high. Compare with that the fact that wholesale prices-and we do buy not at wholesale but at retail prices-in August, 1941, were 91-8, and that the cost of living on the farm, on the basis of 120 in 1926, has reached the figure of 112-3. When we look at that we begin to realize how inadequate is the farm price level compared

with the cost of living and in relation to the retail prices which the farmer must pay.
Last evening the Minister of Finance asked the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) just what he meant by a parity price. Of course there are many definitions. When some people speak about a parity price they mean a price commensurate with the cost of production. That, of course, can start so much argument that there is not much use talking about it. But certainly in talking about a parity price one would have in mind some year which might be used as a basis, for both farm products and retail products, and then fixing the present price at a level which would bear some relation to the cost of living. On November 6, at page 4155 of Hansard, the minister is reported to have said he was going to give some percentages. He proceeded to take August, 1939, as the basis, and said that oats had gone up 80 per cent, barley 66 per cent, butter 57 per cent, eggs 33 per cent and so on. Of course the minister was careful to say that he was not condoning the price level of 1939. Well he might, because in selecting the period from 1935 to 1939 he was selecting a period during which farm prices reached a very low ebb. As a matter of fact the Sirois commission pointed out that in Saskatchewan during that period the average cash income was $102 per farm per year, or the cash and kind income, $291 per farm per year. Therefore, to choose two distinctly different levels -a farm price level still comparatively low on the index of commodities basis, and twenty points below the cost of living on the farm- and to fasten prices at those respective levels, is to fasten the standard of living of the farming population, particularly of western Canada, far below what is adequate. In the same statement, at the same page, the minister is reported to have said:
. . . retail food prices now bear about their normal relation to other retail prices.
In the first place, of course, the farmer does not receive retail prices for his products; he is paid wholesale prices. The second point is that the disparity, according to the Economic Annalist, is between 91-8 for all commodities and an average of only 72-1 for farm products, a difference of some twenty points between the level of the products the farmer has to sell and the wholesale level of the things he must -buy. When there is added to that the fact that he must pay the retail price, it is evident that the disparity between farm prices and retail prices is even greater than these figures would indicate. Therefore we suggest that there ought to be some fairer basis. To

The War-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
accept 1939 as a basis is, of course, not satisfactory. The 1926 basis might have been fairer. It is true that if the 1926 basis is accepted, one or two commodities might have to come down in price, but the general average of farm prices would have to rise. Last evening I think my colleague the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) placed on record some of the index commodity figures for 1926 and 1941; I do not know that he placed them all on record, but in any event I should like to mention these figures:
	1926-29	1941
Wheat	. $1,417 ?	.726Oats 	. .603	.493Barley	. .716	.526Rye	. .971	.547Flax	. .209	1.55Butcher steers	. 9.04	8.79Bacon	. 11.61	10.99Cheese 	. .189	.160Cream 	. .382	.344Eggs	. .482	.394I realize that figures	are always	a little
tiresome, but I draw them to the attention of the Minister of Finance because I should like to point out that while in the case of cheese the figure is now above the 1926-29 figure, over the average, if we take all the farm commodities usually sold by the farmer we find that the average is much below the 1926-29 figure. On the other hand, the cost of living is now getting quite close to the 1926-29 level.
Let me ask the minister to give some thought to how these regulations will affect those engaged in the growing and marketing of wheat. While some hon. members become very tired of listening to discussions in the house about wheat, may I remind them that wheat is the basic commodity produced in western Canada, and that the great masses of the people in that part of Canada find their standard of living affected either adversely or otherwise, depending upon the price they receive from the sale of their wheat.
What do we find? We find that according to the Searle index, taking the 1913-14 price as the base figure of 100, to-day the farmer is receiving 25 per cent less for his wheat and paying 50 per cent more for the commodities he has to buy. That is far from a happy state of affairs-that he should be getting 25 per cent less for the chief product he has to sell, and pay 50 per cent more for the commodities he must buy in order to live.
If we use the 1913-14 as the basic parity price, using that term as I have already defined it. the parity price for the United States farmer would be about $1.22 a bushel in store, Chicago. Under the AAA programme, the United States is paying to its farmers about $1.16 in store, Chicago, and the open market is paying about $1.19, basis Chicago.
On the same basis of the 1913-14 level a parity price for wheat in western Canada would be about $1.20 a bushel, basis Fort William.
There has been considerable discussion as to how much the farmer is actually receiving for his wheat. There has been a long-range debate between the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the president of the Saskatchewan pools as to what the farmer is actually receiving. I do not purpose taking part in that debate just now. But I do wish to point out that when the Minister of Agriculture suggests that the farmer is receiving 90 cents to 51 a bushel for his wheat, the minister arrives at that figure by some very strange methods.
To begin with, he adds to what the farmer gets from the wheat board the amount of money he gets for his wheat acreage reduction bonus. That bonus is paid to him in lieu of not growing wheat. It is paid to him for a piece of land on which he did not grow wheat, a piece of land which he either summer-fallowed or on which he grew coarse grains. You cannot take income from that piece of land and add it to the income from the wheat grown on another piece of land, any more than you can add what the farmer gets from the sale of his live stock.
Again, the minister arrived at his figure by adding in the bonus paid under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I believe the minister estimated over the radio, as I remember it, that the amount was about $30,000,000. Of course I never have been able to understand where he got that figure.


James Garfield Gardiner: The figure is $10,000,000.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Oh, yes; the acreage reduction bonus was $30,000,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I never have been able to understand where the minister got the $30,000,000 for the acreage reduction bonus.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is over $20,000,000
now.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Six million
acres have been taken out of wheat production. How the minister can get 6,000,000 acres up to $30,000,000, I do not know. But the minister will probably explain that. The point at issue is that whatever the farmer got for acreage reduction bonus cannot be added to what he got for his wheat on totally different land. Also the bonus he gets under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is the bonus which was paid with respect to land on which little or no wheat was grown. It is not paid to the man who had
4436	COMMONS
The War-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)
over twelve bushels to the acre. It cannot be added to the price of his wheat, because he does not get any.
The minister has confused a depressed area with a distressed industry. The man who grew fifteen or twenty-five bushels to the acre does not get this bonus. How can the bonus be added to the price he is receiving for his wheat? There is a bonus which may properly be added to the wheat income, and that is the so-called supplementary bonus of 75 cents an acre for half a man's cultivated acreage up to two hundred acres. That can properly be added to the farmers' wheat income because, as I understand it, it is a subsidy paid by the government in lieu of the fact that the government is going to peg the maximum price of wheat on the open market at 77-3 cents.
The estimate this year is that the average return per acre will be 13-1 bushels. For the average farmer, half of whose acreage is in wheat, that works out a little better than . five cents per bushel. That means that a little better than five cents per bushel is being added to the price he is receiving for his wheat. That certainly leaves the farmer a long way from 90 cents to $1 a bushel.
I will say this much for the Minister of Agriculture: There is the possibility that if the government applied all sales of wheat to this year's crop the proceeds of the participation certificates might bring that figure up. But so far no action has been taken along that line. The only thing we can be sure of is an advance of 70 cents plus five cents and a fraction, which the farmer will receive under the present bonus plan.
The Minister of Agriculture has repeatedly stated over the air and in the house that the government's agriculture policy envisages a minimum agricultural income for western Canada of some $325,000,000. I never have been able to find out just how the minister arrived at that particular figure, or where he got it. The latest available figures issued by the government show that the agricultural income for the prairie provinces last year was $410,222,000. If the agricultural income for the prairie provinces is to be set in the neighbourhood of $325,000,000 this year, and having in mind the fact that $325,000,000 this year will buy much less than $325,000,000 would have bought last year, then it is quite apparent that the income of the prairie farmer will decline almost $100,000,000 this year.	.
This situation is serious because, as I said when I began the discussion on this matter, the whole economy of the prairie provinces has been tied up with wheat. After all, that has been the main commodity we have produced, or are capable of producing. When we reduce

the income of the prairie farmer we reduce his purchasing power, and the effect of reducing his purchasing power is being felt to-day in every town, village and hamlet between the Rocky mountains and the great lakes.
The campaign carried on by the pools in western Canada asked the government for four things. The government was asked, first, to fix the price at $1 per bushel basis Fort William; second, to freeze the surplus as a war emergency; third, to apply all sales of wheat to this year's crop and, fourth, to declare 1941 to be an emergency year under section 3 of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I think western members who support the government and western members on this side will agree with me when I say that great sections of people on the prairies were unanimous in support of this policy. I know that at some meetings I attended in my constituency I found business men, professional men, labouring men as well as farmers supporting this policy. They realized that the decline in the purchasing power of the wheat farmer was having an adverse effect upon the whole economy of western Canada. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will not think that that campaign which was carried on in western Canada during the last few months was a partisan campaign.


An hon. MEMBER:: Pretty much.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That was not my experience although it may have been my hon. friend's. In the meeting held in the city where I live both the chairman and the secretary were, to the best of my knowledge, supporters of the present government. Large numbers of those who were active in the campaign were supporters of the present government. A great many of the Liberal members of the Saskatchewan legislature indicated their support of that policy. That did not mean that they were breaking with the Liberal party; it simply showed that they realized that the feeling in western Canada was that, irrespective of a man's party politics, something had to be done to give the wheat producer a more reasonable return for his product and enable him to keep his purchasing power up to a level that would prevent western Canada from going into bankruptcy.
In the last three months I have been over practically all the province of Saskatchewan, and I have never seen as many auction sale bills hung up in the general stores and post offices as I have seen in the last few months. We are faced with a possible wholesale exodus. People are going to-the coast or coming to eastern Canada. According to the press, the mayor of Windsor has circulated the towns

The War-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)
and municipalities of western Canada urging the people not to come east in such numbers looking for employment.


Mr. WOOD:: Could the hon. member give us any idea as to what the stock put up for sale brought? Was it a reasonable price?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think in some instances fairly good values were obtained. In the part of the country in which I live that was the situation.


George Ernest Wood: When people are prepared to offer for sale the product of their effort in the form of accumulated stock it is an indication that the country is in a healthy condition.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My hon.
friend likes to ask a question and then answer it. He asks: Is not the fact that they are getting fairly good prices an indication that things are not too bad? Here is what happened. In 1937 we had a complete crop failure. In order to get relief a man was compelled to reduce 'his stock to a minimum. I think it was one milch cow for four members of a family, three hogs, twenty-five chickens, four horses and so on. Some of the finest live stock herds in Saskatchewan were lost to the province. I have seen pure bred stock being sold for $15 a head, and they could not be bought to-day for $125. A large section of our people were pushed out of live stock, and they are now trying to get back in. The result is that any man who has some good breeding stock to sell can get fairly good prices. Men who used to raise hogs and cattle are being forced out of business. Many of them are renting their land to people who intend to farm on a large scale and raise wheat, a product which is not now required.


George Ernest Wood: The live stock records show that there has been a considerable increase in the production of live stock in western Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am quite aware of that fact.


George Ernest Wood: That does not agree with the hon. member's statement; I do not understand his logic.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My hon.
friend's powers of comprehension can hardly be blamed on me. This exodus which is going on will have an effect upon our agricultural economy, an effect opposite to that which the minister wants. As I say, men with small farms, men who raised live stock and dairy products are now leaving their farms which are being taken over by others who are going to work them by machinery and produce wheat on a mass production basis. If we are not careful, in one or two years there
will be a serious decline in the production of live stock and dairy products which are so much required for the winning of the war.
I suggest to the government that this matter should not be considered a closed matter. I notice by the press that the pools are sending a delegation to Ottawa. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will not feel that because he has taken a particular stand on this matter, he must now abide by it. I hope the government will keep an open mind. I hope also it is not too late to change the government policy with respect to the marketing of the 1941 crop. I trust the government will give some consideration to the policy of fixing the price of wheat on the open market at $1, and fixing the advance to be paid at $1 a bushel, basis Fort William. There should not be any difficulty in connection with the farmer who has sold his wheat, because by means of the permit book system the government has a perfect record of the amounts delivered and by whom delivered. It would be quite possible to make this retroactive.
Asking for an advance of $1 a bushel does not mean that we are asking the government to take a tremendous loss. We do not know what this wheat may be sold for upon the markets of the world. I remember in 1935 and 1936 when there was a great deal of complaint about the McFarland stabilization operations and it was said that the advance of 87i cents a bushel, basis Fort William, was too high. That wheat was ultimately sold and at a figure much higher than what had been paid for it. The Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister have said over the radio that our wheat may be of inestimable value before this war is over, that it may turn the tide in winning the war. We are asking the government to show their confidence in the future of western agriculture by paying a price which is not unreasonable when considered in relation to the cost of living.
We also ask the government to freeze the surplus wheat as a national war emergency and to apply all sales of wheat to this year's crop. If we export as much wheat this year as we did last year, and our domestic consumption is the same, we shall need all of this year's wheat crop and shall have to use some out of the surplus. That would mean that for the first time we would be able to comply with the requirements of the Canadian Wheat Board Act and pay to the farmer whatever amount might have accrued to him on his participation certificates. The Minister of Agriculture has made frequent appeals over the radio to the farmers asking them to deliver their wheat to the wheat board. Many farmers are selling their wheat on the open
The War-Mr. Hansell

market in. order to get a spread of from three to six cents. They were desperate, and a spread of three to six cents a bushel meant quite a bit to them with the threshing bills, store bills and doctors' bills that were facing them. All these appeals to sell to the wheat board could have been obviated if at the beginning of the crop year on August 1 the minister had announced to the western farmer that sales of wheat would be applied to this year's crop and that in all probability payments would be made on participation certificates.


James Garfield Gardiner: Why does the hon.
member keep referring to the Minister of Agriculture? That matter is under the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Because it
was the Minister of Agriculture who, according to this clipping,1 announced over the radio-


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not because he
lives in Saskatchewan?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No; it was the Minister of Agriculture who, according to this clipping, made the appeal to the farmers. The heading says "Gardiner urges farmers to deliver to the wheat board". That is why I referred to the Minister of Agriculture. I did not mean to single him out particularly, because the Minister of Trade and Commerce has also a responsibility in this'matter, as have all the members of the wheat committee of the cabinet. My point is that if we can sell wheat to Great Britain at the figure at which it has been sold for the last year or two, with the possibility there is to-day of selling it to Russia at a similar or higher figure, there is no reason why a substantial payment should not be paid this year on participation certificates if all sales are applied to this year's crop. When I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce yesterday whether the government still had this matter under consideration or what their decision was, I was disappointed when he replied that the government had not yet decided. I do hope that they will decide at once and make some announcement soon to the farmers of western Canada.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bradette):: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.


Mr. HANSELL:: Mr. Chairman, I shall take only a moment or two.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is what the last fellow said.


Ernest George Hansell: If the speech of the hon. member for Weyburn was only a short one, I do not know what he would consider a long one.
The Minister of Finance has announced the government's policy with regard to the payment of a cost of living bonus to soldiers' dependents, and I am certain that the entire country will receive that part of his announcement with a good deal of satisfaction. But the other part of his announcement which dealt with old age pensions will be received by the country with a good deal of disappointment. I deplore it. I look upon it with disdain. I think it is a shame in the light of all the circumstances that nothing is to be done for the old age pensioners. The minister has referred to the constitution, legal difficulties over agreements, and so forth, which, he says, stand in the way. It is all very well for governments to hide behind the law and the constitution and so forth and so on as an excuse for not changing their policy, but what is parliament here for if not to legislate and amend and change things in the light of to-day? We are a legislative body, and that is just what we are here to do. If the government want to do anything to-day that suits their purposes, they do not consider for a moment the constitution and existing statutes; they go right ahead and by order in council contravene any statute that stands in the way. Therefore the minister's argument falls down there by reason of the government's own practice.
The minister seems to place the responsibility for old age pensions upon the provinces. But the rise in the cost of living which has taken place is not a provincial responsibility. It comes about by reason of the expansion of credit, because there is a war on and people are at work and spending money. The emergency is not a provincial emergency; it is a national emergency, and the old age pensioner is a national problem. I think the minister may be a little afraid that an increase in the old age pension will work toward that thing we call inflation. But suppose the provinces provide the money; the money would be spent anyhow, and it makes no difference as far as inflation is concerned whether the provinces or the dominion provide the money. The provinces, as a matter of fact, cannot provide the money. It is the dominion government which has had- an increase in revenues. Perhaps I do not know the facts and figures of provincial revenues as well as I should, but I doubt whether provincial revenues have risen very much. They may even have decreased.
The minister said that 40 per cent of the government's spending was for the war. I do

The War-Mrs. Nielsen
not know what percentage of Great Britain's expenditure is for the war, but I think I could make a pretty good guess, and I know that in spite of all their war expenditure, their rationing and the huge taxation that is imposed upon their people, the British government has still found itself able to raise the old age pension in that country. It is a great shame in these days, with the cost of living rising as it has done and may continue to do in spite of the ceiling on prices, for us to say that we will see that the wage-earner and this class and that get a cost of living bonus, but that for our aged mothers and fathers we cannot afford to spend a dollar more. These aged mothers and fathers are the people who for the most part pioneered in this country and provided an opportunity for coming generations to live here.
There is this also to be noted. The earning power of our aged people has gone. They have no more opportunity in life to earn another dollar, and goodness knows the pension was low enough even when prices were low. How pitiful it must be now! The rising cost of living is working a tremendous hardship on these aged people, and yet we cannot provide an extra dollar or two for them. AH we need to use is just the ordinary amount of common sense to see that these aged people who could barely live in days gone by on the meagre pensions they were receiving, certainly cannot live any better now, if as well, with the rising cost of living. The minister should go into this question more thoroughly with the provinces, and instead of putting the responsibility on the provinces to initiate action, let us look upon this as a national question, and let this government take the initiative and provide in this emergency the necessary funds. If the minister does not know where to get the money, we can tell him.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, since, this evening, we members have the opportunity, I believe, of speaking more or less along general lines, I feel that there are certain things which I should say before the adjournment.
It has been interesting, sitting here during these last two weeks, to listen to the questions which have been put and the answers which have been given. Somehow or another, sitting in this chamber, it has seemed difficult sometimes for me to realize that a war is actually in progress. I do not believe that I have ever seen quite so much apathy as I have noticed during the last few weeks among the members of this house. There seems to be an air of frustration and of futility such as has seldom been equalled during the time I have been here. There has seemed to be,
somehow or another, such a lack of dynamic purpose; yet all of us will agree to-day that the necessity for the driving force of our whole activity is greater than it has ever been.
Of course, it is not so very long since the last adjournment; yet, living as we do in a world of such swiftly-moving events, great changes have taken place in the whole alignment of world forces since we left this chamber in the summer.
I should like to say a word or two with regard to the foreign policy of this government. That policy as a rule has been outlined by the Prime Minister. Looking over his speeches during the past eight years on this question, one does not find them always as clear-cut and as well-defined as one might hope to have them; they are more or less veiled in words and phrases. But I will concede that the speech which the Prime Minister made in this chamber a couple of weeks ago was about the clearest indication the Canadian people have had since he returned from England of a change in the foreign policy of this government. At the same time I doubt whether what he has said has been clearly understood by certain sections of our people, and I think they should understand these things.
In order to make a definite statement with regard to the change in policy it seems necessary to go back a while. The rise of aggression in Europe is an old story, and one which is now written indelibly on the pages of history. Neither wishes nor time can erase it. At the beginning, aggression reared its ugly head in Asia-in Manchukuo-then in Abyssinia, in Spain, in Austria, and so on. That is a story which everyone knows. The story of how the democracies rose to fight aggression is also known and is a matter of written record.
We all know and realize to-day that the policy which dominated Europe at the time of the rise of Hitler and aggression was the policy of Chamberlain, the policy of appeasement and isolation, the policy which Chamberlain, the Cliveden set, and some of the profascist members of the British government helped to put into effect. It dominated the European scene during the rise of aggression.
It is, I believe, quite safe to say, in view of the speeches made by our Prime Minister during those years, that we in this country followed the appeasement policy of Mr. Chamberlain and supported isolation. It can safely be said to-day that the influences behind that policy more or less built up the forces of Hitler, seeking to direct them into certain channels. This policy aided in the building up of fascist Germany in the hope
The War-Mrs. Nielsen

that it could be kept like a dog on a leash and directed wherever the British government wished.
On March 30, 1939, our own Prime Minister made a speech which, although clothed, as most of his speeches are, in many _ words, definitely takes the stand for isolation. I quote briefly from that speech:
In many, but certainly not in all cases, this growth of national feeling has strengthened the desire for a policy which its defenders call minding one's own business and which its critics call isolationism. . . . The idea that every twenty years this country should automatically and as a matter of course take part in a -war overseas for democracy or self-determination of other small nations, that a country which has all it can do to run itself should feel called upon to save, periodically, a continent that cannot run itself, and to these ends risk the lives of its people, risk bankruptcy and political disunion, seems to many a nightmare and sheer madness.
That, I think, indicates, as well as any of the speeches the Prime Minister has made, his support of the appeasement policy. But we know now that appeasement was a fatal policy, which left the small nations of Europe one by one to stand alone in the pathway of the aggressor. If we look over the records of the dominion bureau of statistics we shall see that during the years of the rise of aggression we in this country actually supplied Germany with the munitions of war which she wanted. Any hon. member can look up those records for himself. Unfortunately, England did the same thing. One has only to look at the British Financial Post for the year 1939 to see the figures of the amounts of war material which were shipped from Britain to Germany direct, even without any payment of money, but by loans arranged through the Bank of England; and this was done until within one week of the declaration of war by Great Britain on Germany. Of course the purpose was that if Germany were so built up and strengthened, she should turn eastward and that there should be war between Germany and Russia, that the two should-possibly-destroy each other and leave England free to establish a hegemony over Europe. Hon. members will remember that materials were sent to Finland from Britain. They will remember the first Finnish war. England was so anxious to start war on Russia that she even aided the Finnish government in its first war on Russia. Materials were shipped and money was sent to build up the Mannerheim line, and at that time we were told that the poor little democratic government of Finland was set upon by the greedy Russian bear. It is wonderful, of course, the way time has of refuting lies, because to-day all the world recognizes the fascist nature of the Finnish government; it

stands revealed on the stage of history where the drama of civilization is being enacted.
Then we came to a point where Russian diplomacy made a trade agreement with Germany, and England, being no longer in a position where she could dominate the scene, where she could lead or force Germany in any particular way, was forced to declare war.
Britain herself was then left, as a result of her own policy of appeasement and isolation, to stand practically alone except for her colonies, who were very ill p-?pared to help her, in the pathway of the dragon of fascism- the dragon which she herself had helped to grow to maturity and which now stood snarling upon her own doorstep.
The British people turned to Mr. Churchill. Mr. Churchill had always opposed the policy of Mr. Chamberlain, and had urged that Britain be prepared to fight. To me it is a remarkable thing how during the first years of the war the democracies seemed not to give a real expression of their effort to destroy fascism. The early stages of the war were characterized largely by a kind of stalemate; there was more of a sitzkrieg than of a blitzkrieg on the part of the democracies. The worst part of it was that at that time there was undoubtedly a concerted effort within the democracies themselves more or less to restrict and restrain the actual expression of democracy within their own peoples.
The classic example of this was France. Within France the ruling group, the men of Munich, did whatever was possible, and they certainly did a great deal, to destroy the trade union movement, the people's organizations, when they imprisoned and interned thousands of trade union leaders, and many of the communists, who would to the last drop of their blood have defended France against Germany. The French government was afraid to intervene on behalf of the democratic forces of the French people, and allowed the minority group finally to betray France into the hands of Germany.
We in this country had a taste of that repression. After war was declared, we had the defence of Canada regulations put into effect.	We had the chief apologist
for the Vichy government, our Minister of Justice, give us a little taste of, shall I say, Vichy justice or Vichy repression. The Canadian people were subjected to methods of coercion and repression, the loss of minority rights, the curtailment of free speech and free press. Right now it should be clearly said that if during the first part of this war the government of Canada had worked as assiduously to destroy Hitler and everything having to do with Hitler as it did to destroy the free

The War-Mrs. Nielsen
and democratic institutions of Canada, the Canadian people would have been more united in their first efforts.
There was a certain amount of apathy at the beginning of the war. Anyone who was close to the people of the country felt it and knew it, although of course government spokesmen would deny the fact, and have done so. But anyone who was close to the working people, through the first year or two of the war, will know that in the mouths of hundreds of thousands of Canadians, even mothers and fathers whose sons were in the fighting forces, there wns often this phrase, "What are we fighting for?" Early this summer the battle of Britain was raging and democracy such as Britain has upheld was hanging by a slender thread. Soon after this house adjourned, when perhaps the peril of the British people was greater than it had ever been in the whole history of their existence, events took a dramatic turn, and Hitler, hoping to have the support in Britain of a government which he thought was the same as the Chamberlain government, turned his arms against Russia.
I do not know, although I believe, that most members of this house are aware that I was not born a Canadian. I am a Canadian by adoption, but the whole of my future life and the lives of my Canadian-born children are bound up in the future of Canada. At the same time, however, like everyone else, I have a deep and all-abiding love for the land of my birth and, during the months of spring and early summer, it was to me a terrible thing to think of the people of Britain suffering as they did through the battle of Britain. As soon as the armies of Germany turned upon Russia, the people of Britain, having suffered through that period, and feeling the results of that isolation policy, forced their Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, once and for all, to sever himself from the idea of isolation and appeasement, with the result, which everyone now knows, that a collective security pact was made with the great powers of the world.
I think I can say most sincerely that when this pact of collective security was made it was the first real opportunity which the peoples of the democracies ever had for the utter crushing of Hitler. Before that, they had merely played at it; they had never been able with any degree of certainty to go forward in the knowledge that they could do it. It is a good- thing to face facts and to acknowledge these things. The British people, because they have suffered, are not afraid to face facts. I have seen, in some British newspapers, astounding statements. For example, the Evening Standard a few months ago, writing immediately after the blowing up of the Dnieper dam, said:
14ST3-280
Certainly it will be criminal if our aid to the greatest ally we ever had is not Herculean. We must create a second front and not only in the air. We must haul off the tiger from the body of our friend, not by biting its tail, but by dealing violent and vicious blows against its body. As each new report reaches this country of Soviet valour and heroism, one question alone is raised in the minds of the British people. What are we doing to help our allies and to join in the battle? It is not sentiment which prompts this question; the plain facts of our own situation are known and can be stated.
I should like the members of the committee to listen to this; they will realize how the English people have faced the truth.
Before Russia's entry into the battle the possibilities of a purely military victory over Germany did not exist. She possessed far greater resources in manpower and a continental industrial power which it would have taken us years to overhaul. Suddenly in a day the Russian resistance transformed the whole scene. But it will only remain transformed so dong as the Russian armies are kept in existence and retain their power of counter-attack. If it had been the Russian armies, not the Russian Dnieper Dam, which had been broken in this past week, the possibilities of military victory would have receded once more beyond the horizon.
The News Chronicle of September 18 had this to say:
Are we, too, going to play Hitler's game and let him dispose of his enemies one by one? . . . Will invasion of the continent be any easier in six months, twelve months or two years if Russia is broken through lack of timely diversion? The answer is no. It will probably be impossible and a large proportion of our great army will rot in idleness on our coasts.
Our own colonel in chief of the Canadian armies has spoken about the need for opening up a western front. He has said that to defeat the Germans we must defeat them on the land. Will it be any easier if it is left until later? This government should realize at the present time how many thousands of Canadians are joining with the British people in demanding that the allies do whatever is possible for opening up another western front. There must have been many Canadians who, when the pact of collective security was made, wondered as I wondered what stand this country would take. The policy of this country had been to follow the policy of appeasement and isolation; and here was Mr. Churchill taking a direct stand in opposition to that, and advancing, instead, the policy of collective security.
When our Prime Minister spoke in England at the Lord Mayor's banquet, although the greatest battle in all history was raging from Leningrad to the Black sea, he did not mention it, an omission for which he was severely criticized in the British papers. When he came back to Canada he certainly did

The War-Mrs. Nielsen

make a speech over the air in which he said in so many words that free men must now get together to defeat the common enemy. But it was not until I came to the house two weeks ago and listened to the Prime Minister that I really had any confidence that this government had changed its foreign policy and was now in agreement with the idea of collective security, and that it was then really and truly willing to put the forces of Canada beside those of Britain, Russia and the United States for the defeat of Hitler. Considering that our Prime Minister did make a speech in which he praised Russian arms, in which he acknowledged that to-day they were stemming the tide of fascism and holding the dike for the rest of the democracies, I think it was a pity that he did not go just a little further.
As hon. members know, a few days ago the Russian people celebrated one of their anniversaries. The British people, I believe through Mr. Anthony Eden, sent them a message. The people of the United States sent them a message. In Australia the government demanded that on public buildings the Russian flag be flown beside the Australian flag. But in Canada the day passed, as far as I was aware, without a single statement being made by our Prime Minister, or any message being sent to the Russian people. At the time I did not quite know what should1 be done. It seemed a very poor thing, I thought, that we in Canada should not stand with the other democraries in sending a word of encouragement to the Russian people. On November 4 I received a telegram from the Tass agency of New York city, asking if I would send a few words in a telegram to the people of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. At that time I did not know whether our Prime Minister or any member of the government was going to send a message. Therefore my own message was very brief. Since to my knowledge nothing was sent on behalf of the government, I believe there are thousands of Canadian people who will be glad to know that at least one member of this house sent a message to the Russian people on behalf of the people of Canada who to-day are satisfied that Russia is defending democracy along with the rest of us. I should like to read the few words that I sent, so that the people of this country may know what I said:
On behalf of the workers and farmers of Canada, I send greetings to the peoples of the soviet union. The great heart of democracy which throbs with the vitality of the people will live on bringing final destruction to the fascists. Your courage and bravery is like a lamp which shines out across the world lighting in us the same flame of resolve. We will not fail you. We will see that the wheels of 
industry do not cease. The strength of our right arm and the power of our back shall continuously labour to send the supplies you need. Fight on, brave people. We stand beside you to the end, till victory is won for us all.
I sent that telegram hoping that one message like that coming from Canada would reassure the Russian people that we were not forgetting them.
At this time, more than ever before, there is need for national unity, unity which takes no heed of class or creed or race or politics; because if now the great powers of democracy are united for the final destruction of Hitler, there are no people anywhere within those democracies who are not ready and willing to give the greatest possible support. I only wish the Prime Minister had made a more stirring appeal to the people of Canada at this time, in order to rally them. Here we are about to adjourn this sitting. Weeks will pass before we meet again. Many things may happen in the interval, and I feel that the Prime Minister has not really said enough in this house to rally and urge the Canadian people to a further spurt of effort. I should like to add my voice to anything the Prime Minister has said in calling upon the working people, to enlist not only their sympathy but also their greater support. I feel sure that if the Prime Minister would implement some of the fine words he has uttered by some action, the awakening of the Canadian people to the realization that further effort is required would come more quickly.
It has been a cause of great wonder to some of the people of Canada why the Prime Minister, who has acknowledged his willingness to join the pact for collective security, has not extended to Britain's new ally full diplomatic relationship, as he could. Why have not trade and diplomatic relations been opened up between this country and Russia? I take this opportunity to ask the government, on behalf of thousands of our Canadian people, to consider opening up these relations just as soon as that may be done. Then the people of this country will be in a better position to know just what aid is given Russia.
I think I can also say that it would do much to reassure the Canadian people if at this time our government would get rid of the Vichy representative. I do not know anything about that gentleman personally, but I do know, as thousands of Canadian people know, that Vichy is1 not our friend. Beyond any shadow of doubt Vichy has placed itself on the side of German aggression. Why in the world should we have to tolerate an enemy within our gate? As far as I can see, there is no reason for it. If Britain wants a Vichy representative somewhere, let Britain have the

The 'War-Mrs. Nielsen
Vichy representative in her own country. We in Canada do not want him. I would say that the sooner we get rid of that gentleman, the greater will be the encouragement to our people to go ahead with a job that has to be done. It is a very bad thing to have the Vichy representative here any longer; we do not want him to teach our Minister of Justice any more Vichy tricks of repression.
I would ask also that before the next session the government, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Weyburn, should give further consideration to the plight of our western farmers. Hon. members1 know already that the wheat- pools of the west have formulated a four-point programme which has been supported by all groups in the west, irrespective of party affiliations. After the wheat pools formulated those four moderate demands they were placed politely before the government for consideration. But when the Minister of Agriculture spoke over the air in reply to the wheat pools, the things he said were like a slap in the face to a hungry man. I would say also that the deep, icy silence of prairie winter will not be worse than the brooding resentment and despair which are felt among our people. The freezing winds which sweep over the prairies this winter will not be so chill as the sense of injustice which will be felt by the people on the prairies.
The other night the hon. member for Melfort outlined conditions in his constituency. Conditions are even worse in my part of Saskatchewan, for we suffered from' drought this summer. I noticed some lists in one of the newspapers in the city of North Battleford. I had one or two people check over, those lists with me, and I found that in three municipalities in the vicinity of North Battleford there are no less than 660 farms on which tax liens will have to be placed on or about December 1 if arrears of taxes are not paid. Surely that is a damning indictment of our agricultural policies. I cannot stress too strongly the need for the government to try to find some way to equalize the sacrifice as between the east and the west, to give our western people an opportunity better to maintain themselves on the land.
There is one other point I should like to mention in connection with arousing and stimulating our Canadian people in response to our war effort. I mentioned it briefly this afternoon, when I referred to those of our labour leaders and anti-fascists who are interned in this country. You may have your own ideas about these men, and so may I. In a democracy, that is one of the advantages- that you may have your ideas and I may have mine. But I think we may all agree 14873-2801
that without any shadow of doubt there are certain of those men in the internment camps to-day who could do more to stir up certain sections of our working people in support of the war effort than could; any other people. As long as they are kept in the internment camps we are going to have certain sections' of the working people who are disunited and not as strong in their efforts to support this war as we might wish them to be.
There is one further point which will be of interest to the women of this country. I believe that when many of the women read their papers to-morrow they will feel very happy indeed to know that at last the government have done something with regard to their pensions, and dependents' allowances. I was going to ask the government to-night to do something in that regard, and as a woman I cannot help thanking them for relieving the anxiety and the burden of fear from the minds of so many Canadian women.
During these last few years, undoubtedly numbers of our women who could not do anything but stay at home and mind their families have had to carry undue burdens of fear, owing to the fact that their husbands were in the armed forces, and they were left to get along on allowances, and were not able to maintain their families as they would like to have done.
I know that in the past the people of Canada have felt, and I believe they still feel, that if this government would intervene a little more on behalf of our labour forces a greater amount of energy would be liberated in this war effort. In other words I would ask the government before the next session begins to intercede on behalf of democracy, and to try to see that the small minority group of industrialists within this country do not take from the rights of the workers, as they have done and appear to be doing at the present time. I say that because I really believe that to-day there are certain groups of industrialists in Canada to whom the making of profit is the paramount consideration, over and above the consideration of whether or not we win the war.
That is a charge. I know it is a charge. But I do not know whether there are any government spokesmen to-day who would dare to deny it. If we remember the history of France we will know that it was a small group within France who led to her final downfall, because they withheld the power of democracy from the people. Do not let that happen here. We do not want a small group in this country to attempt to hold back the forces of the people. I would say that if the government will allow democracy to function, they will find a great heart among the working people
The War-Mrs. Nielsen

which will beat in steady, pulsing rhythm, and they will feel from it an increased momentum in the war effort.
The government should let us breathe once more in this country the free air of democracy by removing the restrictions of the defence of Canada regulations.' Give us the chance to breathe once more into our nostrils the air of freedom, so that we can stimulate the activity of the people. I would ask the government to unleash the power of democracy, because if the people of Canada have its full power they will go forward, like a flood after drought, a flood which will wash away the blight and disease of fascism and aggression. If the government will accept the full power of the workers, as those workers would like to give it, I feel sure we shall have a new strength and a new vigour in this whole movement.
I can remember that on the first ocasion I spoke in this chamber I asked what women have to do with war. When it was a question of war, to direct or to manipulate the forces of aggression and facism, I can honestly say that I, as a woman in this country, took very little heed of it. I did not see where it would be of any benefit to the people. But to-day, when we have the united power of all the democracies ready and willing finally to crush Hitler I would say as a woman of Canada that I want to stand beside the men, and do everything possible for the winning of the war.
The women of Russia, the women of Great Britain, the women of the United States, and the women of Canada will, I feel sure, from now on give everything possible. I have gone even so far as to go to the Minister of National Defence and ask him if a place might be found for me in the women's army. I did that because I thought that in that way I might be further able to stimulate the working women of this country, and to make them realize the necessity for a national effort, irrespective of party, creed, race or colour, if fascism is going to be destroyed.
If we can liberate democracy in this country and give it a chance to fight, then I believe we can say to the tortured peoples of the .conquered countries of Europe, in the words of the late Norman Rogers: "In faith we will light on. We will resist; we will endure. We will take the offensive, and we will win."


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Chairman, during the past two weeks a variety of subjects has been discussed, and while I am sorry no legislation has been brought before the house, or no opportunity given to us to do anything constructive, other than to express our opinion, I was glad to hear the Minister

of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) make the statement he did make after the dinner recess. I refer to his statement respecting allowances for dependent mothers of soldiers.
I would ask the minister whether he would also include in that group the dependent fathers of soldiers. I understand no provision is made in the regulations whereby dependent fathers may receive any allowance. At the same time I have in mind certain cases where I believe allowances would be proper. I believe the allowances for dependent fathers demand the same consideration as do those for dependent mothers of soldiers.
The case I have in mind is that of a crippled father, a man who must get round in a wheel-chair, and who cannot leave the wheel-chair unless he is lifted by someone who must be hired part of the time to perform that service. Early in September, 1939, this man's only son enlisted and has been in England for eighteen months. The father had considerable difficulty in getting any allowance for himself or his fifteen-year old daughter. I would ask the Minister of Finance to consider such cases as this, and have the regulations amended accordingly.
I should like also to say a word on behalf of the old age pensioners. For a number of months past I believe most hon. members have been receiving letters from old age pensioners and potential old age pensioners. With those letters we sometimes received suggestions, and I am going to read one which came to me just a few days ago. It is headed "The Pensioner's Psalm", and is as follows:
The Politician is my Shepherd;
I am in Want.
He maketh me to lie down in misery; he leadeth me beside still factories.
He disturbeth my soul; he leadeth me in the paths of destruction for his party's sake.
His policies frighten me; he taxeth my food in the presence of mine enemies.
He anointeth my pension with
"Means Tests": My expense runneth over.
Surely poverty shall follow me all the days of my life: I shall dwell in a mortgaged state for ever.
I believe that gives an accurate account of the stand some of the politicians take in connection with our old people. I do not wish to be classed among the politicians, because what I have to say to-night is for the earnest consideration of the committee and the government. I speak on behalf of the old age pensioners, and the potential old age pensioners. I have lived in Canada for a number of years.

The War*-Mr. Fair
On another occasion I pointed out to the house that if the people across Canada were given the right price for the fruits of their labour, if they were not legally robbed, there would not be the need for the paying out of so much money in the form of old age pensions. The conditions which have existed and do exist could be easily corrected by the government. The people should be given a chance to get something for what they produce and for the labour they give to industry. I believe the minimum for old age pensions should be reduced from seventy to sixty-five years, and the pension itself should be raised from $20 to $30 a month.
Some will ask: Where is the money to come from? That question was asked in 1938 and 1939 when people were trying to get relief from this and the previous governments. But since 1939 we have not heard that question asked. What we have heard is several ministers saying that whatever is needed physically will be made possible financially. Only this morning I saw in the morning Citizen where the president of the bankers' association stated that there would be no trouble about financing this war. If we can provide finances for war and destruction, then why in the name of common sense cannot we provide them for peacetime constructive purposes? I am one of these old men of thirty-seven years or more. I plead with the government once more to take into consideration the plight of these old age pensioners and do something for them that is really worth while. It can be done and it should be done.
Being one of those who has been robbed in the past, legally it is true, I think it is my job to-night to direct the attention of the government to the plight of agriculture all across Canada and particularly in western Canada. Going back to 1935 when the wheat board was first set up, we find there was an initial payment of S7i cents a bushel. In 1936 the same price was paid and in 1937 it was continued, but with certain restrictions upon the operations of the wheat board, into which I shall not go at this time. In 1938 the price was cut down to 80 cents a bushel. I do not know why that was done. In 1939 there was a further cut to 70 cents a bushel, but a system of bonuses was instituted. There were other limitations which tended to cut down the income of the western farmer. That continued in 1940. In 1941, in order to help win the war, we were asked to cut the production of wheat, and a wheat acreage bonus was introduced by regulation. This provided for a payment to a farmer who summer-fallowed his land and took it out of production.
Because the government realized the wrongs that had been done to agriculture and wanted to make some amendment, they came out recently with the announcement of another wholesale relief bonus. In western Canada a bonus of 75 cents an acre is to be paid on a maximum of 200 acres; those who have less than 400 acres will receive 75 cents an acre on half the cultivated acreage. If the farmers of eastern Canada or British Columbia feel that they do not come within this class I would remind them that this bonus is being extended to them in the form of free freight on feed grains.
I should like to refer for a moment to the soldier settlers who went on the land after the last great war. On several occasions we have pleaded for better treatment for these settlers. This is something that should be taken note of at this time because we are looking for men to go overseas. No doubt the men who come back from this war will expect to receive the same treatment as those who came back from the first great war. The soldier settlement scheme was set up after the first great war and 10,710 men took advantage of it. Up to this past summer 2,592 or approximately, about 24 per cent, had paid for their farms in full. A total of 3,004, or about 28 per cent, had an equity of 40 per cent or more in their farms; 1,645, or about 15 per cent, had an equity of 10 to 40 per cent in their farms and 3,469, or about 33 per cent, had little or no equity.
To break these figures up still more we find that 2,300 have a fighting chance. These men have been fighting ever since they went on the land and they will have to continue to fight. Approximately 1,100 have little prospect of making good. It might be of interest to hon. members to know that where a man has enlisted and has not been able to keep up his payments, the department concerned confiscates part of the allowances paid. Is this fair and decent treatment for our soldier settlers? In twenty years the land they are on has not been able to earn enough to pay the payments, and yet the government comes along and confiscates part of the dependents' allowances which rightfully belong to the families of the men who own the farms. I shall not go into this any further at the present time, but I intend to go into it more fully at a later date.
Recently we had the announcement of price-fixing regulations. I am glad to see that these have come at last, but I would have preferred to have them at an earlier date. I would prefer also to have had the prices regulated on a parity basis. If we
The Warn-Mr. Fair

compare the position of agriculture with that of industry, we find that just before the war broke out, industry went on a sit-down strike and refused to work until the profit restrictions which had been imposed by this parliament were removed by order in council late in August, 1939. Taking the case of organized labour, we find that these men are guaranteed the highest level of wages that existed between 1926 and 1929, and in addition they are given a cost of living bonus. I am not opposed to that, but when we come to consider agriculture, the poor relation of this Canada of ours, we find that if we were to get the same price level for our wheat that we got in 1929 we would receive $1.35 a bushel for No. 1 northern, Fort William, instead of the seventy cents we receive at the present time. We were told that the farmer would have to take the rap during the first two years of the war, but I was in hopes that something would be done after we had taken the rap for those two years. I went back to see what prices had been in the third year of the last war, and I found that the average price of wheat during the third year of the last war was $2.05 cents a bushel; oats, 63.2 cents; barley, $1.09; and flax, $2.68. I mention the price of wheat particularly because it is the basic industry of western Canada and, as I say, in the third year of the last war we were receiving $2.05 a bushel, while in the third year of the present war we are receiving seventy cents a bushel for No. 1 northern, Fort William. That is the guaranteed minimum price.
If other conditions were equal, it would not be quite so bad, but I draw the attention of the government and of this committee to the fact that at that time we could buy an eight-foot binder for $167 and to-day we pay for that same binder no less than $342. I would ask the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and the Minister of Finance who holds the purse strings, how farmers can make a living and pay their debts under those conditions? It simply cannot be done. Although the Minister of Agriculture has tried to tell western Canada and all of Canada that we are actually receiving ninety cents a bushel or better for our wheat I, as a practical farmer, know that that is not the situation. I am selling wheat, and I have sold it this year, for 48i cents a bushel delivered to the local elevator. That is for grade 2. If I jr-t- seventv-five cents an acre bonus, it would net me three cents a bushel more, or fifty-one cents a bushel at the local elevator.
I know that the farmers of Canada from one end to the other are not asking for and do not want charity. I maintain here to-night,

as I have on other occasions, that we are being robbed; and we are demanding at least a portion of that which is being stolen from us. During the early part of this session the Minister of Agriculture told one of the members of the loyal opposition that if the farmers were getting what they were entitled to, Canada would have at least $100,000,000 less for the war effort. That figure is not high enough. If the minister had made it $250,000,000 for wheat alone, I would have agreed with him on that particular occasion. But that is the kind of treatment we are getting, and I say that we are entitled to something better.
We have on a number of occasions advocated a price of one dollar a bushel for No. 1 northern, delivered at the local elevator. I do not think that is too much, and if that price applied for the first two thousand bushels the farmer delivered, it would not be necessary to go into a lot of these other schemes, such as acreage bonus, and so forth. The trouble is that the Minister of Agriculture and the government are trying to treat agriculture all round as only certain sections of it should be treated. Agriculture as a whole is passing through a period of depression. The prices that we get for our wheat would not be sufficient even if we had abundant crops, and special provision should be made by way of bonus or other assistance for that part of the industry which is suffering from crop failures.
We have heard in this country a great deal of talk about Canadian unity. We hear politicians on the platform, speakers on the radio, and certain sections of the press continually urging Canadian unity, but I ask this committee and the government, how can we have Canadian unity when one section of the country is making profits that are entirely out of line in war-time, while another section is selling at half the cost of production? It simply cannot be done, and on behalf of the people I represent, as well as the people of Canada as a whole, I ask that simple justice be meted out to agriculture so that we may be given an opportunity to do our share in getting justice for Canada and in ridding the world of Hitlerism.


Mr. PERLEY:: The Chairman has sent me a note threatening to throw me out if I take longer than five minutes. There was one occasion in this house when I came pretty near being thrown out, so I am not going to take any chances now. We have been here for two weeks, and only now in the dying minutes of the session have we an opportunity to say something about agriculture, marketing and kindred subjects. I want to protest

The War-Agriculture
against this procedure. I can recall three occasions during the last four sessions when a similar thing occurred, and this all-important question was brought up only in the dying hours of the session.
The hon. member for Weyburn to-night has covered the whole situation and reviewed conditions in western Canada so well that if I had had the floor before him I would have said pretty much all that he has said. I recall a similar situation at a pool mass meeting in the west. The Hon. Mr. Motherwell was there, and we were charged not to be critical in our addresses. Therefore when I followed him I said that it would be easy for me to live up to those instructions because, if I wanted to be critical, I could not make half as good a job of it as the Hon. Mr. Motherwell had done. Accordingly to-night I feel I cannot make any better job of it than the hon. member for Weyburn has done, and I think I will leave it there.
It seems to me that the government have decided that they will not be jarred from their position. We cannot jar the Minister of Trade and Commerce from his seat to tell us something about the wheat marketing policy of the government, and on looking at the Minister of Agriculture as I have faced him during a number of sessions, I feel that he, too, does not intend to be jarred out of his seat to-night.
The pool may be down here in a little while with their recommendations. I think that the four recommendations they have made to the government are just and fair. I believe the Minister of Agriculture has already accepted one or two of them, and I would implore the government to give those recommendations serious consideration and to adopt them all. I have not time to go into them, but my position is quite clear. I may say that everything that organization in western Canada has advocated in the last three or four months I have been advocating in this house for the last three or four years. I implore the government and the minister to save agriculture, which to-day is facing a crisis-save agriculture in this emergency as you are saving other industries in Canada. That is all the people of western Canada want -a square deal for agriculture. I see my five minutes are up, and I will sit down as I promised the Chairman.


Angus MacInnis: I am sorry the Prime Minister is not in his seat. I wish to refer to a question which I asked him the other day. His answer to my questioin with regard to the continued arrest and internment of certain persons in Canada was not satisfactory.
I know that the Prime Minister and other hon. members will realize that this is not a conversion on my part which has taken place since June 22 last. But if there was anything necessary to convince members of the government, and particularly the Department of Justice, of the folly, from both an economic and a psychological point of view, of continuing to keep in internment camps a certain class of internees, I believe the speech which was made here this evening should carry conviction to them. There has been a change. These people were interned because they might commit or had committed subversive acts. As there is now no possibility that they will commit subversive acts, at any rate until the ''line" changes again, I see no reason why the whole question should not be reconsidered and these people released. I notice that, in a great many letters w'hich I have received during the last few weeks, they are now making their, plea for release on the basis that they are antifascists. That is a new departure since June 22, 1941. Prior to that date they were asking for release on the ground that they were arrested on account of their labour activities. Whether that is so or not, I think we can agree that today they are definitely anti-fascist. I see no reason in the world why this country should maintain them in internment camps when we can now get their assistance in carrying on the war effort and anything else which may be for the benefit of the country. I suggest that some members of the government bring this matter to the attention of the Prime Minister and of .the Department of Justice and let them give it consideration before we meet again. I hope that something will be done in the matter, because I do not believe it is a good thing for the country that it be left as it is now.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I shall be glad to see that it is brought to the attention of the acting Minister of Justice.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Munitions
and Supply promised the other day to make a statement with regard to the training of merchant seamen. Is he in a position to make that statement now?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have obtained some information from the officers of the Department of Transport. The two projects go side by side -the seamen's manning pools and the seamen's training classes.
The manning pools are already in existence. There is a manning pool in operation in Montreal, with accommodation for about S50 seamen; there is a small manning pool in operation at Halifax, where a building is being completed for a much larger pool which is needed at that point; and plans are under way

The War-Munitions and Supply
to build a manning pool in Vancouver. In the manning pool the seaman who for any reason leaves his ship, or, rather-as many are -is sent out from the old country to fill vacancies in British ships, will go into the pool, where he will be furnished with board and lodging and will receive the pay of his rank in actual service. In other words, he will be in service and ready for assignment to a ship when a vacancy occurs.
The training project is just being put under way. As my hon. friend knows, for a number of years there have been under the Department of Transport training schools for officers. These are located at a number of points across Canada, and they will continue to serve to train officers for the merchant marine. The schools will be expanded1 and brought up to requirements for that service.
Schools for seamen are being established, one near Halifax and one near Kingston. The one at Halifax is to train able-bodied seamen, and the one at Kingston is for the training of stokers, firemen and engine-room workers.
Arrangements have been made so that seamen in training can also be trained in actual service on ships. After a seaman has had

I believe it is-eight weeks' training, a place will be found for him on a merchant ship with more experienced seamen so that he can qualify for an able-bodied seaman's ticket.
The plan for training of seamen will be extended to the Pacific coast as soon as the schools in the east are well under way.
It will be necessary for Canada to man many of the new ships as they come into service. The first ships, those which have already been launched, have been built for British government account, but even of those ships, some have been assigned for operation to the Cunard-White Star company, and one or two have been assigned for operation to the Canadian government merchant marine. Canadian crews will be required for at least some of the ships built for Britain and, of course, for all ships built for or operated by Canadian companies on Canadian account.
My hon. friend asked what is the crew of a merchant ship of that type. The crew amounts to a total of forty-five men. It is the purpose of the schools for merchant seamen, the schools for engine-room seamen, and the schools for officers, to train men rapidly enough to man these boats as they are required.
At the same time we are performing a service for the British government and for non-allied governments in maintaining pools for seamen and in looking after the welfare of seamen while they are in port and not assigned to ships.


Howard Charles Green: Thank you.


Mr. QUELCH:: There are several questions which I wanted to ask the Minister of Agriculture, but, as the time is getting late and I do not know whether the house is going to sit to-morrow, I shall content myself with asking one question.
The Minister of Agriculture is well aware that in certain parts of the west there is a good deal of discontent at the present time at the way in which the summer-fallow bonus is being administered. I have had several complaints that the amount claimed by farmers is being cut down considerably. The other complaint is of the delay in making the payment. The reason which has been advanced by the department for the cutting down of the claims is twofold: first of all, owing to the fact that the statements filed by the farmers under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in 1939 and 1940 did not coincide with the statements filed in 1941, and second, owing to the definition of the term "summer-fallow." I cannot understand why the department should take the stand that statements filed under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in 1939 and 1940 are 100 per cent correct and the statements filed in 1941 are incorrect. That is apparently their stand on the question of summer-fallow. I realized when the measure was first introduced that there was bound to be a good deal of trouble with regard to the definition of "summer-fallow," and I asked the minister then whether or not in the drought area it would be recognized that land which was allowed to go to weeds, burned in the spring and seeded to wheat was summer-fallow. He replied that whatever the practice was in any locality, that practice would be recognized as summer-fallow. The farmers in the drought area were uncertain about this. I held many meetings and told them that in my opinion, if it was the usual practice the government would allow it to be regarded as summer-fallow; but to make sure a letter was sent to Mr. Barrie from whose reply I quote as follows:
If it is the custom to allow the land in your district to lie fallow, grow to weeds, burn in the spring and sow to grain, this plan of summer-fallow will be accepted.
I understand that there has been a great deal of trouble in that district with regard to that very thing. The amount of the payment is being cut owing to the fact that farmers have not cultivated the land but have allowed it to go to weeds. I do not say whether that is the right procedure, but that is recognized in the district. I was taken by a number of farmers to different fields where side by side they showed me one field that had been summer-fallowed by cultivation and the other

The War-Agriculture
field allowed to lie fallow and burned in the spring, and one could see no difference between the two groups. Possibly the grain grown on cultivated land was a little greener than the crop on the land that had been burned off. In view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture and the department at Edmonton told these farmers-and they have letters on file to prove it-that whatever had been the procedure in the district would be recognized,
I cannot understand the government now cutting down their claims because they have not cultivated the land. Can the minister deal with that?


James Garfield Gardiner: Answering the first
question as to delays on checking 1939 and 1940, I think the hon. member for Acadia will agree when I say that when the regulations were brought down first in the early part of the session no provision was made to take 1939 into consideration. I believe I am right in saying that the hon. member for Acadia was the first one to ask to have that done. I am not trying to place the responsibility upon him for its having been done. After I had listened to his representations and the representations of others, and giving the matter some consideration, I as Minister of Agriculture advised the government by myself to have the check made on 1939 and 1940. I must say that after having had the experience we have had with it this summer, if it were being done again I do not think I would give the same advice to the government. I think the delays in connection with the administration as a result of having taken 1939 into consideration at all have caused far more hardship, and expense to the government, than any benefits that are going to be derived from having denied a comparatively few people the payment on a greatly increased crop during 1940. Nevertheless that principle was adopted, and there has been some delay as a result of it, because we have had to take two years under consideration.
This, however, should be stated. According to the information which I was given early in the session, at least 60 per cent of all farmers who turned in applications or who filled out questionnaires during 1939 and 1940, when they put in their returns in 1941 Showed a sufficient correspondence in those returns for the three years to make it possible to pass their applications for the amount they asked for. As regards the other 40 per cent, there were such differences as between the figures they put in one year for a particular year and the figures they put in another year for the same year that further checks had to be made, and there was a great deal of delay on that account. The matter of checking was, 14873-281
as a result of that, somewhat more expensive during this year than during previous years.
While I am dealing with the subject I might answer a question raised by the hon. member for Melfort last evening. He asked as to the numbers engaged in inspection this year compared with other years. The figure which gives the fairest comparison is the figure of man-days involved in the inspections ini the three years during which we have had prairie farm assistance, and this year, as we have stated, we have had some staffs added to take care of additional work. That is the work of dealing with wheat acreage reduction. The man-days for 1939 numbered 14,676, and for 1940 the number was 17,693. The man-days up to the present for this year, which is not the complete year, number 19,503. The number of inspectors that are on is not a proper check upon the expense or even the amount of time that will be involved.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the committee will pardon me for a moment, it is nearly eleven o'clock. Might I suggest that the house give its consent to continue in com-mitee until we conclude.


James Garfield Gardiner: As to why we have an inspector in each municipality, I may say that while I am not personally in entire agreement that all the inspections made were necessary, all departments of government are subject to the checks made by the auditors and by the comptroller of the treasury, and it was insisted that many more inspections might be made than probably we as a department would have made as a matter of administration. After all, however, those actually paying the funds have something to say about when they should be paid, and the inspections were made on the basis that we were required to make them.
With regard to summer-fallow, I might say that the statement which was made by the member for Acadia is practically the statement which I made to the house last year. The statement made by Mr. Barrie in general terms is the proper way of dealing with the matter of summer-fallow. I would, however, point out that after considering the question with the inspectors and others, it has been thought unwise to make a final settlement with regard to summer-fallow that is done on that basis, or according to that plan, until next spring, the reason being that if one wishes to abandon the land, he can take his payments in the fall of the year and disappear, and the land will probably not be put into crop in the succeeding year. That might not happen in many cases, but it is a possibility, and the decision

The War-Agriculture

has been made to withhold payments on summer-fallow that are claimed to be done when they are left to grow Russian thistle, to gather snow in the winter and to be cleared in the spring and seeded.


Victor Quelch: Withhold the complete payment, or part of it?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would presume that if the payment is going to be made at all, the complete payment will be made, but the decision will be reached as to whether it is the proper method of summer-fallowing in that particular district. If it is decided that it is the usual method there, and that the individual will go right through with his programme for the year on that basis, then it will be possible to reach a decision in his favour.


Victor Quelch: The minister is quite aware, is he not, that this is a very general practice in part of the drought area, where the farmers are probably harder up than in any other part? If payment is withheld until next spring, a critical situation will be created. Surely the government could make a partial payment to tide these people over the winter. They have to buy coal, and everything else. Could at least a 50 per cent payment not be made now?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not aware from personal knowledge that summer-fallowing is done in that way. I have never known anyone who has done it in that way; but I have had reports from those who should know -and I presume, in view of the fact that the area where this is claimed to be done is largely in the constituency of Acadia, that I can take the word of the hon. member- that it is done in this way by some of the people there from year to year. I would, however, point out that in making the last $20,000,000 payment we shall be paying to all of those farmers certain amounts in December and March, when the money under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act ordinarily would be paid, so they will not be entirely without any payment. I would think that probably some check might be made in connection with individual cases, and where inspection renders it possible to make payment, part of the payment might be made.
The plan we are following at the moment is the one I explained the other day. All the claims recognized up to the present time are being paid immediately to the extent of 75 per cent of the amounts claimed; then we are making the adjustments from the other 25 per cent, if there is any difference of opinion as between the department and the individual.


Ernest George Hansell: There is an impression abroad in certain parts of western Canada that the 75 cents bonus on the acreage is not applicable to irrigation districts. Are we to understand that to be the situation?


James Garfield Gardiner: As the regulations read at the moment, the payments are not applicable to irrigated districts; but the question of whether they can be made applicable and how that might be done is still under consideration. A check is being made on the irrigated districts and regulations are being considered in that connection. This is intended to be a payment to increase the income of grain-growing farmers, particularly wheat growers, in western Canada. Where a farmer merely grows a field of wheat as part of his plan of rotation, in order that he may grow beets or something of that kind, it is not thought that payment should be made. But where the type of farming carried on in an irrigation district is such as to require the greater part of the crop to be grain, then it is the intention to try to work out some plan of making the payments.


Ernest George Hansell: I am very glad to hear the minister say that this matter is still under consideration. I am sure he is quite familiar with the problem. The fact of the matter is that in some irrigation districts the farmer will use water for only part of his farm, and not necessarily for that portion devoted to wheat. If the whole district is to be taken in, and the acreage bonus not paid, some of those individual farmers are going to suffer. There is the further point that these farmers are under a greater expense by reason of the fact that they have to pay for their water. I think it is correct to say also that the regulations are based on the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, under which, of course, these farmers have to make their contribution of one per cent of the wheat they grow. I shall, however, be quite satisfied if the department will consider this whole matter in the most favourable light, and decide to give those districts the 75 cents additional bonus.


Clarence Gillis: Just before the close of last session there was tabled in the house the report of a special parliamentary committee containing certain recommendations, two of which I have in mind at the moment. One was the extension of the War Veterans' Allowance Act to take in certain classifications of widows. I have heard no mention of that. The other was the extension of an order in council applying to men serving in the merchant marine, to include men who served in the convoy service. Nothing has been done

The War-War Veterans Allowances
about that. I believe that is a question which the minister for the navy should take under consideration. I have come in contact with many families who have suffered a great deal of hardship by reason of this situation. Men join the convoy ships. If the ships are of British or foreign registry, their families are left for months at a time practically as the recipients of relief, while the husband or breadwinner is performing a very useful service. If the provisions of the order in council which brings the merchant marine service within the pension legislation of the government is not made applicable to this class of service, then I think the shipping offices who sign on these men for convoy service should ascertain whether or not such men are leaving families in Canada. If they are, they should be compelled to make at least an assignment of pay. That is not being done at the present time, and I know that in eastern Canada, in both Halifax and Sydney, a great deal of hardship has resulted.
While I am on my feet I should like to bring one matter to the attention of the Minister of Munitions and Supply. On many occasions in this house I have endeavoured to impress upon the responsible ministers that coal-mining in Nova Scotia is on the wane and that a great deal of unemployment, both actual and potential, exists there. To-day I picked up a clipping from one of the newspapers of that district, in which it was stated that in the town of Reserve a mine which has been employing some 350 men is about to close down, because it is worked out. This means that 350 men are to be displaced. Some arrangements were in contemplation with regard to the opening of another colliery, but that has not been done.
This is what I have in mind. I corresponded with the minister with respect to a machine shop in the town of Glace Bay, which is about two and a half miles from the town in which this mine is located. If this machine shop could be used for war purposes, it would increase employment; and of these 350 men who will be displaced from that mine I am sure there are many who can be utilized in other industries. I just leave this thought with the minister.	I hope he will give
consideration to the possibility of utilizing these men somewhere else, because that mine is definitely closing. Within a week or so 350 men will be out of work, and this means the life of the entire community.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With reference to the question the hon. gentleman directed to me I would tell him that I made a statement the other day concerning the recommendations with regard 14873-281}
to the War Veterans' Allowance Act, in which I said that the government had decided that the act would not be amended at this or the next session. I have prepared a complete report as to the action taken on every single recommendation of that committee, which I intend to table as soon as the new session opens. In the meantime I shall be glad to send a copy of the report to my hon. friend.


Clarence Decatur Howe: With regard to the suggestion about labour, I may say to my hon. friend that I read the dispatch in the paper and I understood that a new seam was being opened up. I can say, however, that those men will be very welcome either at Sydney or at Halifax where a new machine shop with very considerable capacity has been opened for the repair of ships. Where there was a shortage last year of longshoremen there probably will be a greater shortage this year.


Ernest George Hansell: I asked a question of the Minister of Pensions and National Health at the beginning of this part of the session as to whether he might have something to say respecting plans for the post-war period. I am not asking that he take the time of the committee to-night to say anything about that matter, because the hour is getting late. The war may not be over yet for a couple of months, and no doubt there will be time for him to make a statement. But are we to understand that he will make a statement to the house with regard to what his committee is doing in respect of plans for the post-war period?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A statement was prepared for this part of the session. But from a becoming sense of modesty I did not inflict it upon the house. I shall be glad most thoroughly to discuss the whole question of rehabilitation and reconstruction, as far as the government is concerned, at the new session of parliament.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Are the regulations respecting the 75 cents an acre supplementary bonus available? I have not seen them, and I do not know anyone else who has seen them. Can we obtain copies of them?
Second, as I understand it, this bonus will be payable to all bona fide wheat producers. Is that without any qualification? For instance, will the S3,000 limitation clause in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act apply to this bonus?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; the matter of yield does not apply at all. Neither the yield nor the number of bushels applies-except to this extent, that there is a limitation of 200 acres upon the amount of land upon which an individual can collect. That means that SI50
Vacancies

is the limitation. So that anyone with higher quantities would not come in for more than $150. The regulations are available.


Percy Chapman Black: May I ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply if we may have an appendix setting out the advance for capital improvement for Canadian and British manufacturing accounts, similar to the appendix submitted on February 25 last? The total at that time was $268,000,000 and is now up to $550,000,000. I suggest that we should have that information in detail before the house adjourns. The minister gave us some assurance that he would endeavour to secure that information and make it available to the house before the adjournment. I -am simply asking him now whether he has been able to do that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I made an inquiry at the time and I found it would take some time to prepare the list. While the information is available, it had not been prepared in the form of a list. I shall, however, endeavour to have the list compiled, printed and distributed to hon. members during the adjournment.
The committee rose without reporting.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 11.15 p.m. until Wednesday, January 21, 1942.
Wednesday, January 21, 1942