1941-04-28

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as this House of Commons reassembles to-day, after an adjournment of less than three weeks, hon. members will no doubt wish me to review the events of the last eighteen days, and to say a word as to their significance.
Hon. members may recall that speaking on the day prior to adjournment, in reference to the Balkan campaign which began on April 6,
I stated that the attacks on Yugoslavia and Greece marked the launching in deadly earnest of the 1941 military campaign. I said that we must be prepared for a bitter struggle in the new phase of the war which had then actually begun. I added that there was certain to be frightful destruction of life and property, and that we must be prepared for setbacks and disappointments. By pointing out that the enemy's superiority w7as so formidable as to appear "almost overwhelming", I sought to prepare the public mind as to what seemed, at the time, the all but inevitable result of the enemy's sudden attack with vastly superior numbers of men and machines. What I did not forecast at that time, and what no one could venture then to predict, was the rapidity with which the nazi forces would be able to occupy the whole of Yugoslavia and the mainland of Greece. Events have now told that story.
The Balkan campaign began on April 6. By April 9, the Germans had broken through to the Yardar valley in Yugoslavia, and taken the Greek port of Salonika. Organized resistence in Yugoslavia lasted barely four days. On April 15, the Yugoslav army capitulated, and the country's king and government fled to Greece. On April 10, the Germans broke through the Monastir gap into northwestern Greece and, at the same time, effected a junction with the Italians in Albania. Despite heroic resistance, the Greek armies and the British expeditionary force which had come to their assistance were driven steadily back. On April 23, the Greek army, retiring from Albania, found its retreat barred by the Germans, and surrendered. The same day King George II and his government withdrew
The War

The Balkans

to Crete. Within the past forty-eight hours, the Commander-in-Chief of the Greek army has resigned his command, and the German troops have entered Athens.
It will be recalled that, on April 7, I stated that the Balkan campaign might well be the prelude of a great battle for the whole Mediterranean basin. The governments of the United Kingdom and the dominions have never been under any illusion that the campaign in 1941 would be any less terrible than the nazi campaign of 1940, or that the 1941 campaign would not follow, in all essential respects, the pattern of last year. I think I emphasized the fact that the great nazi army was still intact, and still undefeated. I also stressed the further fact that the earlier victories in Africa and in Albania were victories against the Italians, not against the Germans; that we could not afford to be misled by the successes, however great, scored against Italy.
In Africa, the events since adjournment have amply demonstrated the difference between German might and Italian weakness. On April the 5th, the nazis recovered Bengasi in Libya for the axis. Within eight days, German forces had recovered, with the exception of Tobruk which continued to be held by the British, the whole of the Libyan territory overrun by the British earlier in the year. Since April 14, they have been halted at Salum on the Egyptian frontier. At the moment they are attempting an advance into Egypt. The lightning nazi thrust on land was partially offset by British naval attacks upon axis communications. On April 16 the Admiralty announced that an important enemy convoy was destroyed on the way to Libya, and on April 21 the harbour of Tripoli was subjected to a terrific naval bombardment.
On the day Bengazi was captured by the Germans, the British and South African troops entered Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia. On April 8, the port of Massawa in Eritrea was taken from the Italians. The fall of Massawa marked the end of effective Italian resistance in East Africa. This fact was recognized by the proclamation of President Roosevelt on April 11, which opened the Red sea and the gulf of Aden to United States ships. News has been received this morning of the fall of Dessie in Ethiopia. The virtual disappearance of effective Italian resistance in East Africa has released for duty elsewhere in the middle east a great part of the British forces engaged in that region.
On April 19, growing unrest, and the potential threat to the oil fields of Mosul and the pipe line to Haifa, occasioned the landing of British troops at Basra, in the Persian gulf, to protect British communications in Iraq.

While these events have been proceeding with dramatic suddenness in the Balkans, Africa, and the middle east, the nazi air attacks over Britain have been intensified, and the grim battle of the Atlantic has not lessened in seriousness.
As respects the far east, probably the most significant event was the recent visit of the Japanese foreign minister, Mr. Matsuoka, to Berlin, Rome and Moscow, and the signing at Moscow, on April 13, of the Neutrality pact by the Soviet union and Japan. What these events really signify remains a matter of speculation. The growing tension in the far east was reflected in the announcement, on April 24, of the landing of another contingent of Australian troops at Singapore.
Those who have studied the military situation as a whole will not have been greatly surprised, save as respects its rapidity, at the success of the nazi campaign in Yugoslavia and Greece. The odds against both countries were overwhelming. In the case of .Yugoslavia, the situation was made the more hopeless by the prolonged vacillation of the government under Prince Paul, and by the virtual encirclement of the country resulting from nazi collusion with Hungary and the occupation of Roumania and Bulgaria. When the new government was established by General Simovitch on March 27, it was given barely ten days to organize the defences of the country before the nazi onslaught. The difficulties of effective defence were increased by the long-standing friction between the Serbs and the Croats, and by uncertainty as to the loyalty, and subsequent refusal of a part of the Croatian troops to engage in hostilities. Until the very end, the anxiety on the part of Yugoslavia to preserve the strictest neutrality, and to give Germany no excuse for an attack, prevented the working out in advance of joint plans with the British and the Greeks, even after the hopes of a larger allied Balkan front had vanished.
In Yugoslavia, the familiar pattern of the nazi blitzkreig was repeated. It was Norway, Holland and Belgium over again. Without pre-arranged plans, British aid was necessarily less than might otherwise have been furnished, and also less effective when supplied. While greater aid might have prolonged the campaign, it is, however, only too true that it could scarcely have changed the result.
The Yugoslav army, with inferior mechanical equipment, a divided and distracted country and a civilian population subjected to all the ruthless violence of terrorism, was doomed to surrender after a brave but unsuccessful resistance. Yugoslavia and the world which applauded its honour and its

The War-The Balkans
courage, will some day know that the results of its resistance will be of far greater significance than they now appear. For freedom is not lost in defeat; it can only be lost in the unwillingness to defend it.
One aspect of the campaign in Yugoslavia is deserving of careful attention. Nothing could have demonstrated more completely the vital importance in modern war of superior equipment. According to the information available, the nazis did not have overwhelming superiority of man-power in Yugoslavia. They may even have had fewer troops engaged than the Yugoslavs. Their decisive superiority was in striking power-in machines and weapons of war.
The campaign in Greece reinforces the military lesson of the campaign in Yugoslavia. The British and Greek forces combined were much less numerous than the Yugoslav troops. But they were better equipped and better armed.
Whatever may be the purely military arguments for and against sending a British force to Greece, it will, I am sure, be generally agreed that the British were in honour bound to help the Greeks if they undertook to resist the Germans. The Greeks, by their dauntless courage in the long Albanian campaign, had more than earned all the aid which could possibly be given.
In the Balkans for six months the Greeks more than resisted the weight of the Italian attack. Although, according to ordinary mathematical and military calculation, the overwhelming comparative strength of the Italian empire made almost inevitable the early defeat of Greece, the Greek army, by heroic achievement and magnificent strategy, comfounded the prophecies of disaster.
The Greeks, of course, profited by air, land and sea power of the British in their fight against the Italians in North Africa. In the Mediterranean itself, Italian strength was also diverted by British activities. Nevertheless, Greece, with a spirit of independence, fighting alone on land, for six months, resisted and repulsed the vaunted might of Italy.
In carrying on by themselves, in Greece and Albania, the fight against their Italian aggressors, the Greeks had ever present, to their minds, the necessity of avoiding, if possible, a German attack upon Greece. During many months of Balkan intrigue there was the prospect that such an attack might come, but there was also the hope that it might be avoided. It was not until the German attack appeared inevitable that British military assistance was accepted. The plain fact is that the heroic Greeks, as long as Italy
was the only nation in arms against them, gravely resolved, and magnificently succeeded, in fighting their own battles.
The story of the battles recently fought by the forces of Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain, and the final result of their reembarkation to new battle grounds, is not yet fully known. It can be said, however, that one of the great actions of military history has been fought with superb courage. It is with a sense of proud kinship with her sister nations in the British commonwealth, that Canada records her admiration of the daring and bravery of the Australian, New Zealand and British forces who fought for freedom in the mountains and valleys of Greece.
In a war waged on so many fronts and divisible into so many phases, it is impossible at this time to estimate not only the ultimate result, but even the primary result of the various campaigns.
Although resistance to the nazis in the Balkans was not successful, it would be wholly wrong to imagine that, by fighting, nothing has been achieved for the allied cause. The alternative was a bloodless nazi conquest. The nazi losses in men and material have certainly been great. But that is not all. The devastation of Yugoslavia and Greece also marks loss for the Germans. The nazis had hoped to be able to exploit those countries as they have exploited Roumania. That Yugoslavia and Greece proved to be obstacles in the nazi path certainly made the way harder for the nazi war machine. Above all else, the resistance of these two peoples obliged Hitler materially to alter his general plan of campaign.
There are other important results from the Balkan campaign which we will do well at this time to remember. Germany has gained important military objectives, but as I have already said, her armies and air forces have suffered heavy losses. For the Italians, the Balkan campaign brought only defeat to their forces, and national humiliation. For Britain, the campaign has had some quite definite advantages. Had Germany's armies and air forces not been used in the Balkans, additional striking force would have been immediately available for use against Britain. Germany's preoccupation in Roumania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Greece has given Britain additional time; and time is of the essence of this phase of the war, when British resistance and American help are the implacable powers over which Germany must triumph if Hitler is to impose his will upon the world.
The War-The Balkans

Apart also from tangible and material things, there is ever present the conviction that every time there is heroic resistance against great odds, every time men steel their hearts to preserve a nation's soul, the legions of freedom advance. It has often been said that, in the last analysis, the character of free peoples will decide the issue. Who will say that the heroism of Greece, the honour of Yugoslavia, and the dauntless spirit of Britain and the British dominions have not served to maintain the morale of the world?
On April 7, I pointed out that Germany was seeking the subjugation of the Balkan peninsula as a step in the outflanking of Britain's position in the Mediterranean. I suggested also that it might well be the beginning of a great battle for the whole Mediterranean basin. It is now clear that the nazi thrust across Libya, which had already begun before Greece and Yugoslavia were attacked by Germany, was more than a mere military diversion. The attacks in Libya and the Balkans were, in fact, two arms of the same design. They constitute a vast pincer movement directed against Egypt, the Suez canal and the pipe line at Haifa in Palestine, which supplies the British navy in the Mediterranean with oil.
The actual territory lost in Libya has relatively little value. It has been said that warfare on the desert is like warfare on the sea; what matters is the destruction of the enemy and the maintenance of one's own strength. The destruction of Graziani's army in Libya was clear gain. In Libya, as in Greece, the major partner has been obliged to take on the task which the minor partner failed to perform.
No one should underestimate the importance of other British successes in Africa. Eritrea, Somaliland, and Ethiopia have been severed from the Italian empire. Even if German occupation of the mountains of Greece and subsequent developments in North Africa bring a new menace to Egypt and the Suez canal, the menace of this hour cannot be what it was before the great Italian armies were captured or destroyed.
It would be unwise, however, to minimize the added danger to Alexandria, Suez and Haifa of the presence of nazi forces in Libya, or the demonstration of the ability of the enemy to move his forces to North Africa. While events have shown that naval power is the most effective British weapon in the present Libyan campaign, we must not lose sight of the fact that a fleet cannot continue to operate without bases or without an assured fuel supply.
The growing unrest in Iraq, Syria and the Arabian desert is a threat to the oil supplies

of the British- navy in the Mediterranean. As already mentioned, it was to defend her communications and her vital oil resources that Britain recently landed troops at Basra in the Persian gulf. We should not overlook the fact that the threat to British interests in Iraq is also a menace to Turkey. The now familiar nazi technique is, once more, in evidence. Instead of making a frontal attack, Hitler, clearly, is seeking to outflank and isolate the Turks. The success of this movement would mark the realization of the "Berlin-to-Bagdad" dream of the Germans in 1914, and would open to German exploitation the great oil fields of Mosul. Such a move by the nazis has long been expected. Hon. members may recall that, on November 12, I told the house that the problem of oil might well account for the interest which the enemy was showing in Iraq and Iran, and in the control of the Mediterranean basin.
The enemy is not limiting his interest to the eastern Mediterranean. The presence of a nazi force in Libya also constitutes a potential threat to the French possessions in North Africa. By turning westwards, the nazis might use their force in Libya as the left flank of a pincer movement directed against Gibraltar, which is already menaced by the nazi army in the Pyrenees, ready, if a chance offers, to strike through Spain.
Hitler has certainly not overlooked the possibilities of closing the Mediterranean altogether. This he may attempt by an attack through Spain, seeking control, not of the fortress, which may prove impregnable, but of the straits which are far more vulnerable. Germans and Italians in the guise of tourists and experts of the armistice commission, have already been infiltrating into North Africa. I give this appraisal of the general situation in order that due account may be taken of the enormous burden which the obligation to guard so many strategic points at one and the same time has placed upon the shoulders of Britain.
The Germans obviously regard the control of the Mediterranean as the key to the domination of the rest of continental Europe, of the middle east, and of North Africa. British naval power in that sea remains the most formidable obstacle to nazi ambition. Realizing the impossibility of defeating the navy in open combat on the waters of the Mediterranean, the nazis are evidently seeking to effect their end by encircling the fleet, cutting its line of communications both at Gibraltar and Suez, and gaining control of its supplies of fuel.
Let me add this: The nazi design in the Mediterranean is, again, not merely an end in itself. It is another stage in Germany's plan

The War-The Balkans
to achieve world domination. A nazi drive to the Persian gulf might, if concerted with military action in southeast Asia, constitute a vast axis pincer movement against the whole continent of Asia. In estimating all possible contingencies, we cannot, amid the uncertainty of rapidly moving events, ignore the . possibility of an attack on Singapore taking place at the same time as attacks on Gibraltar and Suez, and an attempted invasion of Britain. We must never forget that the destruction of the British empire is the supreme aim of the enemy. The world-wide threat to Britain is the measure of the magnitude of her task.
I had meant to say something of the other side of the picture, as it has developed since adjournment. I wished to refer to the steady growth of the strength of the defences of Britain against invasion, and of the improvement in the outlook for the Battle of the Atlantic.
I intended particularly to refer to the two ways in which United States aid is being made more effective: one, the coordination of production by the United States and Canada; the other, the patrol of the Atlantic by the United States. I intend, later to-day, to make a statement on the coordination of production as effected by the Hyde Park declaration. The importance of the patrol was set forth clearly, yesterday, in the stirring radio broadcast of Mr. Churchill. Mr. Churchill's speech is still fresh in the minds of all. I shall therefore content myself, for the present, with citing a few of his words. "It therefore was with indescribable relief," he. said, "that I learned of the tremendous decisions lately taken by the president and people of the United States. The American fleet and flying boats have been ordered to patrol the wide waters of the western hemisphere, and to warn peaceful shipping of all nations outside the combat zone of the presence of lurking U-boats or cruisers belonging to two aggressive nations. We British will therefore begin to concentrate our protecting forces far more upon the routes near their home, and to take far heavier toll of U-boats there."
Mr. Churchill went on to say that he could not believe the United States would allow the product of their skill and labour to be sunk to the bottom of the sea; that it now seemed the Americans were going to put their aid within British reach; and he then added these significant words: "That is why I feel a very strong conviction though the Battle of the Atlantic will be long and hard, and its issue by no means yet determined, it has entered upon a more grim, but at the same
time, a far more favourable phase. When you come to think of it, the United States are very closely bound up with us now, and have engaged themselves deeply in giving us moral, material, and, within the limits I have mentioned, naval support."
In these words Mr. Churchill disclosed the significance which Britain attaches to the naval and air patrols foreshadowed by Mayor LaGuardia in his speech in Ottawa on St. George's day (April 23). The recent speeches of Colonel Knox and Mr. Cordell Hull are likewise the clearest evidence of the determination of the United States that Britain shall not lose the Battle of the Atlantic.
What have for long been ominous probabilities, are, now, upon us as stem realities. The area of conflict widens every day; its intensity increases every day; losses on sea, in the air and on land will continue to mount; the scenes of terror and destruction which live in the memories of many lands free, beleaguered and invaded, will be repeated and renewed. In steadiness of heart, of hand and of vision we shall find our present strength and the path to victory. If we are depressed by the picture of to-day or to-morrow, we shall be unworthy of our allies and ourselves. Wars of endurance are not lost by the accidents of a day, or a week or a month. They are lost only by the steady disintegration of the moral fibre of a people. The stuff of which the peoples of the British commonwealth are made is not that kind of fibre. Let us therefore calmly and confidently continue to look at the facts steadily and as a whole, not bowed down by the failure of to-day, not unduly elated by the success of to-morrow.
Let me say that from now on as never before it is of the utmost importance that we should view the whole struggle in perspective, and seek to preserve a true sense of proportion. We must be prepared for the exten-tion of fighting over wide and wider areas, for a rapidity of movement at times, and in other places, not unlike what we have already witnessed in the Balkan campaign; and for an intensity and ferocity of warfare resulting in terrific destruction and in heavy losses of human life. Regardless of where the conflict may spread or how rapid may be the movement of forces, or how intensive and destructive the struggle may become in other parts of the world, we must keep ever in our mind the truth that so long as Britain stands no reverse will be decisive.
Britain is fighting with every ounce of her strength, every fibre of her being. We, in Canada, will strive more earnestly than ever to do our utmost on sea, in the air and on land; to work to produce, to manufacture,
Hyde Park Declaration

as we have never worked and produced or manufactured before. The news received yesterday of the landing in Britain of further contingents of Canadian troops, and airmen trained in the great commonwealth plan, should increase our confidence in the ability of Canada to help effectively in the decisive struggle. For the world it is renewed evidence of Canada's determination to spare neither her material resources nor her manhood in the battle for the world's freedom.



HYDE PARK DECLARATION-COORDINATION OF WAR PRODUCTION IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES-ACCELERATION OF AID TO BRITAIN

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like now to
proceed with the statement I wish to make in regard to the so-called Hyde Park declaration.
On March 12, I described the United States lease-lend act as one of the milestones of freedom, pointing the way to ultimate and certain victory. The lease-lend act settled the principle of United States assistance to Britain and the other democracies. It did not, however, solve all of the complex economic problems involved in the mobilization of the resources of the United States and Canada in order to render to Britain, in the speediest manner, the most effective assistance and support.
One of the reasons for my recent visit to the United States and my conferences with the president, was the urgent need for Canada to find an immediate solution of some of the problems involved in our war-time economic relations with the United States and with the United Kingdom. Before indicating the extent to which a solution has been found in the Hyde Park declaration, I shall outline briefly the problems themselves.
It will be readily recognized that we, in Canada, could not possibly have embarked upon our existing programme of war production if we had not lived side by side with the greatest industrial nation in the world. Without ready access to the industrial production of the United States, and particularly the machine tools and other specialized equipment so necessary in producing the complex instruments of modern war, Canada's war effort would have been seriously retarded. We would have been forced to embark upon the production of many articles which, because of limited demand, could only have been produced at high cost, and over a considerable period of time. Canada also lacks certain essential raw materials which must be procured from the United States. Since the outbreak of war, we have steadily expanded our purchases in the United States of these
Mr. Mackenzie King.]
essential tools, machines and materials which were required both for our own Canadian war effort, and in the production of war supplies for Britain.
Even in normal times Canada purchases much more from the United States than we sell to our neighbours. In peace time we were able to make up the deficit by converting into United States dollars the surplus sterling we received as a result of the sale of goods to Britain. But from the outset of war, this has been impossible. The government realized at once that Canada would be faced with a growing shortage of United States dollars to pay for our essential war purchases. To conserve the necessary exchange the foreign exchange control board was established on September 15, 1939. As the need has grown, increasingly stringent measures have been adapted to reduce the unessential demands for United States dollars in order to conserve sufficient funds to make our payments for essential weapons and supplies of war. These war purchases could not be reduced without a corresponding, or perhaps an even more serious, reduction in our war effort. Despite the drastic measures taken to conserve exchange, the lack of United States dollars was becoming, as one writer expressed it, one of the most serious "bottlenecks" in Canada's war effort.
The problem of exchange was the most urgent problem we faced in our economic relations with the United States. But we also realized a growing danger of possible unnecessary duplication of production facilities on the North American continent, with consequent undue pressure on scarce labour and materials if Canada and the United States each tried to make itself wholly self-sufficient in the field of war supplies. We felt it imperative to avoid such waste, which might well have had the most serious consequences. The experience of the Department of Munitions and Supply, and the studies of the permanent joint board on defence, both suggested the same solution. That solution was the coordination of the production of war materials of Canada and the United States. This was in reality a simple and logical extension, to the economic sphere, of the Ogdensburg agreement.
The practical experience of a year and a half of organizing and developing war production in Canada revealed that many of the essentials of war could be made in the comparatively smali quantities required by Canada only at a prohibitive cost. They could, however, be produced economically in the United States where the demand was large enough to result in the economies of large-

Hyde Park Declaration
scale production. On the other hand, the production of other weapons and materials had been developed in Canada to the point where output could be expanded more quickly, and probably more economically, than new production facilities could be organized in the United States. It was, therefore, only common sense to extend to the production of war materials the same reciprocity in which, at Ogdensburg in August last, our two countries had permanently placed their defence.
During my Easter visit, I had the opportunity of preliminary discussions with the Secretary of State, Mr. Cordell Hull, and the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Morgenthau, at Washington. I also, later, had an opportunity of conferring with Mr. Harry Hopkins, who has been entrusted with immediate direction and supervision of the measures to be taken under the Iease-lend act. On Sunday, April 20, I spent the day with the president at Hyde Park. At the close of the visit, I gave to the press a statement of the understanding which the president and I had reached regarding the problems I have mentioned. That statement it is proposed to call the Hyde Park declaration. The declaration reads:
"Among other important matters, the President and the Prime Minister discussed measures by which the most prompt and effective utilization might be made of the productive facilities of North America for the purposes both of local and hemisphere defence, and of the assistance which in addition to their own programme both Canada and the United States are rendering to Great Britain and the other democracies.
"It was agreed as a general principle that in mobilizing the resources of this continent each country shoidd provide the other with the defence articles which it is best able to produce, and, above all, produce quickly, and that production programmes should be coordinated to this end.
"While Canada has expanded its productive capacity manifold since the beginning of the war, there are still numerous defence articles which it must obtain in the United States, and purchases of this character by Canada will be even greater in the coming year than in the past. On the other hand, there is existing and potential capacity in Canada for the speedy production of certain kinds of munitions, strategic materials, aluminium and ships, which are urgently required by the United States for its own purposes.
"While exact estimates cannot yet be made, it is hoped that during the next twelve months Canada can supply the United States with between $200,000,000 and $300,000,000
worth of such defence articles. This sum is a small fraction of the total defence programme of the United States, but many of the articles to be provided are of vital importance. In addition, it is of great importance to the economic and financial relations between the two countries that payment by the United States for these supplies will materially assist Canada in meeting part of the cost of Canadian defence purchases in the United States.
"In so far as Canada's defence purchases in the United States consist of component parts to be used in equipment and munitions which Canada is producing for Great Britain, it was also agreed that Great Britain will obtain these parts under the lease-lend act and forward them to Canada for inclusion in the finished articles.
"The technical and financial details will be worked out as soon as possible in accordance with the general principles which have been agreed upon between the President and the Prime Minister."
The immediate purpose of the joint declaration is set out in its first paragraph, which might be described as the preamble. It states that the president and I discussed measures by which the most prompt and effective utilization might be made of the productive facilities of north America. Let me emphasize the two words: prompt and effective. They indicate that while recognizing the short-run necessity of speed, the vital importance of the time factor, we have not lost sight of the long-run necessity of the utmost efficiency in the organization of our war production.
The preamble goes on to recognize a twofold object in ensuring this prompt and effective utilization of the productive facilities of both countries. Not only does it envisage the extension of the scope of our joint defence arrangements to the economic sphere, but it recognizes the advantages of coordinating the use of the resources of both countries as a means of speeding up and increasing the volume of aid to Britain from this continent.
Let me state this in another way. The Hyde Park declaration is more than an extension of the Ogdensburg agreement for hemispheric defence. It is also a joint agreement between Canada and the United States for aid to Britain.
The basic principle underlying the agreement is set out in the second paragraph. It is a recognition of the fact that each country has special advantages for the production of certain war materials which are lacking in the other, and that both countries will benefit by each producing for the other, as well as for itself, the defence articles
Hyde Park Declaration

which it is best able to produce. It constitutes an acceptance of the economic interdependence of Canada and the United States as the foundation of the programme of war production in both countries. It represents the application to war production of the principle, recognized by Canada and the United States in the trade agreements of peace time, that the exchange of goods is of mutual benefit.
The third paragraph of the declaration is an amplification of the basic principle of the agreement. It recognizes, on the one hand, the vital necessity, for Canada's war programme, of obtaining certain defence articles from the United States; on the other hand, it indicates the possibilities of the speedy expansion of Canadian production of other defence articles, munitions and strategic materials. It is not without significance that aluminium and ships are specified by name in the declaration.
One question which may arise in connection with the Hyde Park declaration is: how can Canada spare to the United States any defence articles or munitions? Surely, it will be said, all our war production is needed either for Canada or for Britain 1 The answer is that we have advanced so far in the production of certain articles that expansion beyond British and Canadian needs can be readily accomplished. That is true of certain types of small arms, guns and ammunition, certain explosives and chemicals, certain armed fighting vehicles, aluminium and certain other metals and materials, merchant ships and naval vessels of the type we have been building, namely, corvettes and mine-sweepers. There are in addition certain types of clothing and textiles, certain leather, rubber and timber products, and certain secret devices in which Canada could probably make an important contribution, if these were desired. On the other hand, the production of engines for aircraft in Canada would be a slow process, costly both in time and in those types of skilled labour and specialized equipment of which no surplus exists. Moreover, this is a field in which not one but many types are needed to fill the varied demands and improvements in designs that are constantly occurring.
The fact that Canadian war production is so well organized in many fields as to enable Canada to meet speedily many United States requirements is a high tribute to Canadian industry and Canadian labour.
In the declaration itself a rough estimate was made of the value of the defence articles which it is hoped Canada will be in a position to supply to the United States in the next twelve months. The estimate is between

$200,000,000 and $300,000,000 worth. We may be able to do better than this, but obviously detailed negotiations will be necessary with the appropriate purchasing departments or agencies of the United States government, in order to determine how best they can use the surplus capacity, existing and potential, of Canadian industry. The immediate significance to Canada of the sale of these defence articles is, of course, the provision of the United States dollars to help us in paying for Canada's essential war purchases in the United States.
While these United States purchases will assist us very materially in meeting our deficit, they alone will not solve the whole problem. A further important contribution to its solution is contained in another paragraph of the declaration which provides that Canadian purchases in the United States of materials or components to be used in equipment and munitions being produced by Canada for Britain will be made available to Britain under the terms of the lease-lend act. Hitherto it has been necessary to Canada to find United States dollars to pay for these purchases on British account. These purchases have materially added to the growing deficit in our balance of trade with the United States.
The combination of United States purchases in Canada and the lease-lending of defence articles for Britain will go a very long way toward the solution of Canada's acute exchange problem. It is, however, not anticipated that the whole deficit will be covered in this way. Essential Canadian purchases in the United States will still exceed United States purchases in Canada. There would, therefore, appear to be little prospect of relaxing any of the existing foreign exchange conservation restrictions without causing a new deficit which would imperil Canada's war effort.
The final paragraph of the declaration provides for the working out of the technical and financial details as soon as possible in accordance with the general principles set out in the declaration itself. Officials of the two governments are at present engaged upon the task of working out these details. Until that task is completed it will not be possible to say exactly what Canada will supply the United States or what the United States will supply Canada. I have already indicated certain articles which it is anticipated will be included in the list to be supplied by Canada.
Hon. members will, I am sure, be more interested in the broad significance of the Hyde Park declaration than in its technical aspects.

Hyde Park Declaration
Its most immediate significance is that, through the coordination of war production in both countries, it will result in the speeding up of aid to Britain by the United States and Canada. As a result of the better integration of North American industry, the proposed arrangement will, through increasing total production, have the further effect of increasing the total volume of aid to Britain. It will have a corresponding effect upon Canada's war effort. Full utilization of the production facilities we have built up, and specialization on those things which we are best fitted to produce, will increase both our national income and our own armed strength, as well as increasing our capacity to aid Britain.
As I have already said, the agreement will go a long way towards the solution of the exchange problem and, in this way, will remove one of the financial obstacles to the maximum war production programme of Canada and the United States. We, in Canada, have reason to be gratified at the understanding shown by the president and by the secretary of the treasury, of Canada's difficult exchange problem. We may, I am sure, feel an equal confidence that in the working out of the detailed technical and financial arrangements, Canadian officials will find the same generous measure of understanding and the same spirit of cooperation.
I have spoken thus far of the immediate significance of the declaration, of the effect it will have in speeding up aid to Britain in the critical months ahead, and of its importance in assisting us to meet our exchange problem. But beyond its immediate significance the Hyde Park declaration will have a permanent significance in the relations between Canada and the United States. It involves nothing less than a common plan of the economic defence of the western hemisphere. When we pause to reflect upon the consequences, in Europe, of the failure of the peace-loving nations to plan in concert their common defence, while yet there was time, we gain a new appreciation of the significance for the future of both Canada and the United States of the Ogdensburg agreement and of this new declaration which might well be called the economic corollary of Ogdensburg.
For Canada, the significance of the Hyde Park declaration may be summarized briefly as follows: first, it will help both Canada and the United States to provide maximum aid to Britain and to all the defenders of democracy; second, it will increase the effectiveness of Canada's direct war effort; and finally, through the increased industrial efficiency which will result, it will increase our own security and the security of north America.
It is appropriate at this point to emphasize the fact that, while the agreement will increase the effectiveness of our war effort and our assistance to Britain, the self-imposed burden upon the Canadian people will nevertheless remain as great as ever. The sacrifices which we are called upon to make will not be reduced by the Hyde Park declaration, but the results achieved by our sacrifices will, we believe, be considerably greater. At the same time, the risks of delays and breakdowns will be materially' reduced. The utmost effort of the Canadian people is more than ever needed in the present phase of this terrible struggle; but in making that effort we shall have, as the result of the agreement, the added satisfaction of knowing that we are making a greater contribution than otherwise would be possible to the cause of freedom.
In referring to the passage of the lease-lend act, I expressed in this house the view that "Canada's example, as a nation of the new world, actively participating to the utmost limit in the present struggle, has also had its influence in arousing the people of the United States to their present realization that freedom itself is at stake in this war."
Unhesitatingly, to-day, I would go one step farther and would say that the example given by Canada has, I believe, aroused the admiration of our neighbours and made them ready to accept this new partnership.
Last November, I said to hon. members of this house that the link forged by the Ogdensburg agreement was no temporary axis, formed by nations whose common tie was a mutual desire for the destruction of their neighbours. The Hyde Park declaration is, I believe, a further convincing demonstration that Canada and the United States are indeed laying the enduring foundations of a new world order, an order based on international understanding, on mutual aid, on friendship and good will.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we have all listened with the utmost interest to the long and comprehensive statement which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has just made. To me it divides itself naturally into three parts. The first was a historical narrative, with which I think most of us will be in agreement. Even if I were able, I would not attempt at this time to touch upon that. What admiration we have had for that noble little band of Grecian soldiers who have withstood the onslaught of the terrible Hunt What admiration we have had for that gallant band, fewer in number than any of us thought or anticipated, who stood so long side by side with the soldiers and compatriots from the
Hyde Park Declaration

sister dominions at the pass of Thermopylae and other historic places! Even the most stout-hearted and optimistic among us could not have foreseen any other result than that which has ensued. The only regret I have is that as yet there is no news of the safety of the British expeditionary force in Greece. Let us all humbly pray that they may survive what must be a most tragic occasion.
With respect to the battle of the Atlantic, the second division of the address of the Prime Minister, I think that those of us who listened yesterday to Mr. Churchill and who heard the remarks of the Prime Minister to-day will take heart for the future. A little later on I intend to refer to this matter again. In passing, I should like to refer to what is of particular importance to us as Canadians, namely, the Hyde Park declaration.
I am sure the whole nation read with great interest-for myself may I say that it was with great satisfaction-the joint statement issued by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada on Monday, April 21. To me that declaration, taken in connection with the aid-to-Britain measures passed by the congress of the United States, meant the closing of the ranks of the democratic nations to meet a common peril. Judged by that standard, it shows the strength of democratic solidarity, which is something for which we ought to be devoutly thankful.
To me it means the mobilization of the wartime resources of the north American continent in the cause of freedom. To Canada particularly it will mean the easing of the exchange situation as between the two nations and the extension of the provisions of the lease-lend act to munitions and to war equipment which Canada is now producing and will hereafter produce for Great Britain and which involve the purchase of materials in the United States. Without question, it will go a long way toward solving what must be an acute problem in international finance.
If Canada is able to sell to the United States during the coming year $300,000,000 in munitions, war equipment and raw materials, our deficit in United States exchange will at least be partly overcome. In any event this will ease the steady drain upon our United States dollar resources. In particular it will relieve Canada of the necessity of providing United States dollars for financing, in part, British orders in Canada which are based upon United States production, such as aeroplane engines. Heretofore we have been obliged to find not only the necessary Canadian dollars but the United States exchange as well. This is indeed important assistance and will go a substantial distance toward maintaining unim-

paired the independent financial position of Canada.
As the Prime Minister indicated in the course of his remarks, there would appear to be at least two declarations of principle, if not three. The first declaration which he has read is easily understood. It is agreed in principle that in mobilizing the resources of this north American continent each country shall provide the other with the defence articles which it is best able to produce and produce quickly, and that production programmes should be coordinated to this end.
I do suggest to the Prime Minister that he should elaborate this principle and state to the house and the country concretely just what defence articles it has been decided that Canada is best able to produce and produce quickly and which would be of advantage to the United States.
The second declaration, with respect to the expansion of existing capacity, is not quite so clear. The statement proceeds with the declaration that "there is existing and potential capacity in Canada for the speedy production of certain kinds of munitions, strategic materials, aluminum and ships, which are urgently required by the United States for its own purposes." In my view, this requires elaboration in order that we may properly comprehend its import, and I invite the Prime Minister to clarify that statement. Does it mean that we are to establish new plants in Canada? If so, are they to be Canadian plants, or are they to be plants established here as branches of United States factories? This portion of the position, I think, should be clarified as speedily as possible.
The country has welcomed the announcement that appropriate steps will be taken to acquaint the people of the United States with the nature and extent of Canada's war effort. May I express the hope that this will be done and done aggressively, so that there may be no misunderstanding of our position.
Recently the Prime Minister delivered an address which was intended to show the nature and extent of the effort of the Canadian people in their determination to carry on an all-out effort. By and large, I think that speech of the Prime Minister should have a good effect, but I am wondering if it was properly put over to the people of the United States. Recently, the lieutenant governor of the great province of Ontario visited New England. I think more of our outstanding citizens should be encouraged to go down there and address the American public.
I do think that we should have an aggressive campaign to inform the people of the United States as to what Canada is attempting to

Hyde Park Declaration
do in connection with this war. In this connection, may I express the hope that early action will be taken to do away with restrictions on travel between the two countries? I do not mean by this purely pleasure travel, but normal travel on the part of citizens of both countries so that the average citizen in each country may make known to his friends in the other the common determination of our democracies.
Within the past few days, public opinion, both in Canada and in Great Britain, has been calling for an empire conference with regard to the war.
A press cable from London intimated that the British government hoped for a joint conference. It has been reported that at Mr. Churchill's request the Prime Minister of Australia agreed to prolong his stay in England and that the Prime Minister of New Zealand was on his way to Britain. A further dispatch indicates that empire representatives would probably be invited to sit in with the British cabinet "to give precise information on what the dominions might be able to contribute to any particular move and to advise on both offensive and defensive measures."
So far as I am aware, it has not been indicated that any formal invitation has been issued for such important consultations, but if it is the considered opinion in England and in the dominions that such consultations should be held, with the supreme objective of facilitating swift action, then undoubtedly Canada should be represented by the Prime Minister. The chief dominion should, without question, take a foremost part in any such conferences.
Some weeks ago I indicated that in my view close personal consultation was desirable, but the Prime Minister was quick-too quick, in the view of many people-to rebut the suggestion. He then indicated that his duty was here in Canada-that the transatlantic telephone and communication via the high commissioner's office was all-sufficient. That would no doubt be true if events were normal, but they are not normal. Information may be received and given over a triangular route of this character, but true consultation, understanding, and effective advice can be given only around the conference table.
There must be many urgent problems to discuss. If it was considered necessary for the Prime Minister to visit the President of the United States, and I believe it was wholly desirable, then how equally vital it must be for the Prime Minister to confer with Mr. Churchill. Telephone and telegraphic communications were not good enough in the 14873-145
one case, and they are not good enough in the other.
Nothing but good could come of such a visit. How heartening to the hard-pressed British people to know at first hand that Canada is determined upon an all-out war effort! Then there are our Canadian forces in Britain, straining at the leash to go into action. How reassuring to them to know from the lips of the Prime Minister that Canada is determined to play a major role in defence of the empire and in destroying the common enemy! And how important at this juncture, when the armed forces of the other dominions are in the heart of the conflict, and our troops are not.
I suggest to the Prime Minister that there is need now for all empire statesmen to gather in a round table conference and decide what is to be the future course of action for all the British peoples. Furthermore, I suggest that it is the duty of the Prime Minister to lead the way for such a conference; as the senior dominion, Canada can well do this. Excuses will not do. They only add to the suspicion entertained in many quarters of the bona fides of our professions for an all-out war effort. Positive action on this point would allay such suspicions.
Really, I do not understand why the Prime Minister should either hesitate or refuse. Public opinion will support him if he goes. If he refuses, public opinion will not be satisfied.
Putting the matter in another light, what an invaluable gesture it would be to the people of Britain and to their morale, if the Prime Minister were to go to Britain and tell the people there that the senior dominion was behind them to the utmost of our abilities, and what an aid to national unity here in Canada!
Finally, I assert that the Prime Minister cannot justifiably absent himself from such a conference-and for this reason: The theatre of war is over there. The real centre of all war activity is over there. Our own first defence line is over there. All the most momentous decisions must be made over there. There and there only the need for and distribution of the troops and other war resources for the successful conduct of the war may be discussed. That, undoubtedly, is the reason why the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), with the chief of staff and other high officers, went to Britain last autumn. There and there only future successful action may be discussed and agreed upon.
Let the Prime Minister take the lead in calling for such a conference. If he does, all

Hyde Park Declaration

Canada will applaud him. If he does not, there will be wonder and dismay. Such action on his part would indicate to Hitler in no uncertain terms Canada's resolution and determination to continue the struggle for freedom to the end.
Yesterday we all listened to- Mr. Churchill's address. He declared that the key to victory lay in the winning of the battle of the Atlantic. I was cheered by his prophecy that the eventual defeat of Hitler and Mussolini was certain, in view of the declared determination of the British and American democracies; and that nothing that is happening now is comparable in gravity with the dangers through which we passed last year. Then he added:
Nothing which can happen in the east is comparable with what is happening in the west.
And in closing he quoted two verses from Arthur Hugh Clough's poem "Say Not the Struggle Naught Availeth"-thoughts, as Mr. Churchill said, "which seem apt and precious to our thoughts to-night." May I repeat them:
For while the tired waves, vainly breaking, Seem here no painful inch to gain,
Far back, through creeks and inlets making, Comes, silent, flooding in, the main.
And not by eastern windows only,
When daylight comes, comes in the light;
In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly!
But westward, look, the land is bright!
Mr. Churchill and the people of Britain are looking to the west, to Canada and the United States. Shall we fail them? Never! Never! That is the answering cry of Canada. That, I am sure, will be the answering cry of the great President of the United States. That will be the answering cry of the people of the United States.
Already things are moving rapidly over there. The Atlantic patrol is on duty, releasing Britain's hard pressed navy and air patrol for more effective service nearer Britain. That is most heartening, and we as Canadians, in common with our kith and kin, tender our heartfelt thanks.
More will follow. "Give us the tools and we will finish the job," declared Mr. Churchill on February 9 last. Public opinion in the United States rapidly crystallizing will see to it that the tools are delivered.
And what of Canada?
Are we contributing to the maximum of our capacity? I do believe that with repect to such implements and equipment as we can readily produce we are reaching a high state of production, which will bring increasing aid and support.
Shortly the 1941 victory loan will be launched. Then we shall have to ask ourselves, each one of us, searchingly, truthfully, "What is it worth to be a free man in a free land?" I have no doubt of the answer. This loan cannot and will not fail.
To-morrow we are to have the budget and we shall know the measure of the additional taxation which we shall have to bear. We shall not flinch. In terms of money and material things Canadians will play a man's part. We shall thus show to the dictators Canada's determination to pay for freedom as well as fight for it.
But have we mobilized our man-power in sufficient numbers to meet the needs of empire? On April 8, both in his statement to the house and in his radio address, the Minister of National Defence stated, "Man-power and morale are paramount factors in this war."
Are we meeting this problem of man-power realistically? What success has attended the recruiting campaign? In my view it has been a failure: 5,000 to 6,000 men were called for, allotments were made to each military district. According to press reports only one military district has measured up to its allotment and produced its quota. The method of recruiting from the non-active army has not measured up to requirement and we should have an explanation from the minister.
I am supported in this view by the fact that as late as Saturday last the minister held a hurried press conference in which he announced that graduates from the four months' training camps will not be released at the end of the period of training but will go right into coast defence and internal security units instead of being demobilized as was originally intended. This is ample proof of failure to attain the objective aimed at in April. The men in the active army thus replaced will be available for overseas service. That is encouraging, but in my view it is not good enough.
Attempts have been made to have men attached to the militia units join up voluntarily for overseas service. Methods approaching compulsion and duress were used. Men were sent a questionnaire. They were requested to say whether or not they would join the active army. Reply was compulsory and if in the negative, reasons were to be given. The men were instructed to parade before their commanding officer and answer, and if it were "no," then to give their reasons for saying "no." Surely this is approaching compulsion. Why will not the government meet the situation realistically? Why not

Hyde Park Declaration
approach the situation directly through the front door, rather than by the back door or indirect method?
The reason why the men in the non-active army units do not come forward is that under the mobilization act the trainees are not required to serve overseas, and men in the non-active army are asking, "Why should we go when the government said those training do not have to go?"
Let us be honest each with the other. Let us be realistic when such a grave situation is confronting us. Let us face it fairly and frankly and do our duty in the face of a common peril.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I know, Mr. Speaker, that the observations of the leader of the opposition are not debatable, but he has made one or two personal references with respect to which, perhaps, it might be well that I should express appreciation and state my views.
May I first of all thank my hon. friend for the cordial manner in which he joined me in respect of what was said in the statement which I made to the house regarding the existing situation. It must be apparent, from the words of the leader of the opposition and myself, that each of us holds the same view of the gravity of the situation in the world at the present time, and the same view with respect to the duty of Canada and the obligation and desire of Canadian citizens to play their full part in the endeavour to meet that situation.
I wish to thank my hon. friend for his references to what I said respecting the Hyde Park declaration. I am pleased indeed to know that the provisions of the declaration commend themselves so strongly to him. I believed they would. I hope that in all parts of the house there will be a realization that the matters there set forth are of a character upon which all can agree. While there may be shades of differing opinion touching certain aspects anyone who understands the economic problem with which the country is faced in its war effort will realize, I believe, that what was accomplished by conference during the Easter season will be helpful in meeting a very difficult situation.
My hon. friend has referred to the question of imperial councils. He said there seems to be strong public opinion that I should go to England to attend a conference of Prime Ministers, and he adds that this opinion has found expression in the press. I have read the press rather carefully. I have seen one or two communications sent anonymously to this side with regard to some of the matters to which my hon. friend has referred, but as
yet I have not received any official communication which would lend colour to the view that Mr. Churchill or the British government desires a conference in England at the present time of Prime Ministers from different parts of the empire. Since the war commenced the matter has been a subject of consideration and of communications between the British government and the governments of different parts of the empire, and up to the present time it has been the general consensus of view that it would not be advisable to bring to London the Prime Ministers of the several dominions for a conference there.
I think I answer the question fully when I say that no invitation lias been extended? from the British government up to the present time. When extended, if one is, it will be most carefully considered, and, I need hardly say, considered in the light of the full responsibility which I have in the matter not only as the one immediately concerned as Prime Minister, but of the full responsibility of Canada to the great war effort of the British empire.
Only recently in the House of Lords, in the last few weeks, in fact, there was a debate on this very question. Lord Elibank brought up the question in the Lords of the advisability of a conference of Prime Ministers. Lord Cranbourne, Secretary of State for the Dominions, speaking for the government stated at the time-the record is there-that it was not thought advisable by the British government, to call a conference at the present time.
May I say that I fail to understand fully-just what are the grounds on which eertaim people are so anxious to have me out of Canada at the present time. I know what the criticism will be the minute I leave: that if I had understood my duty aright I would have-stayed in my own dominion at this time,, seeing to affairs here. My hon. friend has referred to the battle of the Atlantic. May I say to him that I think I can best serve this country and help this country to play its part in the battle of the Atlantic by being in this parliament and speaking to its members, and in this country and speaking to its people as-occasion may arise. I am in communication-with the British government every day, in communication with the Secretary of State for the Dominions, in communication with the Prime Minister of Great Britain-not with the-Prime Minister every day, but whenever he wishes to communicate with me or I desire to-communicate with him. I am also in communication with the British government through our high commissioner in Great Britain and through the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom who is resident in this city-
Hyde Park Declaration

There is not a day passes that many communications do not go back and forth between some of the different persons I have mentioned and myself.
There is this advantage about my being in Canada, in the consideration of all matters, that I can give an immediate reply to the British government on any matter of concern by being where I can immediately consult with my colleagues in the government. We have, as hon. members know, a war committee which meets continuously, frequently almost every day; there matters are discussed of immediate and vital concern, decisions are reached and given without any delay whatever. If larger questions of policy arise which require the consideration of the entire cabinet, members of the entire cabinet are here to be consulted. The minute I cross the ocean and am obliged to give views to the British government on matters of policy, and to make decisions, that moment I shall no longer be in a position to say I am speaking with full authority, and that I am sure that the views I am giving are those of my colleagues in this country. I can be much more sure of their views when I am in this country than if I ventured to express an opinion myself at some round-table conference in the old country. In matters affecting Canada at a time of war, the views of one member .of the government should not be permitted to supersede those of the entire cabinet.
I may say to my hon. friend that I appreciate very much the compliment he has paid me in saying that my judgment would be of such great value at the conference table in London, and my opinion would be so helpful to all parties concerned, if I were there. I just wish he would extend to me on the floor of this parliament the same degree of confidence with respect to my judgment and opinions. In reference to what the leader of the opposition has said about the encouragement that would be given the British public by my appearing in London or other parts of Great Britain and making speeches there on Canada's war effort, may I ask if it would be possible for me in any words I could utter abroad to give to the people of Britain as convincing an assurance of what Canada is prepared to do and is doing as I have given by speaking on Canada's war effort as I have to-day in this House of Commons with the approval of hon. members from every part of Canada? I am, I hope, fully conscious of my responsibility at this time. If I believed that as Prime Minister of Canada I could render a greater service to Canada and the empire in this war by being in London, than I can by 'being in my own country and in its parliament at a time when it is most necessary 
to keep the country united and its war effort promoted as rapidly and fully as possible, I would not wait to be invited to cross to London; I would send word myself to the Prime Minister of Great Britain that I believed I could render a greater service in London than in Canada. But up to the present time I have felt, and I feel very strongly, that with situations as they arise and change from day to day, and above all, enjoying to the extent I happily do the confidence of the president and members of the government of the great country to the south, which is more and more actively aiding Britain, and ourselves-I say the more I consider the matter, the more I feel that my opportunity of greatest service for the present, at least, is in Canada, doing all that it is possible for me to do here and on this side of the Atlantic.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before we leave this part of the proceedings may I ask the Prime Minister if the declarations given in the Hyde Park interview are all the commitments? I have been disturbed by reading an article in the Christian Science Monitor of last Thursday, which, if true,-and I do not suggest that the report is true; I do not know-indicates that the report given out by the President and the Prime Minister following the Hyde Park conference does not include the whole arrangement, but that it goes far beyond that announcement.
Perhaps the Prime Minister has not seen the newspaper report to which I refer, but it is a very significant statement. I should like to know whether there is any basis for it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am very grateful to my hon. friend for bringing up this question. I had not seen the report in the Christian Science Monitor, but I have seen one or two communications or articles which appeared in some of our own newspapers, which probably had their inspiration in the source my hon. friend has just mentioned, and which suggested that there were other matters that were understood and which really in some way are related to this declaration. May I say at once that any thought of anything of the kind I should regard as a reflection upon my own integrity and also upon the integrity of the President of the United States. There is nothing with respect to the Hyde Park declaration in the way of an understanding with respect to anything except what appears within the compass of that declaration itself. There were no reservations, no conditions, no assumptions, no undertakings, express or implied, of any kind. The

Hyde Park Declaration
declaration speaks for itself, and there is nothing that does not appear on the surface of it.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I know that what my hon. friend has said is not debatable. I intended at some time to say a few words regarding it-I think it was the last subject I discussed before the house adjourned. But since my hon. friend has said what-he has, perhaps I might be permitted to remove at least some misapprehension which he seems to have regarding the situation and regarding the matter of recruiting and man-power.
Let me say to him and to the house that in this matter of man-power we have at the present time practically 70,000 men outside of Canada and in Canada about 118,000 for overseas service. And those were from voluntary enlistments, aggregating almost 200,000 men.
My hon. friend mentioned a recruiting campaign. He will realize that as yet in Canada during this war there never has been put on a recruiting compaign, so-called. Last July I spoke to the people of Canada and told them that we needed 40,000 men, and the 40,000 men came forward within two months without any recruiting campaign of any kind. From time to time quotas were asked for to supply wastage, and I think up to October or November those quotas were supplied. But we stopped asking for men in any large numbers, and I know my hon. friend and some other hon. gentlemen in this house felt that it was a mistake to do so. We stopped asking for large numbers of men because-this is a matter of public knowledge now, I think, so that there is no reason for not mentioning it-there were not ships to take men overseas, and also because there were practically no war casualties. We did not start asking for men in any large numbers until, I think, February. At that time we sent out a quota to the districts, a comparatively small quota in order to take care of wastage-that is to say, men who had been discharged for medical reasons or because they were not regarded as likely to make efficient soldiers.
Parallel with the recruiting of those reinforcements, however, there was the filling up of new units. Units were gradually being built up in order to fulfil the commitments that we had made when I was overseas; that is, the commitment with regard to the third division, the commitment with regard to the army tank brigade, the commitment with regard to the fourth division, and the commitment with regard to the armoured division. Those units were gradually built up. There was very little difficulty about that, because
the units were built up by the system of mobilizing the militia units. It is true that not one hundred per cent of the personnel in the militia units volunteered for overseas service, but generally speaking the units were filled up fairly quickly. So that on the one hand the quota was being gone on with for the purpose of reinforcements, and on the other hand the filling up of these units was being gone on with by means of the reserve units. The February quota was nearly filled,
I think, but the March quota was not filled; as a matter of fact that quota was increased somewhat. There seemed to be some tightness in the matter of recruiting, and we indicated to the reserve units that we thought those units in the various districts ought to regard as their first responsibility the provision of reinforcements for overseas service. Then the situation arose to which my hon. friend has referred.
I do not know to what particular reserve unit the man belonged to whom he was speaking, but it was reported to us by the reserve units that they found difficulty in getting their men to volunteer for overseas service. Why? Not because of the fact that there was not compulsory mobilization for overseas service, but because of the fact that the men who had enlisted in the reserve units generally speaking were of the type who could not immediately go overseas, who were not medically fit to go overseas', who had enlisted for the purpose of being ready to do their bit in case of an emergency, occupying a place somewhat similar to that occupied by the home guard in England; or they were business men who had certain responsibilities in connection with their work and who felt that the time had not come for them to go. That is to say, they were not the rank and file of ordinary young men in these reserve units; many of their men regarded themselves as more or less fulfilling the role taken in England by the home guard. That is by no means true in all cases; some very striking instances of reserve units supplying reinforcements come to my mind, which I need not mention this afternoon. Generally speaking, however, that was the attitude; and' in an endeavour to meet their obligation the reserve units were going onto the streets and asking men directly to come in and enlist, that is, men who had not been members of the reserve units at all. The result was that we found these quotas were not being completely filled.
I think I indicated to the house that there was a shortage in the March quota, but it must be remembered that this quota was primarily for the purpose of providing the normal requirements in regard to reinforcements from the point of view of wastage'.
Hyde Park Declaration

But something else occurred to increase the *quota, as I explained to the house before the adjournment. That something else was this: our units overseas, and particularly the artillery units, the signal units, the army service 'Corps units and the ordnance units, to mention four-not the infantry-had their establishment changed. That is to say, it was thought that larger numbers should be on the establishment of these units. The British had changed their establishment, and the result was that the Canadian war establishment was [DOT]changed similarly, which meant that men in the holding units in England, maintained for the purpose of reinforcements, were used to Build up these establishments. Remember, Mr. :Speaker, that right along we have had overseas in the holding units three months' reinforcements for these various units, and in 'Canada we have had a certain proportion of reinforcements as well, a certain percentage having regard to each arm of the service, that percentage being higher in regard to one arm than in regard to another because the casualties are likely to be higher. Men were taken from these holding units in order to increase the establishment, which meant that the monthly quota became larger. The March quota was not completely filled, and the deficiency in that monthly quota had to be added to the next monthly quota, which meant that this was increased to that extent, plus the increase which came about because of the fact that we had to provide other men to take the places of those who had been taken from the holding units.
There was no recruiting campaign of any kind; this recruiting was being done through the districts, but even at that fifty per cent more men, in numbers, were enlisted in the March quota, the one which was being filled when the house adjourned, than were enlisted >in -the first quota. The deficiency was due to the fact that the quota itself had been Increased, though more men actually enlisted *voluntarily for the third quota than for the first one.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was the third quota filled?


James Layton Ralston: No, it was not; that is what I am saying. Then we felt that this was the situation which ought to be dealt with: we got in touch with the reserve units and with the recruiting officers in the various districts and said, "How about this? Are the reserve units going to be able to supply these [DOT]men?" Some units were able to supply one 'hundred per cent of the men they were asked to supply. Others were not able to do so; so
{Mr. Ralston.]
we decided that if the reserve units by themselves could not supply the numbers wanted the thing to do was to put on a recruiting campaign, in the sense of indicating to the people of Canada generally that men were needed. In that same connection we felt, as I intimated to the press the other day, that in addition to the monthly quota we might just as well ask the public for the additional twenty thousand men who would be required to fill up the Canadian units and the formations which eventually would go overseas. As I have said many of these 20,000 would be supplied by mobilizing reserve units. Included in that number would be men required to replace others who had been boarded out of the third division. So, as I indicated to the press the other day, between twenty and thirty thousand men will be required altogether during May and June and possibly July. After that there will be a certain quota each month in order to keep up the reinforcements. And when I mention the need for reinforcements hon. gentlemen will realize that we are not basing our requirements in that connection on actual casualties but on the only standard we can use; that is, what the British consider a safe and normal reserve to provide for the purpose of reinforcements.
So at the present time what we are doing is this: we are going on with a recruiting campaign to indicate to the public of Canada that we will need from twenty to thirty thousand men in the next month or two, or perhaps the next three months; probably something over 30,000 men altogether. Most of those men will be, I hope, comparatively easy to get, because many of them will be men who will be coming as whole units, as part of some of these formations which are being formed, to go overseas. Of course the difficulty is to get reinforcements for the odd unit-that is to say, to get a man to come to some unit he does not know. That is always the difficulty with reinforcements. We have had much difficulty in the past, and with a proper effort we should not have a great deal of difficulty in the future in that regard. That is the situation with respect to recruiting.
So, do not let my hon. friend think that a recruiting campaign has been put on and that it has failed, because no such thing has happened at all. We shall tell the people of Canada what is to be done. We are going to put on the necessary campaign in order to inform them. We will ask, as a matter of fact, for citizens' committees in each province. We shall probably make allotments to each province, and ask that citizens' committees

British Columbia Telephone Company
be set up, and ask them to help get these men for the armed forces of Canada. I little doubt that the men will be provided. And when my hon. friend speaks of going by the back door instead of by the front door, I say to him that he might as well tell the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) that he ought not to go by the back door and form loan committees throughout Canada to ask for loans, when he asks the people to lend their money to Canada. He might as well say that the Minister of Finance ought to go by the front door and put a compulsory levy on everybody in Canada, requiring each to subscribe a definite amount to its war loan, regardless of whether they want to or not.
There is no occasion for anybody to feel jittery with regard to the man-power situation. As I said the other day to the press, this matter ebbs and flows. We have been concerned vitally with material. We have been wondering where the material would come from. It is coming. I have been down in the east, in various training camps throughout the eastern part of the dominion, and I know it is coming. Now there is need to give attention to the question of men, not so much for units already formed, but for the formation of new and additional units, and for the keeping up of reinforcements. That is what is being done at the present time.
I want to ask this house and my hon. friend-I want to ask hon. members to give us help in connection with this matter. It is drab; it is unspectacular. It is not the same as passing a resolution, laying down a policy, or anything like that. But I would ask that hon. members give the necessary help from the point of view of indicating to the men that the time has come when they are needed. The fact is that they are needed in artillery, ordnance, and signal units perhaps considerably more than in infantry units.
Speaking of infantry, I am thinking of a unit, one which in fact my hon. friend must know. I found that that unit had about two hundred men under training as reinforcements in Canada. I am sure it has two hundred to two hundred and fifty men as reinforcements overseas. I was informed on the training ground that they had about two hundred more available in the depot. That is six hundred men for reinforcement of a unit which have not yet been required. So that there are cases where infantry units have surplus requirements. Artillery and other units took some of them, when they increased their establishments in addition to taking men who had been held as reinforcements for these particular units.
In order that we may help in that respect, in order that we may make no greater drain
on the man-power of Canada than was necessary, in order that industry might not be unduly disturbed I stated to the press the policy that as the men who are trained for four months leave their training they will be detailed to the units which are doing coastal defence duty in Canada, thereby enabling the men in the coastal defence units in Canada to go overseas, to join overseas units. In addition to that, if we. find it necessary, the men who have been enlisted for overseas service, and have been posted to one arm of the service, may probably be posted to some other arm where they are needed.
I feel it is part of the day's work of the Department of National Defence to get these men. It is part of the day's work to get these men in, have them realize their duty and realize the need. And I have little doubt that we will be successful, and that the number of men required will be obtained.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Will the men who trained for thirty days be included?


James Layton Ralston: No policy has been laid down with regard to the thirty-day men, as yet. The men who have been trained for thirty days have not been trained sufficiently to take part in coastal defence.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: There seemed to be some misunderstanding in that connection.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. G. McGEER (Vancouver-Burrard) moved the first reading of Bill No. 27 (from the senate) respecting the British Columbia Telephone Company.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Explain.


Mr. McGEER:: This is a bill to amend the charter of the British Columbia Telephone company, which was granted in 1916. At thac time the company, having a dominion charter, brought together practically all the telephone operations of the province, with the exception of the Okanagan valley. At that time there were some 39,000 telephone services in the province. A capital of $10,000,000 was provided in the twenty-five year interval, the company having absorbed all available capital. The services which were temporarily delayed during the depression have now recovered and a demand is being created in the province for new services at the rate of about 5,000 to
6,000	a year. The cost of the installation of such services runs from $1,000,000 to $1,250,000 a year.
The situation is that if the company is to meet the demands for new services it must have the power to increase its existing capital.
229S

British Columbia Telephone Company
The bill provides that the company shall have the power to apply from time to time to the board of transport commissioners for the right to issue new capital. Under its present powers this board has the right to set the terms, the amount and the conditions under which such issue may be put forth, should it be authorized. The public institutions primarily connected with this service are the cities and municipalities of the province, particularly the city of Vancouver. The matter has been placed before the city council of Vancouver and before the union of municipalities of the province of British Columbia. With the stipulation that they will have the right to be heard when any application is made to the board of transport commissioners for an increase in the capital issued, no objection has been raised to the amendment proposed. The matter has come before the finance department and the department of taxation, and no objection has been raised in these quarters provided they are given the right to appear before the board.
I should like to make it clear that this amendment does not authorize an increase in the company's capital by another $10,000,000; it merely authorizes the company to make application from time to time to the board of transport commissioners as new capital issues are required to sustain the progress of its service.
There are some other minor changes to be made. The increase in the board of directors from nine to eleven is proportionate to the increase in the company's business. There is an amendment providing for the redemption of the preferred shares. The fact is that the preferred shares issued already by the company were issued in the terms of a contract which is redeemable. Technically the powers which the company enjoys under its present charter do not permit them to carry out the terms of that contract.
There is a provision to permit the company to enter certain realms of modern communication activities. The operations of this company in British Columbia are provincewide. They supply to the radio services the communications which exist for broadcasting between communities. In addition the company has kept abreast of the times and has supplied the Pacific coast of British Columbia with a radiotelephone service. This is used not only by the logging and tugboat industries, but in a great many other places where it is not possible to lay a telephone line.
I had understood the first reading of this bill would go through automatically and that an explanation could be given on its second reading. I was not prepared to-day to do

more than recall what memory I had of the matter. If there are any other questions to be asked I shall be glad to answer them.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave under standing order 31 to move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), the adjournment of the house to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, to call the attention of the house and the government to the critical situation caused by the recent cessation of work in the steel industry which must very seriously affect our war effort.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I rise to a point of order. May I say to my hon. friend that I have no desire to prevent a discussion at the appropriate time of the question which he has raised, but I think the present moment is most inappropriate. I feel strongly that with respect to every question of the character raised we should consider it in the light of the larger situation which exists at the present time. My hon. friend has made reference to the fact that some particular strike must affect our war effort. My understanding is that he refers to a strike which took place this morning. If I am correctly informed, at the present time the Department of Labour is engaged in an effort to mediate this particular dispute; to settle it, if possible, by conciliation. I fear the discussion of the question in parliament at this time might materially prejudice the efforts of the department to have the matter settled as speedily as possible by amicable means.
I feel equally that to bring a particular strike in the steel industry to the attention of parliament at this moment in the manner in which my hon. friend is doing it, namely, as a matter of extreme urgency, is to give to the dispute a significance in the eyes of the enemy which I do not think it ought to be permitted to assume. I do not believe it is in the public interest that the dispute should be discussed here at this time. There will be opportunities, upon going into supply or upon other occasions, when my hon. friend can take up the matter. I submit that having primary regard to our war effort it is not advisable to precipitate a debate in this house at this moment on this particular question, and that my hon. friend should not press his motion

Labour Conditions-Hamilton
as being of such urgency as to require the adjournment of the house to discuss what he has in mind.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask a question before the hon. member replies? The hon. gentleman was good enough to send me a copy of his motion, and in it I read these words:
... to call the attention of the house and the government to the critical situation caused by the recent cessation of work in the steel industry.
May I ask the hon. member if that is a statement of fact? If it is, I think he is entitled at least to have his motion heard and perhaps discussed. But one swallow does not make a summer. Is there just one strike? If so, I suggest that the statement made in the motion is not based on fact. I am asking for information.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the house that I would not raise this question did I not deem it to be of the most urgent public importance and meriting immediate discussion by the house. The matters herein concerned I have sought to draw to the attention of the government ever since the session began, both last summer and last fall. This is not a solitary instance. My hon. friends are referring to the situation in Hamilton. But there has been a strike in a steel industry in Montreal since last Wednesday, and the situation is likely to spread right across Canada. Wherever there is a steel industry the workers will be in sympathy with those who are now on strike. That is why I say it is a matter of urgent importance to the house. Parliament should have knowledge of the position which employers in this country are taking. If the government refuses to afford this opportunity for discussion, the responsibility must rest upon the government.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: If my hon. friend is right and this condition has existed since last summer, I do not see how he can say it is urgent.


Angus MacInnis: I did not say that. I pointed out that the conditions leading to the present situation, that is the attitude of employers, had existed ever since this war began, and as a matter of fact for a long time before. But to-day we are facing a ruthless enemy; we are defending certain rights and privileges, certain freedoms and liberties. I cannot go to the workers of Canada while this present situation obtains and tell them that they have something worth while defending when they cannot open their mouths, cannot even attempt to organize to protect themselves without danger of dismissal.


Mr. SLAGHT:: Is the C.I.O. behind this?


Angus MacInnis: Whether it is the C.I.O. or the P.D.Q. does not matter. It is a lawful organization in the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. SPEAKER:: If any other hon. member wishes to speak on this question, I shall be glad to hear him. If not, I must say that I am rather impressed by the statement made by the Prime Minister with regard to the seriousness of precipitating such a debate at this time. I have also heard in the course of the discussion that the situation which has arisen to-day is only one of a succession of such occurrences over some considerable time. The question I am now faced with, under the rules, is the question of the immediate public urgency of such a debate. In view of the opinions which have been expressed I am of the opinion that there is not that immediate public urgency which would necessitate this motion being debated now.


Angus MacInnis: I think, Mr. Speaker, that under the rules a vote should be called.


Georges Parent: The authority rests with the chair to decide whether or not the matter is of immediate public urgency.



INQUIRY WITH RESPECT TO STEEL STRIKE AT HAMILTON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: In view of the seriousness of the labour dispute at Hamilton would the Minister of Labour care to inform the house what progress is being made by the department in settling that dispute?


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I imagine this question raises in another form the matter which the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) mentioned a moment ago.
As the Prime Minister has said, active steps are being taken in the matter of conciliation. It is a most regrettable dispute, and unfortunately the basis of it all is a very small point. I do not feel that I could make a statement at the present time without prejudging the respective merits of either of the parties concerned, and for that reason I can only assure the hon. member that the department is bending every effort to see that the dispute is settled.


Clarence Gillis: Is there a possibility of the trouble spreading to Algoma, Sydney and Trenton?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I can hardly answer that. I sincerely hope not. I believe that the workers of this country are so thoroughly

Questions

conscious of the necessity for the utmost production in our war effort that there would be no danger whatever of any sympathetic strike. I can add nothing further than that.



DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEES OF DOMINION REINFORCING STEEL COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MaeINNIS (Vancouver East): Has either the Minister of Labour or his department been informed that twenty-two men employed at the Dominion Reinforcing Steel company of Montreal, engaged in war work, were discharged on Saturday last because of membership in a trade union organization? If he has been so informed, what action has been taken in the matter?
Norman Alexander McLarty: I received that information this morning and I have asked that an investigation be carried out immediately to determine the correctness of the statement.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. CARDIFF:: 1.	How many persons have been engaged, (a) in a temporary, or (b) in a permanent capacity in the income tax division since September 1, 1939?
2.	Were any of such persons assigned to duty by the civil service commission?
3.	If so, how many?
4.	By what person or persons was each person, not assigned to duty by the civil service commission, recommended to the Minister of National Revenue?


Mr. GIBSON:: 1.	(a) 607; (b) None.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	By the inspector of income tax in the branches concerned and by the general executive assistant at the head office.


PREFERENCE TO GOODS SHIPPED INTO CANADA VIA CANADIAN PORTS
Mr. ISNOR:: L Has any change been made in respect to the 10 per cent customs advantage on goods received through Canadian ports from Britain?
2.	If so, on what dates and for what reason?
3.	Is special permission given for the landing of goods from British points received at American ports, so that the 10 per cent advantage is enjoyed even though goods be not received at a Canadian port?
4.	Is the same policy pursued in connection with the 10 per cent advantage at both Atlantic and Pacific ports?
[Mr. McLarty.l


Mr. GIBSON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Entry under the British preferential tariff has been authorized by orders in council in a number of cases where, on account of the lack of shipping facilities direct to Canada due to the war, it was found necessary to ship goods to Canada from empire countries via the United States.
3.	Under order in council P.C. 330 passed on January 17, 1941, the Minister of National Revenue was authorized to permit entry under the British preferential tariff of goods otherwise entitled to preference which are transhipped at a port of a foreign country, in cases where he is satisfied that due to war conditions shipping facilities direct to Canada were not available.
Under this authority, entry under the British preferential tariff has been permitted in all cases of transhipment in the United States where satisfactory evidence has been submitted to show that shipping facilities direct to Canada were not available at or about the time of shipment from the point of origin.
4.	Yes.


CIVIL SERVICE-VETERINARY SURGEON IN MONTREAL
Mr. LALONDE:: 1.	Did the civil service commission advertise, during the past twelve months, examinations for a position as veterinary surgeon in the city of Montreal?
2.	If so, were such examinations advertised on two occasions, and for what reason?
3.	Was this position advertised as bilingual?
4.	If not, who made such recommendation?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	The civil service commission advertised a promotional competition amongst the permanent senior veterinary inspectors, Grade 2, and Grade 1, and the veterinary inspectors of the dominion Department of Agriculture, throughout the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, for the position of senior veterinary inspector, Grade 3, Male, Montreal, P.Q., health of animals division, production branch, dominion Department of Agriculture, formerly occupied by Mr. William R. Wood, promoted.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	Department of Agriculture.


RAW SUGAR-IMPORTS AND SHIPMENTS FROM REFINERIES
Mr. HOMUTH:: 1.	Was any raw sugar imported into Canada at a price below one dollar per hundred during 1940 and to date in 1941?

Questions
2.	If so, what was the price and was duty paid on that price basis?
3.	Was any dumping duty imposed on such imports?


Mr. GIBSON:: 1.	Yes (one shipment only).
2.	84-84 cents per hundred pounds f.o.b. point of shipment in Cuba (SI-2428 per hundred pounds f.o.b. Montreal). The rate of duty is on the weight, not on the value. Three per cent special excise tax and ten per cent war exchange tax were collected on the basis of the value, f.o.b. point of shipment. The special excise tax is levied on the duty paid value. The war exchange tax is levied on the value for duty.
3.	Tariff item 135, which covers raw sugar imported or purchased in bond in Canada by a recognized sugar refiner, for refining purposes only, contains the following provision: "Provided that sugar imported under this item shall not be subject to special duty".


IMPORTS OP BEES
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: 1.	What was the total value of package bees imported into Canada from the United States last year?
2.	What was the total revenue collected by way of duty, etc., on the said imports?
3.	What is the duty per unit on package bees imported?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Imports of bees from United States during the calendar year 1940 were $219,058.
2.	Duty free-tariff item No. 3. Exempt from sales tax, subject to war exchange tax of 10 per cent on import value. War exchange tax became effective on June 25, 1940. Import value of bees imported from June 25, 1940, to the end of the calendar year was $2,731. Therefore, the total revenue collected was $273.10 (10 per cent of $2,731).
3.	See answer to question No. 2.


MCKENZIE ISLAND, RED LAKE, POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. MacNICOL:: 1.	What is the name of the postmaster at McKenzie Island, Red Lake?
2.	What is the date of his appointment?
3.	Did he serve in the British forces in the last great war?
4.	If so, in what battalion?
5.	Were there other applicants for the position?
6.	If so, how many?
7.	By whom was the present postmaster recommended?
8.	Did he take part as an active participant in the 1940 general elections?
14873-146}
Mr. MULOCIv:
1.	Albert Kay.
2.	28th May, 1940.
3.	No.
4.	See answer to No. 3.
5.	Yes.
6.	Four.
7.	H. B. McKinnon, M.P.
8.	No information.


NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the Department of War Services ot the Department of Munitions and Supply established a national industrial commission?
2.	If so, what are its functions and duties?
3.	Who are the officers and staff of this commission, what are their respective duties, salaries and other allowances, and what is the estimated cost of this commission?
4.	Does this commission or board aim at decentralization of industry or regulation of location? If so, how?
5.	What are the factors, so far laid down, which determine a proper plant location?
6.	Has the minister or his officials passed any rules or regulations herein? If so, when, and what are they?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No.
2 to 6. Answered by No. 1.
The Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the Canadian Chambers of Commerce were invited to Ottawa by Mr. H. J. Carmichael, joint director general of munitions production branch, Department of Munitions and Supply, on February 17, 1941, to discuss with representatives of the department various questions in connection with war production. As a result of this meeting these two organizations undertook to make a survey of industrial capacity for war production and to organize Canada into industrial zones.
The committee appointed therefrom i3 called the national war production committee and has divided Canada into industrial zones, and has secured from most of these zones the voluntary services of experienced business men as chairmen and assistants. The immediate object of this committee is to utilize now all existing manufacturing facilities rather than to expand and develop new industries, in order that every plant, however small, which already has the tools and the trained personnel may be enabled to produce essential war materials.
When the survey now being made is completed, the Department of Munitions and Supply will have up-to-date information of the manufacturing facilities of Canada.
The entire undertaking has been assumed by the organizations mentioned at no cost either to the Department of Munitions and! Supply or to the dominion government.
Questions


TORONTO POST OFFICE
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What are the hours of labour for all classes at the Toronto post office?
2.	Are they under an eight-hour day?
3.	If not, what are the hours of labour for regular work and for overtime, and what is the pay in each case?
4.	Will the department consider a revision of labour conditions and holiday schedules at this -office?
5.	Is the staff deemed sufficient to give adequate service owing to war conditions?
6.	What are the rules and regulations as to [DOT]day and night shifts and for how long has the -present night staff worked only on night shifts?
7.	Is overtime paid for or made up in holidays *or time allowance?
8.	Will the department consider trying out -alternate shifts with respect to day and night >work?
9.	What are the regulations, with respect to special delivery boys and what pay do they receive?


Mr. MULOCK:: 1.	44 hours per week.
2.	5 days of 8 hours and 1 day of 4 hours.
3.	Time required to be worked in excess of 44 hours is liquidated by the granting of corresponding time off, except in the case of unsupervised employees such as letter carriers, whose routes are checked twice a year and adjustments made, provided of course that in the event of an additional route being necessary the requisite funds are available to
. pay the additional employee required.
4.	The department does not know of any reason for such a revision.
5.	Yes, and the department is in constant touch with the situation.
6.	As the great bulk of mail posted during .any day is handled during the evening, it follows that the evening shift must of necessity be the largest. Generally speaking, junior -employees and those who prefer night work are assigned to night duty, selection of day *duty being based on seniority.
.7. See answer to No. 3.
'8. It is considered that the present arrangement is in the best interests of the postal service.
9.	(a) postal messengers are required to work a 44 hour week and are paid an annual salary, minimum $420, maximum $1,020. Their first duty is to deliver special delivery items -and then to perform other postal duties as required.
(b) Special delivery messengers are paid 10 cents for each item delivered.
Both postal messengers and special delivery messengers are provided with transportation where this is considered necessary.
fMr. Howe.]


TRANSPORTATION CHARGES ON GRAIN FOR CATTLE FEEDING
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Have any of the provinces taken advantage of the offer of the government to pay half the transportation charges on grain for cattle feeding?
2.	If so, (a) what provinces; (b) what quantity of grain has been so moved; (c) what is the amount of the federal contribution to date for each province?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Ontario; (b) to date invoices have been submitted by the provincial government covering 1,001,819 bushels of wheat, rye, oats, barley and 3,557 tons of screenings, mixed grain and barley meal. As the movement of grain is under provincial jurisdiction, no record is available of total movement to date; (c) the dominion government's share of freight bills received to date is $60,962.42.


SHIPMENTS OF SUGAR FROM REFINERIES
Mr. HOMUTH:: What amount of sugar was shipped from refineries from March 22, to March 31, 1941?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: Amount of sugar shipped from refineries from March 22 to March 31, 1941: Granulated, 22,851,022 pounds; yellow and brown, 2,847,261 pounds; total, 25,698,283 pounds.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	What taxes first imposed during the great war are still in force, either in their original or modified form?
2.	What revenue was collected from each such tax during the fiscal years 1940 and 1941?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Return tabled.


IMPORTS OF TABLE POTATOES
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	What quantity of table potatoes entered Canada from the United States during each of the last twelve months?
2.	What amount of the above quantities was U.S. grade 1?
3.	What amount of the above quantities was U.S. grade 1 size B?


Pierre-François Casgrain: Return tabled.


TORONTO POST OFFICE
Mr. CHURCH:: 1. What were the postal receipts of the Toronto post office for the last two years of record ?

Salmon Fishery
2.	What were the expenditures for the same period on, (a) maintenance account; (b) salaries; (c) plant and equipment; (d) capital expenditures?
3.	What was the surplus after meeting maintenance charges and salaries of this postal unit?
4. How many employees are on the staff, (a) permanent; (b) temporary; (c) casual?
5.	What was the cost of the new mail order building and what use is being made of it?



NEW BRUNSWICK FARM MORTGAGES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HATFIELD;
1. How many mortgages on farms in the province of New Brunswick are held by (a) Canadian farm loan board, and (b) the soldier settlement board?
2.	What is the total value of the mortgages in the province of New Brunswick held by each of these boards?
3.	How many, (a) foreclosures, (b) sales have been concluded in the province of New Brunswick during 1939 and 1940 by each of these boards?
4.	Will the government consider declaring a. moratorium in respect of farm and chattel mortgages held by the Canadian farm loan board and the soldier settlement board for a period of two years, or until the prices on farm products and farm lands are stabilized at a reasonable level ?
Pierre-François Casgrain: Return tabled.



PENITENTIARIES COMMISSION

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What has been done to give effect to the findings of the royal commission on penitentiaries ?
2.	What part, if any, of such findings has been put into effect?
3.	What permanent officials are now in control of this branch of the Department of Justice, as heads, inspectors and administrators?



EMPLOYMENT OF STEVE TANNER

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BENCE;
1.	Is Steve Tanner employed in any capacity by the dominion government?
2.	If so, how long has he been employed?
3.	What is his position?
4.	How much is he paid for such employment?
5.	What was this man's occupation prior to such employment, and with whom was he employed ?
Mr. CASGRAIN; Return tabled.

Mr. MAYBANK:: 1.	Is one Jardine McKerlie an employee of the government in the Department of National Defence?
2.	If so, when was he engaged?
3.	What is his age?
4.	What is his birthplace?
5.	How long has he been resident in Canada?
6.	Where did he reside before coming to Canada and for how long?
7.	When was he employed; at what salary, and what was his position?
8.	Have any changes occurred in his salary or his position since he was first employed?
9.	If so, what were such changes?
10.	What position does he occupy now and what is his salary?
11.	Is he a veteran of the last war? If so, what was his military unit?
12.	What is the educational standing of the said man?
13.	Does he hold any university degrees? If so, from what university and when were same obtained ?
14.	What was his employment immediately prior to his employment by the government?
Mr. RALSTON; Return tabled.



DAYLIGHT SAYING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo. South):	Can the Minister of Munitions and
Supply give any indication whether the government is going to make a ruling with respect to the extension of daylight saving to the country?
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: The government has no present intention of changing the present order.



QUESTION AS TO PEGGING OF PRICE HAVING REGARD TO PRICE OF BUTTER FAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture-two questions. First, has any action been* taken by the government to place a minimum, peg on the price of butter, and if not, when, will such action be taken? I ask because-during the short time I was in the west at-Easter drastic reductions in the price of butter fat have taken place, and I think it is time something should be done.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: The answer to the first question is no, and the answer to the second question is that the matter is now under consideration.



SALMON FISHERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):: I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries a question. It is reported in the Canadian Press that the Vancouver Daily Province of April 24 carried a story that the major reason for the visit to Vancouver of Doctor Finn, the deputy minister, was the proposed acquisition of the entire British Columbia
Scrap Iron

salmon pack by the Canadian government. This of course is a very important matter for the province, and I would be glad if the minister could make a statement.


Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries) :: The hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) was good enough to give me notice of the question. A little while ago we were informed that the food ministry of Great Britain would likely need, during the next production year, a much larger supply of canned salmon from Canada than it is customary for the industry to put up. The reason therefore for the recent visit to Vancouver of the deputy minister of fisheries was, first, to ascertain the possibilities of increasing the canned salmon pack to meet the requirements of Great Britain and, second, to study the best means of effecting its orderly shipment.


Alan Webster Neill: Did the minister's information indicate what particular brand of salmon would be most in demand?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No.



SCRAP IRON


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: I wish to direct a question to the government and particularly to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I did not have an opportunity to advise the minister of the purport of the question. Did the steamship Boris clear a British Columbia port within the last six weeks, and did that steamship have a cargo of scrap iron? Was an export licence issued for the cargo, and when did the ship leave the British Columbia port, if it did leave such a port?


James Angus MacKinnon: Obviously, I have no information at the present time-


Joseph Henry Harris: To-morrow will be satisfactory.


James Angus MacKinnon: -but I shall be glad to accept the question as a notice.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: With your leave, Mr. Speaker, and with the consent

of the house I should like to make a motion under "Public Bills and Orders", appearing on the last page of the orders of the day. I desire to withdraw two bills that appear in my name, one, order No. 43, Bill No. 5, to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the other, order No. 44, Bill No. 7, to amend the Divorce Jurisdiction Act, 1930. With the consent of the house I move that these bills be withdrawn.
Motion agreed to and bills withdrawn.



AGRICULTURE-AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ilsley for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker.
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: When the house adjourned on April 8, I was dealing with an amendment which I had just then moved on the subject of agriculture, and in particular on the condition of agriculture generally throughout the dominion. When it is realized that 35 per cent of the population of Canada are engaged in agriculture, I think it will be agreed that this nation cannot make its maximum -contribution to the war effort however prosperous the 65 per cent, the rest of the population, may be. Need I also say at the outset that no farmer worthy of the name Canadian has any desire at this time to profit at the expense of the empire as a whole. The farming population of Canada, however, believes that it is entitled to a fair return, a return sufficient to ensure a profit above cost of production. As has already been said on several occasions, for the twelve-year period, from 1926 to 1937, agriculture received only 11*3 per cent of the national income, and between 1930 and 1937 only 8-67 per cent of that income. It is interesting to note, with reference to the new policy, the quota system and summer-fallowing scheme, that under this policy western Canada will receive only $300,000,000. That figures out at 54 per cent of the income of the nation as a whole, which is estimated this year to amount to $5,900,000,000.
All that agriculture asks is that it shall receive the same consideration that other industries are receiving throughout the dominion. All it asks is that consideration which is given the manufacturing industries, as outlined by the acting Minister of Finance on October 12, 1939, as reported in Hansard of that date:
We must be able to hold out to business men the opportunity of making a reasonable profit

Supply-State oj Agriculture
and also the chances of securing some compensation for exceptional efficiency and willingness to take risks inherent in industrial enterprise in war time.
In those words the minister set forth what agriculture asks and what to date agriculture has been denied.
Again, the attitude of the British people so far as agriculture is concerned is indicated in an excerpt from a speech that was delivered early in 1940 by Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith, then Minister of Agriculture, who said:
Nobody nowadays wants to see extravagant or uncontrolled increases in prices such as occurred in the last war. We have learnt our lesson about that. All that the agricultural industry, as I know it, asks is precisely the same as any other industry requires, namely, that a level of prices should prevail which will enable the ordinary farmer under normal conditions to make a fair living for himself and to pay a fair and reasonable wage to his workers.
That quotation represents in my opinion a fair policy for agriculture whether in eastern or in western Canada, whether in the dairy, the live stock or the hog industry.
Something was said the other day with regard to prices of Canadian farm products as compared with those that prevailed in the last war. I secured from the bureau of statistics the prices of certain specified commodities during the years 1914, 1915 and 1916 and the same comparative prices for the years 1939, 1940 and 1941. In so far as wheat is concerned, in August, 1914, the cash price at Fort William was $1,081. In September, 1939, at the outbreak of war, the price was $0,739. Prices at other dates were as follows:
Aug.,	1915	$1,132	Sept.,	1940.... $0,717Feb.,	1916	
1.200	Mar.,	1941	769
Then, with regard to hogs the comparative prices were as follows:
Aug.,	1914	$9,355	Sept.,	1939


Aug.,	1915	
8.59	Sept.,	1940____ 9.16Feb.,	1916	
9.54	Mar.,	1941____ 8.53
For eggs, prices in Toronto were as follows:
Aug.,	1914	$0,283	Sept.,	1939


Aug.,	1915	260	Sept.,	1940	359Feb.,	1916	338	Mar.,	1941	225
In other words, almost without exception, prices for the commodities named are less to-day than they were in 1914, 1915 and 1916, at comparative periods.
I intend to-day to speak not with regard to agriculture in general but with particular reference to the wheat problem. Naturally the first question that arises is, what has caused the increase in the production of wheat during the past few years? Why has the acreage in wheat been increased by some 3,000,000
acres since the beginning of the war? In my opinion the first and outstanding reason for this increase in acreage has been the lack of leadership of this government. That is evidenced by the fact that in November, 1939, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is reported to have stated that the grain exchange would remain open until wheat passed the price of $1.25. The only inference any farmer could take from that would be that in the opinion of the minister the price would increase.
Furthermore, speaking on December 13, 1939, the Minister of Agriculture made this statement:
We will have to get a good return out of our wheat to make up for that terrible trimming.
He was referring to the loss at that time.
Wheat, within the last two weeks, had risen above 80 cents a bushel and should go higher, he continued.
That was the attitude he took in December,
1939.	I realize that the Minister of Agriculture does not like any reference to some of the speeches he made during the election campaign, when according to the press reports he promised that there would be an interim payment of 10 or 12 cents a bushel. That he has denied, but he was so reported on a number of occasions. But among other things he allegedly said in March, 1940, in a speech delivered in the town of Earl Grey, Saskatchewan:
But the present government does not think it wise to sell all the Canadian wheat at 87 cents a bushel. The British government is not urging us to do so. If they bought it they would leave it right where it is in the elevators in Canada and pay the storage on it. . . .
We believe that Britain will pay us more for our wheat when she is ready to take it for consumption in England and that farmers would be well advised to allow the storage to be charged up to their participation certificates.
In other words the statement was that Britain was prepared to pay 87 cents a bushel.


James Garfield Gardiner: Let the statement speak for itself.


John George Diefenbaker: I shall read a
further statement from a speech delivered by the minister at Swift Current on March 17,
1940,	and I hope he was not misreported here also.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not said I am misreported; I said, let it speak for itself.


John George Diefenbaker: Here are the words, as reported:
The price, he said, had been gradually worked up through negotiations between the two boards (that is the board of Britain and the wheat hoard of Canada) from below 60 cents a bushel to 87 cents a bushel.
Supply-State of Agriculture

That was a statement made on March 17, 1940.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is correct.


John George Diefenbaker: What the Minister of Agriculture said to the western farmers was this: We could sell at 87 cents a bushel, but we think we can get you more. We believe that, as time goes on, the British government will pay more.
What has been the result? We do not know what the price is to-day that the British government is paying. We have endeavoured to get that information on several occasions. The premier of Saskatchewan apparently had the information, as did the minister of agriculture of the same province, when they stated in the legislature recently that 85 cents a bushel can be paid for the western farmers' wheat at Fort William because that is the price the British government is paying. Whatever the price is-and I cannot see any reason why we should not have that information- the fact remains that statements such as were made by the Minister of Agriculture during that campaign constituted an incentive for the western farmers to increase their wheat production. And if the British government was prepared to pay 87 cents a bushel, as was set forth on those two occasions, then this government stands indicted for paying storage on hundreds of millions of bushels since March, 1940, when the government of Britain was prepared to pay that price. These may have been only "guesstimates" but at least they were advanced as authoritative announcements and were relied upon by the western farmers.
I pass on. In November, 1940, the minister advanced another policy in which he set out in detail his viewpoint with regard to the wheat situation. I quote from Hansard of
November 14, 1940, at page 101:
On the supply side, Canada could expect to produce on an average 380 million bushels of wheat a year. That is her average for the last fourteen years and more than her average for the last five years, including the last two crops. Her total production in five years thus would amount to 1,900 million bushels. To this should be added the 280 million bushels carried over into 1940-41 from previous years, making a total quantity of 2,180 million bushels which it _ would be necessary for Canada to dispose of in the five year period.
It appeared, therefore, according to the above figures that Canada would have 2,180 million bushels of wheat to sell in the five year period, and that during the same period she probably would be able to market 2,080 million bushels, leaving a carryover at the end of that time of only 100 million bushels. Moreover, if Canada continued to be able to sell 30 million bushels a year to those countries outside Europe which were not being blockaded, instead of there being a surplus of 100 million bushels 
at the end of the five year period the demand for Canadian wheat would be 50 million bushels greater than the supply.
I ask the minister to tell this house what changes have taken place since November, 1940, that have made it necessary for him to alter the stand which he then took, that under his five-year plan at the end of that period there would be no wheat or very little wheat over.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not yet altered it.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says he has not yet altered it. What he has done is he has placed before the country and before this house a new policy based upon a reduction in wheat acreage and a bonus for the growing of coarse grains. Invariably the answer he gives is that the surplus we have to-day is a war condition, that it has not resulted from any failure on the part of the government. Well, a reading of Hansard from 1930 to 1935 shows that at that time members of this government ridiculed the suggestion that wheat was unsalable. Their refrain, throughout western Canada at all events, was "Sell the wheat." What do the records show? Do they show that a greater proportion of wheat has been sold by the Canadian government since 1935 than was sold from 1930 to 1935? Our exports during 1930-35 were as follows:
Bushels
1930-	31	
258,400,0001931-	32	
206,900,0001932-	33	
264,000.0001933-	34	
194,000,0001934-	35	
165,000,000
During that period our exports averaged
218,000,000 bushels a year. What of the record since that time? In 1935-36 we exported 254,000,000 bushels; that was the time of the fire sale. The figures for the succeeding years were as follows:
Bushels
1936-	37	
194,800,0001937-	38	
86,800,0001938-	39	
166,100,000
During that period our exports averaged
175.000.	000 bushels yearly, or 43,000,000 bushels a year less than during the period from 1930 to 1935. So the war does not afford a valid excuse to this government for the large surplus now existing. In 1939-40, the first year of the war, our total exports were approximately
190.000.	000 bushels.


Mr. WOOD:: Did not the dry weather of 1937 affect those exports?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, but so did
the dry weather of 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934. The government says the war is responsible for the carryover of some 550,000,000 bushels that exists to-day. In my opinion this excuse is

23U7
Supply-State oj Agriculture
not tenable except to the extent of our exports to Norway, Denmark, the low countries and France, which did not amount to more than 35-3 million bushels per annum at the time the war broke out. In support of what I state let me quote from the Monetary Times for January, 1941, at page 104. This is an article by E. Gurney Evans, of the Sanford Evans Statistical Service, who says:
The present Canadian wheat situation has not been caused by the war and will not be cleared up automatically by a victorious peace. Canada's exports in the first year of hostilities were actually higher than the average of the five years before the war. In fact our exports to enemy countries and those now occupied by him, all of which are blockaded by the British fleet, have been small in -recent years. Accurate estimates of Canada's exports of wheat by final countries of destination have been available only since 1936-37 but for the three-year period for which returns are available, only a yearly average of 35-3 million bushels went to the now blockaded group. The stopping of so comparatively small a flow cannot be blamed for our present excess supply.
I should like to read also from another authoritative source, an article by Mr. C. M. Short, appearing in Canadian Business of March, 1941, at page 59:
In fact, -the difficulties in which wheat growers now find themselves -and the serious attendant effects upon a national economy already strained to the utmost, are of earlier origin.
That is, earlier than the war.
In the past decade, the exportable supply of the surplus wheat countries averaged nearly 800 million bushels per annum as against average yearly imports of 630 millions by deficit countries, most of whom greatly, and in some cases entirely, lessened their dependence upon foreign wheat by increasing their own plantings, establishing uneconomic prices for domestic cereals, erecting high tariff walls and decreeing -stringent milling regulations to enforce the use of their own grains.
Elsewhere the article reads as follows:
The recent unfavourable developments affecting our wheat producers would not in themselves have caused the serious problems which have confronted Canada since .a near-record crop loomed up last summer. True, the European market was lost to overseas wheat exporters (of which Canada is the largest) when France, -the low countries and Scandinavia fell into the grip of naziism and the Mediterranean was closed to Italy. But continental Europe has not been an important market for Canadian wheat for several years, -the exports in that direction averaging less than 50 million bushels per annum since 1934.
So, having regard to what these authorities say, it would appear that the excuse that the war has caused this difficulty is untenable. It is true that the war decreased the world export of wheat, but it did not decrease Canada's peace-time share; and if war had not intervened there would have been a
.larger world trade in wheat but the United States, Argentina and Australia would have been supplying their share of the market.
What has been the attitude of this government since 1935? First there was the fire sale. Then they were going to find markets. Then we remember the promises made during the provincial election with regard to the price the farmers would receive. Then in November, 1940, the Minister of Agriculture enunciated his five-year prophecy, not a five-year policy. Then in March, 1941, the laissez-faire and drift which have characterized this government's wheat policy since 1935 were swept aside in one stroke, and regimentation and control were substituted. The government is practically the only market for wheat in Canada to-day. It owns all the wheat, and it will be in the wheat business at least until peace is restored and during the period of reconstruction. All the promises that were held out; all the statements made by the minister; all the rosy pictures of the prices that would be paid-all this is swept aside, and to-day in effect the farmer is placed undergovernment edict as to acreage and price. The farmer is to be paid for summer-fallowing, his land. There is to be a quota of some twelve bushels an acre. The present acreage is to be reduced by 35 per cent and the price is to be left at 70 cents a bushel. Is it any wonder there is unrest in western Canada?
Here is the picture: With the price at 70 cents a bushel, with increasing prices of commodities purchased by farmers, even had there been no reduction in acreage the standard of living of the western farmer would have been greatly decreased. I am not one who says that great changes must not come. I believe that tremendous changes will come. I do say, however, that before the farmers of Canada are placed under a system of regimentation, the Minister of Agriculture should be in a position to show from experience what the result thereof will be. I say that because this announced policy is a definite step toward regimentation. And regimentation, if it is to be brought into effect, should be based on something more than chance.
Because of fortuitous circumstances and uncertainties of the future no one knows how it is going to turn out. In so far as the wheat problem is concerned, the policy of drift and expediency of the last five years is now to have substituted a policy depending for its administration upon the will of the minister, not the certainty of a statute. No one knows what the policy means. No one knows when the regulations are going to be changed. One day shortly before the Easter adjournment the minister said the regulations had been
230S
Supply-State oj Agriculture

drawn by an expert draftsman. That state-; ment was made following the regulations issued on April 2. Then on April 8 it became necessary to issue a revised version in order to meet circumstances which were perfectly obvious when the first regulations were brought down.
The house has a right to know whether this is a long-term policy or only one of temporary expediency. Does it mean that the economy of western Canada is to be changed in the contemplation of the government? The policy may be divided into several parts. I make this division in order that I may place before hon. members my arguments respecting the several parts. First, there is the enforced reduction of acreage to the extent of at least
9,000,000 acres; second, the bonus for the production of coarse grains; third, the continuation of the price at 70 cents, Fort William and, fourth, provisions with respect to summer-fallow.
I discuss first the reduction in acreage, and would ask the minister to explain to the house and the country who evolved this scheme. Recently Mr. Latta, speaking as a representative of the department of agriculture of Saskatchewan said, "It was not our scheme; it was not the scheme of the government of Saskatchewan, the legislature of Saskatchewan, the Canadian Council of Agriculture or the municipalities' association."


James Garfield Gardiner: The scheme of the government of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says it is the scheme of the government of Canada. Now we know that. This is the policy of the minister himself.


Mr. PERLEY:: It is not what he wanted.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Whose policy is it, then?


John George Diefenbaker: The minister smiles.
I believe the observation of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) was a correct one. It is something the minister did not want but had to produce, something to meet the situation.


Ernest Edward Perley: He is an expert draftsman.


John George Diefenbaker: It would seem that the regulations are uncertain, and subject to change without notice. I have it on fairly good authority that the revised version of the regulations issued on April 8 are in certain particulars so incomprehensible to-day that they have to be altered, and that they will be altered within a short time. Is that the proper way in which to distribute $35,000,000? Should it be distributed on the basis of
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
regulations subject only to the minister, and subject only to the interpretation of those who-


James Garfield Gardiner: Subject to council.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh yes, the minister says, "subject to council." But no doubt the recommendations would come from him to council. The fact remains that, no matter what the regulations may be, the interpretation placed thereon will be those of the Minister of Agriculture. That is why he is smiling now. He realizes the opportunities he will have when he has $35,000,000 in his hands to distribute in western Canada, without control of parliament.


James Garfield Gardiner: In order to save the hon. member some discussion may I point out that the regulations will be down for further amendment, and will be placed on the table probably within the next twenty-four or forty-eight hours in that form.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: How often thereafter?


Ernest Edward Perley: Will we know them when we see them?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: It would seem that we are now going to have a third set of regulations. The minister has said he is going to give parliament an opportunity to amend. Oh, no; the regulations will be brought before parliament so that he may have an excuse. Those regulations are not the regulations of parliament; rather they are those of the government of Canada. I have no doubt that the only reason why they were brought before the house was for the purpose of securing suggestions from hon. members. One of my main arguments against this provision is that $35,000,000 is to be expended under regulations. The farmers of western Canada have had one experience with regulations-and those regulations were based on a statute known as the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Under that statute the farmers' rights were defined. The governor in council was specifically given power to pass regulations to give effect to the act, and under the regulations passed under that act many people in western Canada were deprived of the bonus, although entitled thereto under the statute.
Under its operation a vast army ot inspectors was created. In 1940, there were ninety-five appointees in Regina, and 188 in field service in Saskatchewan. Of that number 177 were inspectors and eleven supervisors. The vote of $35,000,000 now before us can be used for

Supply-State oj Agriculture
the same purpose. In the administration we may find that instead of the administration of law based upon statute, it may develop into the administration of lawlessness based upon the minister's own private interpretation, and interpretations of regulations made according to the whims of the minister's appointees.
If the minister had desired that benefits to the extent of $35,000,000 might flow to the Canadian farmers, how much easier it would have been for him to have fixed the total amount of crop the government would take at 230,000,000 bushels and given the farmer 85 cents a bushel, as was recommended by the legislature of Saskatchewan, an increase of 15 cents a bushel over the present price. Do hon. members know what that will amount to? Fifteen times 230,000,000 is equal to $34,455,000. If the farmer had been given a price of 85 cents a bushel, it would not have cost the people of Canada any more. But there would have been this drawback, as far as the minister is concerned. It would not have permitted the sum of $500,000 being used for administrative expenses throughout western Canada. Once more, to administer these regulations, a form of bureaucracy is set up whereby in the administration of this vote partisanship will play its part.
The minister does not contend that a price of 70 cents, Fort William is fair. I remember when he spoke in the house, I think in November, he said that with that price the farmer would not secure much, if any, above his costs of production. Why not in the midst of war grant our farmers a reasonable price on a quota basis of the amount which can be sold abroad or processed in Canada? I repeat that a price of 85 cents a bushel would not cost the people of Canada any more than the summer-fallow scheme. Every farmer should be allowed to seed as much land as he wishes to crop, and the government would purchase only so much as it could dispose of in the overseas or domestic markets.
I am sure that the minister, in his recent trip through western Canada, found that western farmers are aroused as never before. The western farmer cannot understand why this legislation has been introduced in the form in which it has, why a price of 70 cents a bushel has been set, a price below the cost of production. The introduction of the inadequate policy for agriculture is convincing evidence of one thing, that this government seems to be insulated against realities. The price is lower than that of last year because an increase has taken place in the prices of things which the farmer must buy. Compared with last year's price, the price this year is worth only about 64 cents a bushel.
In connection with the prices of things which the farmer has to buy and of the things which he has to sell, I secured the index numbers of wholesale prices of Canadian farm products, fully and chiefly manufactured goods and raw and partly manufactured goods, from 1933 to February, 1941. These index numbers are as follows:
Canadian	Fully and chiefly manu-	Raw and partly manu-farm	factured	facturedproducts	goods	goods1933....	.... 51-0	70-2	56-61934....	.... 59-0	73-4	63-51935....	.... 63-5	72-8	66-01936....	.... 69-4	73-6	70-81937....	.... 87-1	80-5	84-31938....	.... 73-6	78-2	72-71939....	.... 64'3	75-3	67-41940....	. ... 67-1	81-7	75-31941 (January) 67-2	83-4	76-6(February) 68'3	83-7	77-7From	1937 to the	present time	there h
been a decrease of approximately 30 per cent in the price of farm products. From 1936 to 1941, prices of fully and chiefly manufactured products rose from 73 [DOT] 6 to 83 [DOT] 7, while those of raw and partly manufactured goods rose from 70-8 to 77-7. In the period from 1936 to 1941, prices of farm products have not increased, while prices of manufactured goods have increased by approximately fifteen per cent, and those of raw and partly manufactured goods, by approximately ten per cent. In other words, to-day the farmer is receiving less for his wheat than at any time since 1936, both absolutely and relatively.
It is well to compare present prices of farm products with those that existed in 1914. The Searle index shows that as compared with 1913-14, a bushel of wheat to-day has a purchasing power of only 57 per cent. In 1914 prices of wheat and other farm products were higher than they were in 1939 when the war broke out. The relative price of wheat in 1914 was 87-5 as compared with a price of 40 cents a bushel this year, based on purchasing value.
Who has been enriched since the outbreak of the war? Has it been the farmer? The hon. member for Qu'Appelle I believe has done more for the western farmer than any other member in this house. He pointed out in detail to the house recently the amounts which have been paid to the great storage corporations since the outbreak of this war. I ask the Minister of Agriculture-possibly the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) can give some information on this-to explain why something has not been done to reduce the cost of storage, in view of the tremendous amounts of grain now being stored. These rates were reduced slightly about a year or a year and a half ago. They
Supply-State of Agriculture

were equitable when little grain was in storage, but today the situation is quite different. Great amounts have been paid to these companies, and yet the solicitude of the government for them has been so great that an order in council has been passed recently whereby those storage companies which set up storage facilities in Fort William and Port Arthur are to be allowed to write off the cost of same at the rate of 50 per cent in 1942 and 50 per cent in 1943.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was dealing with the question of the elevator companies and the necessity for a reduction in their storage charges for wheat.
There is another phase I should like now to deal with, and that is a reduction in freight rates in order to permit of the selling of western wheat for feed purposes in the maritime provinces. At the present time the domestic carload rates on wheat from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, to Halifax, Nova Scotia, is 64 cents per one hundred pounds, and to Saint John 62 cents per one hundred pounds, whereas the export carload rate from Saskatoon to Halifax and Saint John is 49i cents per one hundred pounds.
Recently I was in Nova Scotia and had occasion there to discuss this matter with a number of people, and without exception the stand they took was that it would be in the public interest if arrangements could be made to reduce the domestic carload rate to equal that of the export rate, thereby permitting the distribution of wheat for feed purposes in the maritime provinces, with a consequent reduction in the amount kept in storage in western Canada.
Up to the present I have dealt with the government's policy just in general. I now come to the recommendations which have been placed on Hansard before, but which I shall place on Hansard again in order to set out what the Canadian federation of agriculture asked for, and in the main this was approved by the legislature of Saskatchewan. The recommendations with regard to wheat were as follows:
1.	That while an adjustment programme in production might be found necessary in the future it was not advisable at this time to introduce compulsory restriction of acreage seeded to wheat.
2.	That for the coming crop year the dominion government should undertake to announce the

total amount which the wheat board would be willing to purchase from the 1941 crop, and that this volume should be based on the estimated amount which the wheat board might reasonably be expected to market during the 1941-42 crop year.
3.	That in view of the inevitable restriction of deliveries, and in order to maintain the income of the western farm home, the 1941 initial payment for wheat should be increased.
4.	That, until the price of wheat reached and was maintained at a level commensurate with the price of things that enter into the cost of production, a processing tax of not less than 50 cents per bushel should be placed on all wheat milled for domestic consumption.
5.	That the carryover of grain at the end of the present crop year should be regarded as a wartime reserve to ensure the constant supply of wheat to Great Britain in the event of possible crop failure in the coarse of the war.
6.	That since the maintenance of reserve stocks of grain on the farm provides an effective form of crop insurance under existing conditions, the federal government should be asked to provide financial assistance to farmers for the construction of adequate farm storage facilities to enable the farmer to adjust his. deliveries in accordance with the conditions likely to exist during the 1941 crop period.
7.	That the payment of farm storage should be continued.
8.	That, since very (little storage space was likely to be available at the time of the 1941 harvest, the dominion government should authorize the wheat board to make cash advances against that portion of the 1941 crop which the farmer might be able to deliver under the plan outlined above.
That plan and those recommendations were supported by the legislature of Saskatchewan. Yet what do we find? In spite of the fact that the minister of agriculture and the premier of Saskatchewan supported these recommendations, as did every member of the legislature, the government of Canada introduces a policy which, as was so courageously pointed out by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader), bears no resemblance to the suggestions or recommendations either of the representatives of agriculture or of the western farmer other than the acceptance of the reduction in the amount of wheat which the government will purchase during the year
1941	to the amount that will be marketed at home or abroad during this year.
The policy announced by the government is at best a one-year policy. It has no continuity. It begins and ends this year, and in
1942	the result will be that with normal climatic conditions a very much larger crop-of wheat will be harvested than has been produced in any year up to the present-that is, providing the farmers take advantage of the summer-fallowing provision. What is more-and this has not been mentioned-there will be a reduction in the revenue of the
AjPRIL 28, 1941
Supply-State of Agriculture
railroads by some $30,000,000, representing the freight rates between western Canada and Fort William on the amount of wheat over and above the 230 million bushels which will be purchased this year. That loss will have to be made up in some way, and as yet we have had no suggestion how it is going to be done.
This policy of the government pleases no one. It does not please the western farmer and it does not please the eastern farmer. Why was the policy enunciated by the Canadian federation of agriculture not accepted by the government? It would not have cost the people of Canada any more than the present policy and would have been acceptable to agriculture throughout the dominion as a whole.
On April 14, the Minister of Agriculture spoke on the radio in Saskatchewan, and among other things he said this:
"There is no use sugaring the pill by trying to convince you we are trying to do something for you," Mr. Gardiner told his farmer audience. "We are trying to do something for Canada and Britain and for the democratic way of living. It is not my intention to try to convince you that what we are asking you to do will help you financially."
That is an excuse, Mr. Speaker, and nothing but an excuse. Giving the farmer 85 cents a bushel for the wheat that can be disposed of by the Canadian government this year together with the amount processed in Canada would cost a matter of only $34,500,000. The present scheme will cost at least $35,000,000 and will run up to $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 depending upon the amount of land that is summer-fallowed. It is merely an excuse, an attempt to quiet the western farmer at this time, when he is just as anxious as any other person in Canada to contribute his bit in winning the war. One year of this policy in my opinion will spell ruination for western agriculture. It may mean the same for the eastern dairy farmer, the hog producer and the cattle raiser.
Last November the Minister of Agriculture made a prophecy, which was nothing but wishful thinking. His recent announcement means that he now indulges in wishful tinkering with the farm economies of both western and eastern Canada, with results that are uncertain to both. If the acreage in wheat in western Canada is reduced and the price for the crop which the farmer is allowed to raise is not increased sufficiently to cover the cost of production and bring about a parity with the costs of the commodities the farmer has to buy, western agriculture will be ruined. I represent a rural constituency, Mr. Speaker,
and I plead with the government to assure the farmers of Canada of a price that will be consistent with the cost of the things he buys.
This summer-fallow policy will please no one east or west, and I warn the minister that unless agriculture in this dominion is assured of a fair return, the morale of those engaged therein will be lowered, with a consequent lowering of our war effort.
In conclusion, I would ask a certain question: Has the British government requested Canada to reduce her food supplies? Has the British government asked Canada to reduce the production of wheat, or has Canada been asked to pile up tremendous food supplies for the day that will come, the day of victory, as portrayed in the words of the Prime Minister of Great Britain when he said:
We shall do our best to encourage the building up of reserves of food all over the world so that there will always be held before the eyes of the people of Europe, including-and I say it deliberately-the German and Austrian people, the certainty that the shattering of nazi power will bring to them all immediate food, freedom and peace.
I reiterate those words in the order in which they were given-food, freedom and peace. Mr. Churchill weighs his words carefully, and it is not without significance that food is the first named.


Mr. R. M. WARREN (Renfrew North):: In putting his amendment before the house, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) used the words that had previously been used by the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn). After the hon. member for Haldimand had spoken, this editorial appeared in the Toronto Globe and. Mail of March 28:
Mr. Mark Senn, the Conservative member for Haldimand, initiated a debate in the House of Commons upon the plight of the farmers, ancl, after a reasoned statement of the difficulty which surrounds the agricultural industry, called upon the government to take remedial measures.
Undoubtedly there are scores of members on the government side of the house who feel just as strongly about the matter as Mr. Senn. Most of them represent farming districts and have first-hand knowledge of the troubles which beset the primary producers. They could have told parliament what is wrong with rural Canada. They could have given information which would be invaluable to the Minister of Agriculture in any effort to grapple with the problem. What happened? According to our Ottawa correspondent, "the government feared its own farm supporters might join in the attack," and Hon. James G. Gardiner rose to reply. Our parilamentary reporter adds: "He at once placed the issue as a vote of confidence in the government, and assured the waverers on his own side that there would be plenty of opportunity to discuss the wheat policy and other farm policies once this amendment
Supply-State of Agriculture

(demanding price parity) was defeated. He charged that the amendment obstructed free discussion, free give-and-take on the merits of the government's policy."
All of which is pure eyewash. Surely it is possible for parliament to discuss the problems of the farmers without playing politics. What is parliament for if it is not to consider such matters?
It is quite possible that the editor and the reporter of the Toronto Globe and Mail were unaware of the rules of the house, but the hon. member for Haldimand was no doubt well aware when he made 'his motion that he was making this a party issue. He was well aware that he was proposing to put the farmer members on the spot by having them either support the government on a want of confidence motion or support his amendment. The hon. member for Haldimand, experienced parliamentarian that he is, knew that, when he moved his amendment to the government's motion that the house resolve itself into committee of supply, he was putting the debate upon a purely party basis. In my opinion, it is a pity that the hon. member should have put as important a question as this upon such a basis, because there is no one in this house who is prepared to argue that the farmers of Ontario, or for that matter the farmers of Canada, are making too much money or even enough. We are prepared to admit that. I am an Ontario farmer, and in my opinion the majority of the farmers have to struggle along in order to maintain a normal standard of living, to raise and educate their families and to pay their debts. But Canadian farmers are not the only class of people in this country who have to struggle to make a living. The same may be said of farmers in any country. You will find people struggling in the cities, wherever you go. My experience around the city is that city people could give farmers lessons on how to economize and pinch pennies. You will find a great deal more poverty, distressing poverty, in cities than among the farmers. We do not blame people for struggling and endeavouring to raise their standard of living; anyone who is ambitious will do that, no matter what his occupation may be. But in spite of the struggle, I believe that the bulk of our citizens normally are fairly happy.
There is no class of people making a great deal of money nowadays during this war. We hear a good deal of argument that farm prices ought to be put on a parity with the returns to labour and industry. A party of members was invited to visit the Canada Steel Company of Hamilton as its guests, and one of the things that I learned which I thought was quite interesting was that last

year while the output of that particular plant which we visited was up 50 per cent, their net profit was down 10 per cent. That indicates to me that the industries are not making a lot of money during this war.
Hotel keepers are supposed to be making plenty of money these days, but the owner of one of our best hotels in Pembroke, when in my office one day-he was in Ottawa looking after his income tax-gave me to understand that in spite of the fact that Pembroke is quite close to the military camp at Peta-wawa, so that, as I suppose, the hotel business there might be four or five times what it would be normally, as far as the beverage room is concerned, the net profit in that establishment will not be any greater than it was prior to the war. When you take 75 per cent of the excess profit from industry, from hotel keepers or from any one else who is making an excess profit, there is no one who will make much more than a living if we continue as we are doing under the present control of prices.
While I was listening to the hon. member for Haldimand in his contention that farmers were in dire distress, I was wondering whether he was thinking more of his own political future or of the political future of his party, or whether he was really sincere. When we as leaders in our ridings go among our people we try to convince them that the winning of the war is the only thing that matters for the time being, that that is the all important consideration. We must bend every effort to the destruction of this awful demon that is attacking the world to-day. But as I go throughout my riding I feel that I have a great deal of reason to be thankful for the spirit of the people of Renfrew North. I do not suppose Renfrew North is very much different from any other riding in Ontario, but my experience in travelling in that riding is that people of all classes and in all walks of life there are ready to sacrifice, to give and to work on behalf of the war effort. We find that spirit among all classes of men; business men, bank managers, leaders in industry, office managers; when any work in connection with the war effort is brought to their attention they are ready to give of their time and their money, to spend days and nights freely in working on behalf of the war effort. That is also true of women all through the riding and I suppose, all across Canada; our women are just as willing to give their time and labour.
I was pleased that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) expressed in this house his thanks to the volunteers who helped in the national registration. In my riding we

Supply-State of Agriculture
had hundreds of volunteers who were ready to use their cars to bring people in to register and who gave their time freely. In the town of Pembroke we have the Standard-Observer. It started a campaign on behalf of the British war victims' fund. The response was generous; no person canvassed any one, you simply went in with your dollar or your ten dollars or, in some instances, fifty dollars, and by that effort thousands of dollars were raised in Pembroke and the surrounding community for that fund. When the campaign was put on for the war savings certificates, the business men of the town got together, formed an organization and went to work, and almost one hundred per cent of the employees in Pembroke are having the deduction made from their pay cheques for the buying of war savings certificates. When we had our war charities drive, the men who had gone around last fall canvassing for the Red Cross did not complain because they were asked to do this; they spent days travelling on behalf of the war charities drive. When the salvage campaign was put on, we did not hear any grumbling about it; committees were organized, buildings arranged for, where the salvage could be accumulated and sorted and disposed of. In connection with the Red Cross work I had a letter from a farmer's wife in my riding. I heard a report of the amount this particular lady had done, and to assure myself that it was true I wrote to her and received in reply this letter dated March 13, 1941:
Dear Sir,-
It was a surprise to me when I received your letter to-day and where you would hear that is a mystery. Yes, I have finished 565 articles of Red Cross since we organized. I work at different articles and then you never tire: pyjamas, socks, hospital gowns, scarves, knee caps, wristlets, pneumonia jackets, quilt, hot-water B. covers, ice-bag covers, hospital socks, Hampton pads, sling bandages, abdominal binders, T. binders, personal property bags, etc. I sent my name in a pair of socks and got a very nice letter from an officer in England (Mr. Rae Gregson) so our work is appreciated, he said he came from a warm climate and when he landed there he felt the need of the nice articles that were in store for him.
And here is a sentence that I should like to record:
I just feel how little I am doing when I consider some poor mothers who have been brave enough to let 2, 3 and some four sons enlist.
I quote this just as an indication of the spirit of the people, not only in the towns but in the rural parts of my riding. This woman is an average farmer's wife, does her own work, does not hesitate about working outside as well as indoors. That spirit is very common as far as Red Cross work is
concerned. That remark about some mothers giving two or three or four sons reminds me of a doctor we have in the village of Eganville, Doctor Reeve. He has reached the three score years and ten; he has four sons, two of whom are overseas, one being in the air force in Canada and the other an interne in the Civic hospital, who expects to get into the army by the first of July. That exemplifies the spirit of our people. That spirit is a very precious thing, something we ought to safeguard and encourage. Any word or act that would have a tendency to discourage that spirit on the part of our people is, I believe, traitorous to the British empire.
It is the easiest thing in the world to create a spirit of self-pity in any class. You can create it among farmers or labouring men, and it is one of the worst diseases with which any individual or class could be afflicted. Cancer is bad, but I believe that self-pity is responsible for more unhappiness and discontent than ever could be the case with cancer. There are plenty of speeches made throughout the country that might have a tendency to create discontent among certain classes of people. That is bad enough, and it is dangerous; but when members of this house, leaders of the people, make speeches which have a tendency to create unrest and discontent, I believe that is much worse.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Does the hon. gentleman really think the farmers of this country are suffering from that malady, self-pity?


Ralph Melville Warren: Well, I think that if they paid attention to some of the speeches to which we have listened in this house, they would have to be pretty thick-skinned if they did not become consumed with self-pity. Most of the speeches made by members of the opposition with regard to the farmers certainly would create that spirit among that class of people.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I am afraid my hon.
friend's great oratory will not change the picture.


Ralph Melville Warren: For instance. I have here an extract from the Ottawa Journal of March 11:
Maclnnis Sees Discontent in War Plants.
Failure of the government to take organized labour into its councils has resulted in serious discontent among workers in war industries, Angus Maclnnis (C.C.F., Vancouver East) told the House of Commons Monday.
I listened to that speech, and if I ever heard the speech of a typical professional labour agitator, that was one.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Supply-State oj Agriculture


Ralph Melville Warren: I do not think hon. members need to say "oh, oh." If they will read the speech they will see what I mean; it had the tone and all the other earmarks. I think we have been exceedingly fortunate in Canada in that we have had so little labour trouble; but if anything would have a tendency to create trouble and stir up discontent between labour and industry, it would be just speeches of that kind, both outside and inside this house, made by men elected to represent the Canadian people.
Then we had the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) making a speech that naturally would be expected to create unrest and discontent among our soldiers. I read the following quotation from that speech, as it appears in Hansard for March 11, 1941:
The minister must know that there is the greatest feeling of unrest among the men at this camp.
The hon. member was referring to the camp at Petawawa. Of course there is unrest among the working men and the soldiers, and they grumble, as is their privilege. Occasionally this sort of thing leads to trouble; and apparently, according to what was said to-day by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), his words have had some effect.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: It is the inactivity of the government that has had an effect.


Mr WARREN:: Naturally there would be some discontent at Petawawa, but when a member of parliament rises in his place and talks about that discontent, he simply encourages something which the soldiers themselves do not take at all seriously.
We have had more or less of a campaign to create discontent among the farmers right across Canada. There is a definite form of dicontent being fostered from both within and without this house, and that certainly is not good for our war effort. The hon. member for Haldimand did his best to foster that spirit of discontent. I was wondering whether he was really sincere, whether he was actually working on behalf of the farmers and was so greatly interested in their welfare, and I took the trouble to go back over the record of the last few years. I find that in 1929, when the Liberals were in office, the hon. member for Haldimand made a speech that was very similar to the one he made just a short time ago.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Then he has been right for a long time.


Ralph Melville Warren: I may have something to say about that later on. In 1929 the hon. gentleman said:
... let me say that ever since this government came into office in 1921, there has been a steady depreciation in land values. In many communities, large numbers of farm holdings are being offered for sale, and in many instances it is impossible to sell those farm holdings for the value of the buildings themselves. In fact, from my own observation and experience I feel that I am safe in saying that land values have depreciated by from thirty to forty per cent during the past seven or eight years, since this government came into power.
I quote now from the speech delivered by the same hon. member in 1941:
The great difficulty which surrounds agriculture to-day can be sized up, I think, in one sentence. It is this, that the income or the revenue of the average farm in Canada is not sufficient to-day to provide for costs of production and at the same time to maintain a reasonable standard of living for the farmer and his family. During the past twenty-five years a great change has come over agriculture throughout the dominion. In the years just prior to the great war and all through the great war, farmers of Canada enjoyed a modicum of prosperity, which has completely vanished at the present time.
And listen to this:
During the years which have followed that time they have found that their reserves have been largely dissipated, and land values in this country have dropped perhaps fifty per cent or more.


Mr. SENN:: Will the hon. member deny the truth of those statements?


Ralph Melville Warren: I am principally interested in showing the hon. member just what happened in the intervening period. In 1929 the Conservatives were in office, and the hon. member for Haldimand supported that party.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Ralph Melville Warren: No; in 1929 the Liberals were in office.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Unfortunately.


Ralph Melville Warren: I am proud of that. But in 1930, after a vigorous campaign, the hon. member for Haldimand and his friends were able to convince the farmers that they were in such dire distress that it would be to their own advantage to return the Conservatives to power, and thereby assure themselves a higher standard of living. The farmers fell for that and elected the hon. member for Haldimand and his associates, who were put in the seat of government. But what happened? Prices immediately started to decline. It is interesting to note just how the hon. member for Haldimand reacted during the terrible years between 1930 and 1935. Was he on his feet telling of the hardships

Supply-Stale of Agriculture
of the farmers and urging the government to bonus this, put a premium on that, take the taxpayers' money to assist the farmers and so on, or what did he do?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Let us see the record.


Ralph Melville Warren: I am sorry I have not anything greatly to the credit of the hon. member for Haldimand. I find that on November 24, 1932, the hon. member voted against an amendment to provide an opportunity for discussion of the deplorable condition of agriculture, and the refusal by the government to announce a policjr for agriculture.


Ernest Edward Perley: What did he do to-day?


Ralph Melville Warren: Then on March 15, 1932, the hon. member voted against a motion to reduce to 7 per cent the interest on bank loans. Does that record sound as if the hon. member were sincere when he introduced the amendment, or would it appear that he is thinking only of his own political future, and that of his party?
Let us look at some of the figures. I have before me prices of farm products on June 3, 1929, July 16, 1932, and March 5, 1941. Those
figures are as	follows:		
	1929 1932		1941
		Cents	Cents
Wheat		. . $1.09| 574		79|
	Cents		
Oats 	45| 35	354Barley 	.. 65 to 70 4H	524Eggs 	. 36	18	20Butter 	. 45	16J	344Cheese	. 18	9J	18Hogs (live) ..	$12.86	$4.65	$8.50Beef 	. 11.47	$5.00-$5.50	9.35Lambs 	. 11.20	$7.00-$7.50	11.25Calves 	. 15.50	$5.50-$6.00	12.00-12.50It is interesting to	note how these	figures
work out in percentages. Let us compare the percentages for 1929, a time during which the hon. member for Haldimand considered the farmers were in dire distress, with those of 1932. When making that comparison we find the condition was more favourable in 1929, and the percentages in favour of that year are as follows:
Per cent
Wheat	 93
Oats	 28
Barley	 58
Eggs	 100
Butter	 165
Cheese	 100
Hogs	 175
Beef	 118
Lambs	 55
Calves	   170
Then, when we compare the 1932 percentages with those of 1941-again a time when it
is said farmers are in such dire trouble-we find that the percentages in favour of 1941 are as follows:
Per cent
Wheat	 30
Barley	 26
Butter	 113
Cheese	 80
Hogs	 82
Beef	 78
Lambs	 55
Veal calves	 110
In view of these figures I cannot believe that the hon. member for Haldimand was thinking only of Canada's war effort when he pictured the dire distress of agriculture under present conditions. Nor can I believe that the hon. member for Vancouver East was thinking only of the welfare of the British empire and its war effort when he made the speech from which a quotation was made a few moments ago.
Farmers in some communities have been able to help themselves in some ways. The tobacco growers in Norfolk county have banded together and have been able through their own organization to do a good deal toward stabilizing their market and controlling their prices. But they did it by controlling production. The whole-milk producers with the aid of legislation have been able fairly well to control the price of whole milk, and to stabilize that market. In making these observations I refer only to Ontario, under the regulations now in effect.
Only recently I read in a local paper an article which seemed to show how farmers in some communities were able to help themselves. This was a report from Spencerville dairy. I have found in reading the report that last year the net price per one hundred pounds of milk was $1.41. That looks high, and I believe that in that cooperative dairy group they pool their milk, and supply it to the village. Milk used in the manufacture of cheese netted them $1.08, but, as I have pointed out, their average per one hundred pounds for the season was $1.41.
This afternoon and for some days prior to the Easter recess we heard speeches respecting the government's policy in connection with western wheat. I believe it is too bad the government has found it necessary to get into the wheat business. An hon. member who spoke this afternoon deplored the regimentation of agriculture. I do not believe the farmers of Canada are particularly favourable to regimentation; but for some years the government has been drifting into the wheat business, and has certainly derived many headaches from its efforts.
There has been considerable criticism respecting the government's policy whereby it provides an acreage bonus for western
Supply-State oj Agriculture

farmers. We are in the business, and we must remember that in this war we have not France to which we can sell wheat. During the last war we sold wheat to that country as well as to Italy, but those countries are not getting our wheat now.
We have the wheat on our hands. The Minister of Agriculture attempted to keep the wheat acreage of Canada at its then level. He advised the farmers of western Canada not to increase their wheat acreage, but they went ahead and sowed some three or four million additional acres. What is going to be done with it? If we are going to set a price, then we must have some control over production. This is the first time that any effort has been made to control the production of western wheat. If we are in the wheat business, we must find some way of controlling production until we have the necessary markets.
The Minister of Agriculture has come in for considerable criticism, not only with respect to wheat but with respect to butter, cheese and bacon. Fortunately the minister developed a thick skin during his many years of public life, and I do not think he takes harsh criticism too seriously. That is fortunate, not only for the minister but for the people of Canada. If abuse and criticism got under the minister's hide, it would be just too bad. As we know him, he is always on top of his job and able to do his work. As I have observed him since I came into this house, I doubt if we could get a man anywhere in Canada as well equipped to handle the Department of Agriculture.
My attitude with regard to the government's effort to maintain the cause of agriculture is that the Minister of Agriculture knows agriculture from coast to coast as perhaps no other man in Canada. It is natural for the Ontario farmer to view these matters from the Ontario angle, and for the Saskatchewan farmer to view them from the Saskatchewan angle. But there are many different and difficult angles to this problem of agriculture and we should take the broad view of the matter. When the apple growers of British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Ontario got into trouble, the Minister of Agriculture was able to solve their difficulties. The same thing was true when we were faced with a surplus of butter. He did not handle that situation by fixing the price of butter; he handled it by putting a premium on cheese and encouraging the farmers to send their milk to the cheese factories.
I believe that we as farmers and as members of parliament ought to encourage the spirit of activity and the anxiety to help with our war effort which are abroad throughout

the country to-day. I do not think our farmers are doing so much worrying. They are anxious that we should put forth every effort to win the war. I think this spirit was very well exemplified by the convention of mayors which met here in Ottawa. They had a message for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), but because of the terrible war situation which had developed recently they decided just to pay him a friendly call and not to bother him with municipal matters. One of the greatest contributions which we can make as members is to encourage a spirit of cheerfulness and content among all classes of our people, among our labourers, among our soldiers and among our farmers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to endeavour to follow the arguments just presented by the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Warren). It is hardly becoming to any member of this house to call into question the sincerity of either the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn), or the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). It ill becomes an hon. member to question the sincerity of another member. I imagine the hon. member who has just taken his seat is like the rest of us. If he shovels the snow off his own doorstep, he will not have much time for the hoar frost on other people's.
Discontent is not brought about by criticism; discontent is brought about by the failure of a governing body to keep pace with social needs. Apparently the hon. member for Renfrew North is not in harmony with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who made the statement a few weeks ago that the need of this parliament was a stronger opposition. Apparently the hon. member thinks that what we need at this time is an opposition which will believe that everything is lovely, that everybody is hopeful, that everyone is happy. That is not the task of an opposition. The task of an opposition is to present the facts as they find them in various parts of the country and bring them to the attention of the government. If the hon. member for Renfrew North will take the trouble to go through Hansard from 1930 to 1935 and read some of the speeches made by the present Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), or look up some of the speeches made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) when he was leader of the opposition in Saskatchewan, he will find that both of those gentlemen carried out their duties with remarkable ability.
Apparently the hon. gentleman who just sat down seems to think that the best way to get rid of discontent is to pretend that it is

Supply-Stale of Agriculture
not there. He reminds me very much of Louis XVI. When there were brought to him reports of disturbed social conditions throughout the France of that day, he kept saying, "After me, the deluge." But the deluge came in his time, and we all remember that Louis lost his head. Not that he had ever made much use of it when he had it, but he was never the same after he lost it.
Some of my colleagues will deal with the more general aspects of the plight of agriculture, so I shall confine myself more particularly to the growing and marketing of wheat. I do not wish to traverse the territory I covered the other evening, and I propose to be unusually brief.
The whole manner in which this wheat legislation and the government's wheat policy has been presented this session has been far from satisfactory. When we met here last November, questions were put to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) asking when we might have an opportunity of discussing the government s policy for marketing the 1941 wheat crop. The reply, it will be remembered, was that we would have an opportunity some time in February, when the government proposed to bring down its policy. When we met in February the question was raised again, but the matter was postponed week by week until at last the government's policy was brought down in a joint statement, one delivered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and one by the Minister of Agriculture on March 12. Here we are now at April 28, and no actual wheat legislation is before the house. The exact nature of the government's _ policy with Tespect to the delivery and marketing of wheat is still a matter of conjecture, and we know nothing at all about the regulations that are to be submitted by the wheat board.
The government's wheat policy as it has been presented is drawn up in two parts. One part is that which has to do with the marketing regulations. It proposes to reduce the amount of wheat which the farmers can deliver to 230 million bushels. That is the part of the policy which I would call the medicine. It is that part of the policy which the Minister of Agriculture himself told the house was going to cost the prairie farmer $100,000,000 this year. The other part of the policy is a very small dose of sugar intended to make the medicine palatable-a vote of $35,000,000, about $30,000,000 of which will, it is anticipated, go into the acreage reduction bonus.
The position of members of the house is' this, that we have the power to refuse or accept the sugar, but we must take the medicine whether we like it or not. We are presented with an estimate which we can vote for or reject. But no legislation has been
brought down with respect to the delivery and marketing of the wheat itself. In other words, the only thing which the government has brought down is something which the members cannot vote against because it is the compensation for the unpleasant part of the policy. The result is that the members of this house have had no opportunity whatsoever of recording either their approval or disapproval of the government's wheat policy.
The interesting thing to me is that not a single organization interested in agriculture and not a single member of the house, either government or opposition, apart from the Minister of Agriculture himself, have given to the government's wheat policy their unqualified approval. Members supporting the government one after another have registered their disapproval with one aspect or another of the policy. The member who got the closest to supporting it was the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross). That hon. gentleman was kind enough to say in his remarks, after he had listened to me talking about wheat, that he thought I ought to go back and take care of my flock. I can say this at all events, that when I had finished my remarks, poor as they may have been, the house at least knew where I stood on the matter; but after listening to the hon. member for Moose Jaw for forty minutes, neither I nor any other member knew where he stood. In closing his remarks he said: "This policy may be good, and it may be bad, but only time can tell."


Richard Burpee Hanson: And he was going to raise wheat anyway.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: Yes. Every other member who has spoken on the government side has condemned this policy. Every organization interested in agriculture whether in the east or in the west has spoken against this policy. Although the Minister of Agriculture took the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) to task on April 8, the hon. member was correct when he said that the essential part of the recommendations made by the Canadian federation of agriculture to the government had been left out of the government's policy. The bitter part the government accepted. The medicine has been doled out. But the sugar coating has been reduced and diluted until I am afraid it will not make the medicine very palatable.
A few weeks ago I suggested, on behalf of the group with which I am associated, six proposals. I shall not go over them except to summarize and in order to carry out the sequence of what I have to say.
We proposed that the initial minimum price ought to be higher. It will be remembered that two years ago Professor Allen of Sas-
Supply-State oj Agriculture

katchewan university said that the farmers needed 90 cents a bushel at their shipping point, which means $1.10 basis Fort William in order to produce wheat and make a living. If that was true in 1939, how much more true it will be next spring when most of the 1941 crop is going to be delivered. We pointed out and we still maintain that if the government insists on paying only 70 cents a bushel basis Fort William and allows the farmer to deliver only what will amount to 48 per cent of the wheat he delivered last year, the wheat industry is going to receive a tremendous blow.
The second thing we proposed was that there ought to be a maximum delivery of 1,000 bushels of wheat for each farmer. The man who is going to be hardest hit by the government's wheat policy is the small farmer. I talked during the Easter recess to farmers who had 2,000 acres in wheat last year. These men can adjust themselves to meet the government's policy to some extent. At least they can, I think, get by.


An hon. MEMBER:: How?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I talked to one farmer who had 2,000 acres in wheat last year, and he said, "I put practically every acre I had in wheat last year, and this year I propose to summer-fallow 600 acres." If we allow him twelve bushels to the acre on 65 per cent of last year's acreage, he will be able to sell quite a large amount of wheat. He has storage for seven or eight thousand bushels on his farm.
But take a man in the drought area. These farmers, as the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) knows very well, have been compelled very often to reduce their cultivated acreage and reduce drastically their wheat acreage. Some of them have reduced it to forty or fifty acres. What are they going to be allowed to deliver, and what benefit is the wheat acreage reduction bonus going to be to them? If they took their entire wheat acreage last year or the year before out of wheat, the amount of bonus they would receive would be negligible. That is why we ask for a maximum delivery to take care of the small farmer, particularly the small farmer in the drought area who has been compelled by lack of seed and unfavourable moisture conditions to reduce his wheat acreage over the past five or eight years.
Next we think the government should encourage the farmers to provide storage on their farms and make an advance for that purpose. Talking with farmers in the last two weeks, I find that many, especially those in the drought areas, have not recovered from the terrible conditions through which they have passed in

the last eight or ten years. They have not forgotten that in 1937 this government had to ship in $18,000,000 worth of seed. They have not forgotten that they had to sacrifice some of their best milk herds, that they had to send their horses down to the Carberry pasture, and that many of them were stacking Russian thistle and feeding it to their stock. They would feel more secure and the country would feel more secure if it were possible to store
200.000.	000 bushels on the farms of the prairies.
The fourth thing we asked was that there
should be a cash advance of 75 per cent of the initial payment. In replying to this the other day, the Minister of Agriculture said that it had been recommended last year and urged by several bodies, but the government had not done it and everyone seemed to be satisfied. I think the minister is partly correct when he says that the storage was found more rapidly than most people had thought possible and so the farmers were able to deliver their quotas. The minister is not suggesting, however, that the same will be true this fall. The Minister of Trade and Commerce gave figures the other day indicating that at the very best we shall have-
37.000.	000 bushels of storage space next fall, and it is to be taken for granted that the greater part of the 1941 wheat crop will have to be delivered next spring and that only a small part of it can be delivered in this calendar year. The argument that last year it did not prove to be necessary will not be valid this year, because this year we cannot expect the expansion of storage space by the building of annexes and that sort of thing which we had last fall. The government would be well advised to reconsider making a cash advance of some percentage of the-amount of money the farmer will get for the quota he will be allowed to deliver.
Our fifth proposal was the payment of storage charges on that wheat which the farmer grows over and above his quota, because we might as well reconcile ourselves to the fact that many farmers will say exactly what the hon. member for Moose Jaw says, "I will sow all my wheat as usual." Many farmers will not; but there are many who will, and we should remember that there are large areas of the prairies which are not suited for the growing of coarse grains but are suited almost exclusively for the growing of wheat. Those people will continue to grow wheat, and the government has a responsibility to assist them in carrying that wheat by paying storage charges to them.
The sixth proposal was that the government should have a processing levy of 50 cents a bushel, the proceeds of that levy to be applied on the first 1,000 bushels delivered

Supply-State oj Agnculture
by each farmer. That would enable the government this year to pay 10 cents a bushel extra on the first 1,000 bushels-and again I have in mind the small farmer whose unit cost is high and who cannot hope to farm on the small acreage he will have this year at the rate of 70 cents basis Fort William.
These were the proposals that we made, but so far the government have given no reasons why they cannot accept them. The only statement we have had has been from the Minister of Agriculture who, as reported at page 1940 of Hansard, intimated that this policy would not be changed. He said that there might be changes in minor details, but that in the main, the policy would not be changed, that it was the government's considered policy, that it was the unanimous policy of the government.
When the minister says that it is the unanimous policy, I should like to know whose policy it is. It is not the wheat pools' policy if we are to judge by the statements of the western pools. It is not the united farmers' policy; certainly it has not been commended by the federation of agriculture. It certainly is not the policy of the Saskatchewan legislature or the two ministers who moved the resolution on February 28. This afternoon the Minister of Agriculture said, "No, it is the Canadian government's policy." But this Canadian government is a Liberal government, and there is a Liberal government in Saskatchewan. Surely the Liberal party has not one policy outside Saskatchewan and another one inside Saskatchewan. Surely it has not one policy in the place where it has no jurisdiction and another policy in this house, where it has jurisdiction. And yet that would appear to be the case. The minister says it is the unanimous policy of the government, but we cannot find any one in the house, apart from himself, who to date has spoken in favour of it, nor can we find any of the provincial governments bearing the Liberal label who have given to this policy their unqualified support.
We are therefore asking, since the government has not seen fit to accept any of the six proposals which I have outlined, that at least it shall consider accepting the six-point wheat policy proposed by the Saskatchewan legislature. We have never felt that it was adequate; we have felt in our group that there were one or two particulars in which it might be improved-for instance, the maximum delivery of 1,000 bushels. We have not felt that this was the most the government could be expected to do; we have felt that it was the very least the government could do.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Saskatchewan legislature goes much further than that. They ask for it all.


James Lester Douglas: No. The Saskatchewan government asked that it be put on a quota basis. When I say 1,000 bushels from each farmer, I am not suggesting that all that should be accepted from each farmer is 1,000 bushels.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Saskatchewan government puts no limitation on the amount of wheat to be taken by the government.


James Lester Douglas: The third suggestion of their resolution is "that the delivery of the 1941 crop be made on an acreage quota, such quota to be determined by storage space available during the crop year 1941." Therefore they recognize the necessity, as I think everyone does, of restricted delivery.


James Garfield Gardiner: They do not say that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes. If you put it on an acreage quota basis you expect restricted delivery. When we speak of a maximum delivery of 1,000 bushels we are speaking of the maximum from each farmer on the first quarter, a lesser amount to be accepted from the other quarter-sections, according to storage space. But the idea is to allow the farmer, on the first quarter-section, to secure sufficient money to meet current obligations which will be pressing upon him next fall.
In order to give the house an opportunity to record its approval of the government's policy as compared with the proposals that have come from various agricultural organizations, summed up as they were in the resolution of the Saskatchewan legislature, I beg to move a subamendment, seconded by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson):
That the amendment be further amended byadding the following:
"And furthermore this house disapproves of the 1941 wheat marketing policy announced by the government on March 12, 1941, and urges as the minimum required in the present circumstances the consideration of the following six point wheat policy passed unanimously by the Saskatchewan legislature on February 28, 1941:
1.	That the minimum price for the 1941 wheat crop he set at 85 cents per bushel, basis No. 1 at Fort William;
2.	That a processing tax of 50 cents a bushel be levied on all wheat processed for consumption in Canada, the proceeds of such tax to be added to the minimum price of 85 cents a bushel.
3.	That the delivery of the 1941 crop be made on an acreage quota, such quota to be determined by the storage space available during the crop year 1941.
4.	That the government of Canada make advances to farmers for the purpose of providing funds with which to build essential farm storage.
Supply-State oj Agriculture

5.	That the government of Canada make provision for advances to farmers on the credit of the quota to be delivered.
6.	That the government of Canada maintain and carry the wheat surplus as an essential part of its war policy.
In moving that subamendment, we in this group have no desire to embarrass the government by a vote of no confidence, but we are anxious to give the members of this house what has been denied to them, an opportunity of expressing their approval or disapproval of a policy which has been brought into this house in a most surreptitious manner. We have tried to deal with this matter sympathetically. The hon. member for Moose Jaw said the other day that we were to be commended for the restraint and moderation of the proposals which we have made to the government. I doubt if any hon. member at this time wishes to make immoderate proposals to the government. We realize that the government is faced with a tremendous problem; we realize that it cannot accept at this time all the wheat grown; we realize that there must be restricted deliveries and that the farmers must be encouraged as much as possible to curtail wheat acreage. But at the same time we realize that to take $130,000,000 out of the pocket of the farmer and put back $30,000,000 compensation in the other pocket is to treat the farmer, as the minister has already said, in a manner in which no other people in Canada are being treated.
As far as we are concerned we are prepared to withdraw this motion if the government will accept the six-point wheat policy proposed by the Saskatchewan legislature as a basis for discussion with reference to the marketing of the 1941 wheat crop. Or we are prepared to withdraw it if the government will consider referring the whole question of a wheat policy for 1941 to a special committee of this house. As far as the $35,000,000 vote and the wheat acreage reduction bonus are concerned, that can go on; it is getting under way now. But all the regulations, the whole matter of the delivery and marketing of wheat are not pressing until some time in the latter part of July. Those regulations have not yet been brought down; that policy is still in a state of flux, and there is no reason why the whole government policy with reference to delivering wheat, the whole basis on which it will be accepted, whether or not there will be advances, how much the board will accept, should not be referred to a special committee; there is plenty of time. If the government is prepared to do that, we in our turn are prepared to withdraw this subamendment.

On the day the house adjourned for the Easter recess the Minister of Agriculture sought to give the impression, as reported on page 2278 of Hansard, that most of the recommendations made by agricultural organizations had been accepted, with the exception, he said, of the initial price. That is hardly correct. I wish to point out the things that are suggested in the six-point wheat policy and that are not to be found in the wheat policy announced by the government.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend switches from one thing to another. The other night I was not dealing with the wheat policy passed by the legislature; I was dealing with that of the federation of agriculture.


James Lester Douglas: But the minister knows quite well that the recommendations of the federation, the pools and the Saskatchewan legislature are similar.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are not in the
same terms at all.


James Lester Douglas: They are
not in the same terms, but the general policy outlined is the same, the only difference being that in the case of the Saskatchewan resolution we have more specific terms.


James Garfield Gardiner: The difference is on the very point that my hon. friend says is the essential one, the setting of a definite price for wheat.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, but they asked for an increased price, as the minister knows.
Mr. GARDINER- But the Saskatchewan legislature set it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The federation of agriculture suggested an increased price; they asked for a parity price, and the Searle index says a parity price would be about $1.39, so the minister is not any better off by taking the parity price basis.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not taking anything; but my hon. friend proceeds to argue against an argument I put up the other night, and then switches from the position I was taking with regard to the federation of agriculture, to the resolution of the Saskatchewan legislature. The two things are not the same.


James Lester Douglas: In specific
terms they are not the same, but in general principle they are the same.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not agree to that; they are not the same.

Supply-State of Agriculture


James Lester Douglas: The fact of
the matter is that while the recommendations of the different bodies may differ in detail, the main part of them, namely, the increased price, storage charges and cash advances, have all been left out of the government policy. Take, for instance, this Saskatchewan six-point wheat policy; it asks for a higher price, a price of 85 cents, while the federation of agriculture asked for a parity price


James Garfield Gardiner: The Saskatchewan
resolution asks for 9G cents.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They asked
for 96 cents if we take the proceeds of the processing levy and add that to the 85 cents. But the minister apparently knows what the Saskatchewan government recommended very well-


James Garfield Gardiner: I read all these things.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -so the minister will not be able to plead ignorance for not carrying out the suggestions and recommendations of his colleagues.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are not my
colleagues.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister's former colleagues. They seem to have become much more generous since he left them.
The second thing they suggested was the processing levy, which, as the minister says, would raise the price another ten or eleven cents. That has been omitted. They asked for provision to build farm storage, a very wise suggestion.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have not dropped
that yet.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The government has not brought it down; the minister has not made any promise that it will be done. He says the matter is being considered, but he has not said it will be done. The farmers at the present moment should be told that if they grow more wheat than the quota calls for, they will be able to get the necessary advances to enable them to store their wheat. There is no provision for a cash advance on the quota which is to be delivered, and no intimation that there will be one. There is no provision/ for storage charges on the wheat that is to be carried over and above the quota, but only provision for storage charges on the wheat which is within the quota.
This afternoon the minister interrupted the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) to say with regard to the policy which he himself had enunciated on
November 14 in connection with the five-year plan for the removal of our great wheat circles, that he still believed in that plan.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was not a plan; it was a prophecy, and I still think it may come true.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not know whether the minister is a prophet or the son of a prophet, but I hope he is right. The strange thing is that the minister has so little confidence in his own prophecy that, while prophesying that at the end of five years we shall have removed all our wheat surplus-in fact I believe we are to be about 50,000,000 bushels short- he then proceeds to ask the farmers to reduce their wheat delivery this year to 48 per cent of what they delivered last year.


James Garfield Gardiner: The figures used in the statement were 380,000,000 bushels a year on an average. You have to grow
307,000,000 bushels this year alone to live up to this.


James Lester Douglas: But when the minister made his prophecy last fall, he was not making it on the basis of cutting the farmers down to 230,000,000/ bushels of wheat.


James Garfield Gardiner: I made it on the basis of a fourteen year average crop of 380,000,000 bushels.


James Lester Douglas: Exactly; and has the minister any guarantee that by cutting down production to 230,000,000 bushels this year we will get that return plus the difference?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are only cutting it down to 307,000,000 bushels this year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, if you take into account the wheat necessary for seed. Has the minister any guarantee that during the next few years this country will grow sufficient wheat to make up for the reduction this year? Of course he has not. As a matter of fact, what this country is now proceeding to pay for is the result of a planless agriculture. The first time I listened to the Minister of Agriculture making a speech was in southern Saskatchewan in 1934. I remember that at that time he had a copy of a chart which was being circulated by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, or the farmer-labour group as it was then known in Saskatchewan. I can still hear the minister warning the farmers in his audience of the dangers of regimentation and regaling them with a word picture of what would happen
2:522
Supply-State of Agriculture

if this new party ever got into power. I remember he had the audience howling with laughter when he told them they would have to telephone to Regina to see if they could put the south quarter in summer-fallow or if they would have to sow it in oats. That was very funny at that time, but unfortunately it has come true, not under the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation but under the party to which the minister belongs.


James Arthur Ross: They still have to telephone to Regina.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If it were that easy, it would not be so bad.
I wish to conclude my remarks by saying that this afternoon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made a pointed comment. He said that nations are not defeated by an action this week or an action next week but are defeated by the disintegration of morale over a period of time. That is true. Every country that has been conquered by the nazi juggernaut has been conquered because the Germans have succeeded in creating mental confusion and defeatism among the population. I believe the British commonwealth of nations will win the war, but they will win it only if the morale of the people of these countries is of a higher type than the morale of the people of nazi Germany and fascist Italy. I believe hon. members will agree that the policy announced by the government has done more than anything of which I can think over many a year to undermine the morale of the people in the prairie provinces. No group of people in Canada have made more sacrifices or are more prepared to make sacrifices than the people who live between the great lakes and the Rocky mountains. But in this house on April 4 the minister himself frankly told them:
The farmers of western Canada know that this policy is not putting money into their pockets. . . . They know that this policy is taking money out of their pockets and making it possible for this dominion to finance the war to the extent of at least $100,000,000 more than would be the case if the government did for the wheat growers of the west what they are doing for most of the other people of Canada.
Then the minister went on the radio and made an appeal, pleading with the farmers for an additional sacrifice and telling them very frankly that they are being called upon to make greater sacrifices than any other group of people. In the face of all this, their feeling is only natural: Why should they be called upon to make greater sacrifices than anyone else? I do not need to remind this house that while agriculture has suffered by virtue of the war, and particularly those

branches of agriculture which depend upon the export market, other sections of this country have benefited by the war. I have no parish pump complex; I refuse to see Canada only through western eyes, but the fact does remain that this war has brought to the great industrial sections of Canada a measure of prosperity that they did not have before the war. We have pumped not millions but several hundred millions of dollars of war orders into the industrial areas, and in those areas they are enjoying a measure of prosperity they have not had for a good many years. It seems passing strange to the people of the prairie provinces that at this time they should be asked to make greater sacrifices than any other group of people in Canada, they who have less to give than any other group in this country.
We maintain that while the government cannot be expected to take unlimited quantities of wheat, as I said before; while they must make certain adaptations to meet an unusual crisis, they cannot escape two responsibilities. The first is to pay the farmer for the wheat he can deliver a price that will enable him to remain solvent. The second is to enable him to carry the wheat which the wheat board cannot accept, against that day when the people of Canada and the hungry people of the earth will be glad to get it.


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to second this subamendment I feel that I am discussing one of the most important domestic problems to come before this parliament. I am sorry that in the discussion of agricultural matters some effort has been made to drive a wedge between eastern and western farmers. I can assure this house that those of us who are pleading for a better deal for western agriculture are quite familiar with the problems of farmers all across the dominion. Many of us left Ontario years ago after spending the early and perhaps the happier years of our lives on Ontario farms. We left Ontario because we felt that the future for agriculture here was not bright. That was the case at the end of the last century; that has been the case during each decade of the present century. We went west because the distant fields seemed green to us. During my lifetime at least, farmers, whether they lived in the maritimes, in central Canada, in the prairie provinces or in British Columbia, have never had a fair share of our national income. I resent very much the suggestion that has been made during this discussion on agriculture, that western people are asking for or have been receiving charity. It is our considered opinion

Supply-State of Agriculture
that the western plains have produced enormous quantities of new wealth in our Canadian economy; and if western farmers had received their fair share of that new wealth, they would not have found it necessary to appeal to federal governments in past years.
The province of Saskatchewan submitted to the Rowell-Sirois commission a brief which was prepared under the direction of Hon. T. C. Davis, now associate deputy minister of national war services. At page 225 of this brief two tables are presented to show what tariffs have cost western Canada, and what they have meant to eastern Canada. These tables were prepared in 1931 by the late Mr. Norman Rogers, and they indicate that only two provinces in Canada enjoyed a net per capita gain as a result of the tariff. Those two provinces showed a net gain, Quebec with one of SI 1.03 per person per year, and Ontario with 815.15. The other provinces showed net losses in the following amounts:
Net loss
Province	per capita
Prince Edward Island	
$17	88Nova Scotia	
12	28New Brunswick	
11	67Manitoba	
13	25Saskatchewan	
28	16Alberta	
26	93British Columbia	
22	33
A careful study of these statistics indicates that directly or indirectly people living in Ontario have for a period of years enjoyed benefits derived from tariffs.
Another table I have before me appears in the report of the special committee set up in 1939 by the legislature of Saskatchewan to investigate farm implement prices. That committee presented a table showing where one's money goes when he buys a binder in Regina. A person who paid $167.02 for a binder in Regina in 1913 paid $45.56 for material, $11.97 for labour, $17.96 for overhead and 34 cents for experimental work, making a total cost of $75.83. The commission .amounted to $30.45, and the freight to $17.80. By 1926 those figures had increased to $77.50 for material, $28.85 for labour, $43.27 for overhead and 79 cents for experimental work, making a total cost of $150. The farmer paid $283 in Regina.
In 1936 a farmer paid $71.06 for the raw material in a binder, $22.62 for labour, $33.93 for overhead and $2.55 for experimental work, making a total cost of $130.16. Opposite that must be set the Regina price to the farmer of $281.
Hon. members will understand that during the time the farmers were compelled to pay such high prices for machinery they were not able to receive their fair share of what was 14873-147
produced. I would remind the house that western Canada was settled as part of a carefully considered national policy. Recently I read a statement made at the beginning of the century by one of the world's most famous scientists of that day, Sir William Crookes. He said:
The question of food supply is of urgent importance to-day and it is a life and death question for generations to come. England and all civilized nations stand in deadly peril of not having enough to eat.
Concluding he said:
Are we to go hungry, and to know the trial of scarcity? That is the poignant question. Thirty years is but a day in the life of a nation. Those present who may attend the meeting of the British Association thirty years hence will judge how far my forecasts are justified.
Thirty years have passed since Sir William made his forecast. Of course he was about as far astray as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was last November when he made his forecast in connection with the future of the wheat industry. Since Sir William made his prediction, new types of seed have been introduced. New types of labour-saving machinery have come to the market. Our western plains have been settled, and instead of a world shortage of food we have a world surplus.
Speaking recently, Vice-President Wallace said:
One hundred and fifty years ago it required nineteen people living on land to support themselves and one person in town. To-day, under greatly commercialized and industrialized conditions one person on the land supports himself and three persons in town, and contributes to the support of another person overseas. All this is a tribute to our technical genius as a people, and we may well be proud of it. Some day we will turn that genius to solve the problem of underconsumption. For the first time in history we are suffering because we have got too much of the things we need most. The science of production has outrun the science of distribution. We have got to catch our breath and catch up.
We have solved the problem of producing the world's supply of food, and we in western Canada have had no small part in the scheme of things. Some hon. members in the house have suggested that if western farmers had used good judgment, had they minded their own business and been thrifty, all their troubles would have been over. I have never been able to discover the culprit who has created that mythical individual in western Canada who has been pictured as going to California, British Columbia or Ontario after he has delivered the last bushel of wheat to the elevator, and spending the winter months in riotous living. I have lived a number of

Supply-Stale oj Agriculture


George Ernest Wood: In rising to
make my contribution to this debate and to give expression to the views of the people whom I have the honour to represent, I suggest in the first place that the amendment and the subamendment simply resolve themselves into motions of want of confidence in the government. As a farmer myself, I wish to go on record as declaring that agriculture,

Supply-State of Agriculture
so far as finances are concerned, is not in a healthy condition; but the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) proposes to the house that it be resolved that the government should take immediate steps to create a parity of prices as between agriculture and other products in order to improve the condition of Canadian agriculture, and in that regard I say that what he proposes has already been done in many of the various measures which have been taken since the Liberal government came into office. It began immediately after the putting into effect of the recent reciprocity agreement with the United States.
I know that farm prices are somewhat depressed, but we should face the facts. In the first place, I might comment upon the support which has been given to the amendments. When men of legal training show a special interest in agriculture, and when this is followed up by expressions from ministers of the gospel and everybody else on the other side except farmers, I begin to get rather suspicious of Greeks bearing gifts. When those who are not farmers show a special interest in agriculture, so much so that they are anxious to have a parity of prices, I am concerned about their sincerity.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Order.
The hon. gentleman cannot question a member's sincerity.


George Ernest Wood: Wait until I am through.
The hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) moved a resolution which is a want of confidence, and by a certain coincidence, to fulfil the requirements of the rules of the house, that motion was withdrawn.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It was to help the Minister of Agriculture.


George Ernest Wood: I must admit that I am not
particularly familiar with the rules of the house; but I am prepared to say that the name of the hon. member for Haldimand is not on the present motion and it was convenient to him to withdraw it and he was glad to withdraw it. I suggest that at a time like this we should be putting our energies into the winning of the war instead of discussing politics.
The Conservative party has always taken a lofty attitude in its relations to Great Britain. It has always wrapped itself in the flag of loyalty and believed that it was the essence of everything that was good for British institutions. The members of that party would be making a patriotic gesture right now if the
[Mr. Wood.)
hon. member for Lake Centre would withdraw his motion and allow us to get on with the
business of the house.
Since, however, the motion is on the order paper and we are debating it, I wish to take the opportunity to make certain casual references to the condition of agriculture. We in Canada are suffering in consequence of a restriction of trade; there is no question about that; but I do say that the Canadian farmer to-day, in spite of these low prices, is enjoying the best agricultural prices of any agricultural country in the world except Great Britain. I defy any hon. member of the opposition to deny that. Take dairy products. Butter to-day is higher in Canada, in spite of the pegging of price, than in the United States. Up until just recently, bacon prices were about S3 higher in Canada than in the United States. These same men condemn the bacon board for allowing the importation of 24,000,000 pounds of bacon last year, but remember that the same law which allowed us to import that bacon has allowed us to export about 9,000 hogs so far this year. If we had taken the short view and cut off the importation of United States pork products last year and destroyed the reciprocity agreement, then we would not have that market to-day. By reason of the fact that prices of pork products were very low in the United States, there was a lowering of the production of hogs, and by virtue of that the price now has risen so that many Canadian hogs will go over to the United States market, proving that the policy of this government has been sound and that the parity of prices is being gradually adjusted.


Mr. QUELCH:: What about the price of wheat?


George Ernest Wood: I grant that wheat is the exception.


Victor Quelch: What about eggs at eight cents a dozen at country points?


George Ernest Wood: Well, anyone is foolish who sells eggs at eight cents a dozen.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Could the hon.
member give comparative prices of farm products in Canada and the United States?


George Ernest Wood: I cannot in all cases. I did
not expect to make this speech until to-morrow and the figures have not been forthcoming.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The hon. member said that agricultural prices in Canada are much higher than they are in the United

Supply-State of Agriculture
States, and I should like to know if he has the United States prices to compare with those in Canada?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon. member for Brant has the floor, and it is not permissible to interrupt him, except with his leave, in order to put a question.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I did ask him a question.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And he cannot answer.


Thomas Vien: The hon.
gentleman has the floor.


George Ernest Wood: I have no objection to the hon. member asking a question, and I should like to supply him with the information, but to be frank, I did not expect to make this speech to-night. I shall have the figures forthcoming in due course. Comparing the condition of agriculture in Canada to-day with agriculture in the United States, I am prepared to say that agriculture in Canada is in a much healthier condition than in the United States, in spite of all the bonuses of the Roosevelt government for pig killing and all the unsound economic policies imposed upon agriculture there to advance it. And I would tell hon. members from the west, who seem to think the west is the only part of Canada that grows wheat or has any agricultural interest whatsoever, that bonusing of any kind is absolutely unsound. We cannot solve agricultural problems by sowing the taxpayers' money in summer-fallows or by bonusing pig-pens. I say that in spite of the fact that I raise a good many hogs myself on my own farm. That is not a solution of our problems.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
about the cheese bonus?


George Ernest Wood: The cheese bonus as far as this government is concerned is not a bonus; it is a premium for quality.


Richard Burpee Hanson: A distinction without a difference.


George Ernest Wood: And a policy of encouragement of quality is quite within the bounds of proper development.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And how about Mr. Hepburn?


George Ernest Wood: Mr. Hepburn enjoys the
distinction of having a large surplus due to the expansion of war industries financed by this government, $23,000,000 from corporation taxes. If he sees fit to hand some of that back to the farmers, I do not know that there
is any better place to put it because it immediately percolates into the whole of our economic life and every one gets a share. If he sees fit to do that, he is quite within his rights, but I say it is not going to solve the agricultural problem, if that is what the hon. leader of the opposition wishes me to say.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think we all agree with that.


George Ernest Wood: I happen to be on the farm that my grandfather pioneered, and I do not believe that he ever got one cent of help from any government, or ever expected it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But he was, I am sure, a good farmer.


George Ernest Wood: He was all right. I myself was born in the horse-and-buggy days, and when we sit down to three square meals a day we give thanks to the Almighty for it. I say that the solution of many of the farmers' problems is home-made. If hon. members try to debate the condition of agriculture from the point of view of dollars and cents, I might as well take my seat, because it cannot be done. Agriculture is the basis of our economic structure, but a farmer does not actually need as much money as others to be happy, because happiness is a home-made product.


Victor Quelch: But he needs money to pay his debts.


George Ernest Wood: Yes, I quite understand that, but on the other hand there are many farmers who do not have debts; they wait for the money first. That side of the question ought to be considered as well.
This is a want of confidence motion, so I wish to draw the attention of the country and of this house to some of the accomplishments of this government. If the farmers' problems are to be solved, it cannot be done by taking money from the pocket of the general taxpayers. The farmers must assert themselves and solve their own problems. In 1939 we had a measure brought down called the Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act, a measure to give financial assistance to any group of farmers who will associate themselves together to market their products, so that they have control of their own products and are in a position to demand a price commensurate with prices in other departments of our economic life. While I am a farmer myself, I could never understand why the farmer who in the past has consistently sold his brains and grey matter to other lines of industry, refuses to devote them to his own industry. If we had the brilliant men engaged in the marketing of agricultural products that we have furnished to the
Supply-State of Agriculture

ministry, the professions and the industrial life of this country, we would go a long way towards solving our problems. This measure could be a weapon in the hands of farmers, but so far they have not seized the opportunity provided by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in 1939 and proclaimed only about two months before the outbreak of the war. I commend that legislation to the attention of the Canadian federation of agriculture; instead of making speeches and condemning labour unions and industry for making so much money, let them sit round the table and use this grey matter to try to find a solution for their problems by cooperative effort.
I noticed that the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) was concerned about the high prices of agricultural implements. I am aware of the fact that there is a wide spread between what the farmer receives and what he has to pay for many articles, but I suggest to the hon. member for Mackenzie that we are still living in a free country. If we do not talk politics too long we may be able to keep it free; but if we lose too much time, it is hard to say what someone may tell the hon. member and myself to do. If the hon. gentleman thinks there is so much money to be made in manufacturing agricultural implements, why, does he not go into the business? I just happened to notice in the evening paper that Massey-Harris stock is quoted at $2.38, so he could buy one hundred shares for $238. He does not need to farm or do anything else; he can go into the business of making binders and mowers, and make these huge profits. That is my answer to his argument. You do not need to sit on a farm if you think there is more money to be made somewhere else.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The late president of Massey-Harris left an estate of nearly a million dollars, which is quite a lot more than is made by the farmer who runs the binder.


James Garfield Gardiner: He had that before he went with Massey-Harris.


George Ernest Wood: That might be because he was interested in a good many other matters.
I think it is a good thing to have some rich men in this country as long as they have the brains to go with their money, but it is a bad thing for men without brains to have a great deal of money.
Quite recently I saw in the Toronto Globe a statement by one of their scribes, Miss Macphail, which I believe requires a good deal of qualifying. It is a statement which also has been made in this house. Miss Macphail took the year 1937, which she said
(Mr. Wood.]
was the best year since the depression with the exception of the present year, and stated that in 1937 only nine per cent of the national income went to the farmers, who represent one-third of the population. I have heard that remark many times. Actually I do not think it is true. It may be that nine per cent of the national income came from agriculture; but when it is said that only nine per cent of the national income went to the farmers I do not believe it is true, because many farmers have incomes in addition to what they make from agriculture. The hon. member for Mackenzie suggested that the late president of the Massey-Harris company died a millionaire, but it does not necessarily follow that he made that money from the Massey-Harris company. Statements of this kind are made in an endeavour to get people to believe what somebody wants them to believe.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the hon. member will permit a question, would he be good enough to define to this house what is national income, because that question has been bothering me for some months.


George Ernest Wood: I am not an economist-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Neither am I; that is my trouble.


George Ernest Wood: -though I think I am perhaps as much of an economist as a good many of the people who say they are. Let me enlarge on that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What is the national income of the farmers?


George Ernest Wood: I do not think the hon. member or anyone else knows, because only about one per cent of the farmers keep books in order to know what their own income is.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You do not need to go to the farmers' books. All you need to do is to go to the bureau of statistics.


George Ernest Wood: I respect and honour the bureau of statistics, but neither the bureau of statistics no.r anyone else knows how much I make on my farm.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They know what you get for what you sell, and that is your income.


George Ernest Wood: Well, I got some of it, anyway, and as long as I get the return from what I sell I am satisfied.
Then Miss Macphail went on to say that the average income of the Canadian farmer during the last ten years was about $473. That is just an estimate, but even if it is true,

Supply-State of Agriculture
I believe $473 is just about as good, living on the farm, as the average yearly earnings of people living in the city. That figure comes from the bureau of statistics; it may not be any more accurate than the other, but it is given as $956. Well, Mr. Speaker, if I am going to live in poverty I would rather live on a farm than in the city; and I think $473 on the farm is just as good as $956 in the city.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is the gross income, is it not?


George Ernest Wood: I did not interrupt the hon. member; and anyway, I cannot hear what he says.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is that the gross income or the net income?


George Ernest Wood: The hon. member will have to ask Miss Macphail.


Thomas Vien: Order. I should like to remind hon. gentlemen that we are not in committee and that the rules do not allow the speaker to be interrupted, except with the speaker's leave, in order to put questions. The debate will become disorderly unless we adhere to that rule.


George Ernest Wood: I appreciate your kindness in defending me, Mr. Speaker, but if I can make any contribution to the intelligence of hon. gentlemen in the far corner I am only too happy to do so. From what I have heard coming from that side I think they are badly in need of some enlightenment; and if I can help in any way I shall be glad to do so even if I do not follow the rules exactly.
With regard to agriculture I yield to no man in my desire to serve the farmer; but at the same time there are those who make statements that should not be made-and we have had an exhibition of it here to-night-who sometimes defeat the very purpose they set out to accomplish, though they may be sincere. I should like to refer to another statement by Miss Macphail:
The thing I'd like to see the farmer do in war time is go on strike, and I think something like that will have to come.
Much as I respect the author of this article, I wish to say that it is dangerous to make statements like that. I do not suppose Miss Macphail will welcome any guidance or direction from me, but I still have an opinion of my own, and I believe that in the agricultural districts we still have sober, sensible, straightthinking people who do not take kindly to assertions of this kind. Last December the president of the United Farmers' Cooperative, who is also secretary of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture-of which I am a member -made the statement that he would recommend that all farm boys leave the farms.
Of all the bad speeches that have been made in the Dominion of Canada I think that was the worst, because it created a great deal of dissension between farmers and their sons. I am inclined to take the view that some of these people who claim to be interested in the farmers are more anxious to make speeches, and that sometimes their tongues run a little ahead of their minds and they say things they really never intended to say.
My experience has been that the farmer whom I would want to guide and direct my business, the farmer from whom I would be prepared to take advice, is the man who is so busy minding his own business that he has no time to prepare speeches. That is the unfortunate thing. We as farmers should be in a position to obtain the services of some of these outstanding men. They may not be able to make very good speeches, but if you sit with them round a table you will get a sound philosophy of life which I am prepared to say I cannot get from men of any other profession or occupation. I believe that the solution of the problem of the farmers lies with the sober, straight-thinking farmer. I want to warn the federation of agriculture not to allow these other people to become too prominent by making statements of the kind I have mentioned, which is a form of fifth-column activity, a kind of sabotage as far as Canada is concerned. I do not hesitate to say that. I do not object to honest-to-goodness criticism; that is quite proper. But anything which lends itself bo upsetting the economic order, and undermining our institutions, does not lend itself to the best interests of national unity.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Does the hon. member infer there are hon. members in the house responsible for sabotage?


James Garfield Gardiner: He has named them.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Does he sajr hon. members are a party to it?


George Ernest Wood: I have given certain quotations in which statements have been made. I do not wish to stipulate respecting every person in Canada, as to whether he or she did not make it. I say it was bad business to make those speeches. Hon. members in the house are at liberty to make their speeches. They have the protection of the house to say what they wish. But I would not want to be responsible for some of the statements which have been made by some hon. members.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon.
member will not be.


George Ernest Wood: Another matter which in
the last few months has created considerable discussion has been the compulsory rail

Supply-State oj Agriculture

grading of hogs. That recommendation was made to the government by the bacon board, and as a result the government passed an order in council which became effective in October. I am prepared to admit that the rail grading of hogs takes away from the farmer the last opportunity he has for argument as to price. After the hog is on the rail, if the farmer is not satisfied as to grade he cannot load the hog into his wagon and take it home as he could if live grading had been carried out. I must say, however, the records show that rail grading has given the farmer a higher percentage of selects than live grading has given him. Furthermore, since it has been compulsory to rail-grade hog carcases in the six months of October, November, December, January, February and March, there has been an increase to the extent of five per cent in the number of grade A hogs. These figures show that there has been an improvement in hog grades, and that when the farmers have asserted themselves and marketed their hogs at the proper time, they have been successful in procuring an improvement in grading to the extent of five per cent since that regulation became effective.
In October, the percentage grading A stood at 28-5 for Ontario and 27 for Canada. In November, the percentage in Ontario stood at 29-3. It was 3T3 in December; and in January, 1941, it went up two points to 33-5. In February, it was 34-3, and in March, 34'7. These figures would prove that this measure, recommended by the government now in office, has had the effect of giving the farmer more money than he would have received had the measure not come into existence.
We must face the facts, whether we do or do not like rail grading. I like to see my hogs graded; but I realize that if we must cater to the market, and produce what is wanted by the consumer, then it is our duty to supply the trade with what it wants. We have evidence to show us that the policy of the government in this respect is sound. The farmer is to-day richer to a certain degree by reason of that policy than he was prior to the time it became effective.
If the subamendment, upon which we would first be asked to vote, were to be accepted, in this time of national crisis we would be calling upon the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation to form a government.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the hon. member wish to destroy us totally?


George Ernest Wood: If the original amendment were to carry, it would be incumbent upon the official opposition to form a government capable of carrying on. Regardless of what

happens, these motions are worded in an effort to make it impossible for hon. members to vote against them. I would point out, however, that we must take the long view. Is there any one in the opposition who is in a position to form a government? I would say that there is not, by any means.
For a few minutes let us view the record of the two parties in opposition responsible for these amendments. We have not a record of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in office, but we have a record of the official opposition. I do not wish to carry on a battle of recrimination, but it must be remembered that in these days we are at war. I believe that to-day the war effort of Canada is being carried on in a manner which commends itself to the serious-minded and sober-thinking citizens of the dominion.
Immediately upon the outbreak of the war, measures were passed taking care of excess profits. If there has been any opposition to the government, then I suggest it has come from those who have been unable to make a great deal of profit since we went to war. Prompt action was taken by the government right at the beginning of hostilities, and I have no doubt a great deal of criticism has been made because that action was taken. Surely, however, no man wants to wax wealthy from the blood of our young men who are called upon to defend this country, and to preserve our liberty. The government and the Prime Minister are to be commended for seeing to it that these measures were passed to safeguard the interests of our people. I believe that in the main the government's efforts have been successful.
There is no doubt that in administrations during this conflict there will be mistakes; that is only human. There will be instances when bad judgment may have been used. But in the main I believe that we have protected the people by many of the measures which have been passed. While some of those measures may not be popular, yet they have been instrumental in controlling inflation, that vicious thing which after the last war was responsible more than any other factor for bringing about the condition from which the agriculturist is suffering to-day.
The pegging of the price of butter was, I am prepared to admit, an unpopular move. In the long run, however, the farmer has not lost much by that action. At the time the peg was made, we were producing only
10,000,000 pounds of butter, and the trade was getting the other 20,000,000 pounds from the speculators. If the price of butter had continued to rise, it would have done no

Supply-State oj Agriculture
one any good, with the exception of the speculators. From now on, however, when the increase in production is so great, a few cents given immediately would do a great deal more for the wealth of the farmers than would have been the case, if given when he was producing only 10.000,000 pounds.
It was the lack of control in the last war which led to inflated prices. We had high prices at that time, and the result is that to-day some farmers are suffering because of the higher prices they paid for their farms than they should have paid. The inflation which took place at that time has been responsible for many of the disasters which have befallen agriculture. This government has taken steps to see that a similar state of affairs shall not exist. Efforts have been made to control prices of butter, wool, sugar, bread, leather and other commodities, so that they will not get out of control and command greater prices and ultimately reduce the purchasing power of the dollar of the Canadian citizen.
During the last conflict I sold hogs for $24 per hundred, but I had to take that same S24 and pay it out for a hundredweight of sugar. Therefore I was not anything ahead. I am inclined to the view that the parity of prices to-day is more favourable than that which existed during the last conflict. There was no control whatever at that time. If the amendment should happen to carry, will it mean that we shall have in power a government which will be of the same political complexion as that which was in power before and which permitted those things which were responsible for the disasters that occurred?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member should keep in mind the fact that the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) belonged to the government of that day.


George Ernest Wood: If the minister was responsible for the horse deals, the drug scandals, and the amount of leather equipment which had to be abandoned-almost sixty per cent of the first year of the wrar effort of that government had to be scrapped-then he will have to take the responsibility. But he has since been converted, and it was not an eleventh hour conversion either. I believe there will be a seat for him in the high places. During a speech in Montreal before the national research council, the late General Sir Arthur Currie made a statement, which subsequent investigation proved to be right. He said that 150,000 more soldiers than were necessary had been sent overseas at a cost of $500,000,000. If fewer soldiers had been sent over with better equipment, perhaps we would not have had the large casualtv lists.
This country cannot afford to support the amendment or the subamendment. In the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) we have a man who will go down in history as an outstanding Canadian when the record of this conflict is written. I believe he will have the most exalted position of any Canadian statesman. His record will compare most favourably with that of Roosevelt and Churchill. The opposition has contended continuously that he has always leaned toward the United States. I am not sure that it should be called leaning; he was simply human and he wanted to have proper trade relations. But even though some people do call it leaning, it has proved to be one of the finest things, for he has reaped a rich harvest for the British empire. We had the reciprocity agreement of 1936 which was later renewed with the United Kingdom. There is nothing like trade to cement people together. Then we had the statement of the President of the United States at Ivy Lea that they would not stand idly by and see Canada invaded. Later on, we had the Ogdensburg agreement and the St. Lawrence waterway development, and just lately we have had the Hyde Park declaration. All these things must commend themselves to the people of Canada. Our leader has been termed a mild-mannered Prime Minister. He does not go out for headlines. Many men would make these arrangements the subject of great headlines, but he has done these things in his own quiet way.
There is nothing to commend the Conservative administration to the people of Canada. I do not believe you can name one act of social security which the Conservative administration ever provided for the Canadian people. Compare that record with the trade agreements, the old age pension legislation, the government annuity act and finally the unemployment insurance legislation.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Those were all Conservative acts.


George Ernest Wood: It took a Liberal government to run the machinery.


Mr. GRAYDON:: What difference does it make; we are all Canadians.


George Ernest Wood: Then why should you be sponsoring a motion of want of confidence in the government? I can remember in 1911 when members of the Conservative party were talking so much about Laurier's tin-pot navy. Are they reallly proud of some of the speeches which were made at that time? In view of what has happened since, would it not have been better if Sir Wilfrid Laurier
Labour Conditions-Hamilton

had not been obstructed, if he had been permitted to develop a navy for Canada? In view of the attitude which our hon. friends have taken with regard to these policies, to move a vote of want of confidence in the splendid administration of the Prime Minister and his colleagues at this particular time when the country is struggling as never before, is a sorry spectacle to present to a self-respecting country.
On motion of Mr. Quelch the debate was adj oumed.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, April 29, 1941.