1942-06-09

Mr. W. H. GOLDING (Huron-Perth) moved:: That the second report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented on June 4, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I table copy of agreement made under the War Exchange Conservation Act between His Majesty the King in the right of Canada and the Fraser Companies Limited; also copy of agreement made under the War Exchange Conservation Act between His Majesty the King in the right of Canada and Belgo-Canadian Import Company Limited.



ALBERTA NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: I desire to ask the hon. gentleman who is leading the house (Mr. Crerar) whether as a result of the discussion which took place here in committee on previous occasions with respect to the Alberta Natural

Canadians in Japan
Resources bill, he has requested the Department of Justice to give an opinion on the legal question raised, for which I asked, and which so far has not been brought down with the correspondence ?


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: The question mentioned by my hon. friend was referred to the Department of Justice. I hope to have their opinion to-day. We have been pressing for it for the last five or six days.



HONG KONG COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. What steps do the government intend to take in view of -the serious attack which has been made by Colonel Drew upon Sir Lyman Duff, Chief Justice of Canada, whose findings on the Hong Kong expedition were made public in the house on Friday last. It is not my intention to read the dastardly statements appearing in the press, but the attack upon the judiciary of Canada, especially that upon the chief justice, to my mind should not be allowed to go unchallenged. Therefore I ask the government what they intend to do to protect one of the chief bulwarks of our democratic institutions against attacks of this kind.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: In this case he is not the chief justice; he is a commissioner.
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice):	I am afraid I am not in a position
to give a complete answer to the hon. member this afternoon. My attention was attracted to a press dispatch purporting to contain certain extracts from a statement made by Mr. Drew. I asked the officers of the department to secure if possible the complete statement and to examine it and give me a report. As yet I have not received such report.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There was no attack on the Chief Justice of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes, there was.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No. Sir
Lyman Duff is an old friend of mine, and I say advisedly that there was no attack on the Chief Justice of Canada. There may have been an attack on the royal commission and the report of a royal commissioner, which is an entirely different matter.
44561-200J	'


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Absolutely, yes.


Mr. POULIOT:: The commissioner and the chief justice are two different persons.



CANADIANS IN JAPAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that he is not in the house at present perhaps the Minister of Mines and Resources will bring it to his attention.
In yesterday afternoon's press there appeared an Associated Press dispatch from Tokyo to this effect:
The Italian liner Conte Verde is expected to sail from Shanghai about June 15 with 650 Americans and Canadians being repatriated in exchange for Japanese nationals interned in North America, Domei reported to-day.
The news agency said previous announcements that a second ship, the Asama Haru, would accompany the Conte Verde with other British and American citizens was in error.
The transfer of nationals will take place at Lourenco Marques, Portuguese East Africa.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether this is an exchange of diplomatic and other officials only, or is it the beginning of the exchange of nationals without official status, referred to by the Prime Minister on March 18 at page 1413 of Hansard, when he used these words-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I think the hon. gentleman has stated his question.


Howard Charles Green: I want to quote just two lines from Hansard to clarify the question.


Georges Parent: I was rather in doubt as to whether the question should not be placed on the order paper, but as I had some doubt I thought the hon. member should be allowed to continue. Now that the sense of the question has been indicated I would ask the hon. member not to elaborate upon it.


Howard Charles Green: Then I should like to know also how many Canadians are included in this group of 650.
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources>: I shall see that the hon. member's question is drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister, and probably he will be able to make a reply to-morrow.

Privilege-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Perhaps the Minister of Mines and Resources would draw it to his attention, or the Minister of Labour may be able to answer it now. Has the Prime Minister received a submission from the employees of the Dumart plant in Kitchener requesting that a government controller be put in charge, in order that operations at that plant may be resumed immediately; and, if so, what decision has been reached?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I have received a copy of the submission, and the answer is that there will not be a government controller placed in the Dumart plant in Kitchener.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: On a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker, last evening at ten o'clock the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation carried a news item to the effect that the war appropriation bill had been given first and second readings in this house while less than twenty-five members were present in the chamber. I was present at that time, Mr. Speaker, and that statement is incorrect. There were many more than twenty-five members in this chamber at that time. In giving news reports in regard to this House of Commons, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and all others who distribute news throughout this country should be very careful to give correct reports. Whoever prepared "that report should have known that an ;important ceremony was taking place in front of these buildings at which His Excellency the Governor General was present; that on the platform with His Excellency were the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, several of the cabinet ministers and many [DOT] members of the House of Commons, and that it would have been a matter of discourtesy for them to leave the scene before His Excellency left. I believe a report of that kind should be corrected, and that those responsible for such reports should be reprimanded by what-'ever minister of this government has the right to reprimand the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, June 8, consideration in committee of Bill No. 95, for granting to his majesty aid for national defence and security-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.
On section 2-Appropriation $2,000,000,000 less $500,000,000 voted under 1942 c.9.
Mr. ROY:: Mr. Chairman, with my limitations in the English language it might have been better if I had addressed the committee in my maternal tongue, but in order that all hon. members may follow what I have to say I shall try to express myself in English. I should like to offer a few short comments under this bill which provides $2,000,000,000 for the defence, security and welfare of Canada. For the benefit of the members of the war cabinet may I recall what I said in this house on May 6, 1941, with regard to oil possibilities in the Gaspe district. I quote from page 2822 of Hansard of that date:
I have already referred to the possibilities of oil bearing areas in the Gaspe bay surroundings. From 1860 up to 1901, with rudimentary machinery, fifty wells have been drilled at a relatively small depth. One can read with profit and interest the records on each of these drillings and their oil output in the annual report of the Quebec bureau of mines for 1929 by Mr. William A. Sparks. Oil occurrences can be found to-day on the surface of the soil in many places over an area of six hundred square miles. In his 1929 report, Mr. William Sparks writes this on page 7:
"The occurrence of oil in small quantity has been fully established, with the result that the district has continued to attract attention and it must still be regarded as ; a possible source of oil on a commercial scale."
And here is what we read in a recent report by the joint engineers. Doctor I. W. Jones and Mr. H. W. McGerrigle, for the year 1937 at pages 36 and 37:
"There is some oil of good quality in this region, as has long been known. . . . _ The region is recommended to the serious consideration of those in search for oil."
By reason of the imperative necessity imposed by actual events of attempting to discover new sources of oil, and, by recalling the past policy of Great Britain in investing large capital to develop oil wells in Roumania, Iraq and many other well known countries, I deem it is the government's duty to undertake forthwith the drilling of such areas in Gaspe as are recommended by these engineers.
According to quotations I have lately received from Robert McMaster and Sons, of Onondaga, Ontario, the drilling of a 7,000 foot well-the probable oil bearing depth

could be undertaken at a cost of $78,000. The investment of $500,000 would then permit the drilling of seven wells which could be concurrently done

Wor Appropriation
and completed in eight months time to supply, thereafter, at Gaspe seaport, the navy and the air force, with oil which at that time might have become scarce elsewhere.
As a matter of fact I believe oil has become quite scarce since that time. On many occasions since last May I have tried to call to the attention of the government the necessity of making some search for oil in that region. I turn now to sessional paper No. 140, in which appear certain questions and replies in connection with this matter. The following question appeared in issue No. 21 of Votes and Proceedings:
1.	In view of recent military developments, has the government given any consideration to the fuel oil problem?
2.	If so, what consideration has been given to the possibilities of exploiting the petroleum deposits of Gaspe?
To these questions the following answer was given by Mr. G. K. Sheils, deputy minister:
2. No special geological or geophysical work has been done in the Gaspe peninsula of recent date. The reports on record, which are reasonably complete, and the drilling which was carried on, are not encouraging for large production of oil. It has been deemed advisable to give first attention to other areas in Canada which give better promise.
Following this answer, which was published in the press, I received some letters from oil experts, men well acquainted with the oil possibilities of Gaspe. The following is a letter from Mr. L. J. McKenzie of Gaspe, Quebec, addressed to the editor of the Herald. This letter, published in the latter part of January, 1942, is as follows:
To the Editor of the Herald:
Sir,-There is much of vital public interest in a recent article in your paper "Minerals to Win the War"-extracts from Mr. Claud M. Johnston's letter.
In the course of his letter Mr. Johnston mentions the lead and zinc possibilities of the Gaspe peninsula, but he appears to have overlooked Gaspe's petroleum possibilities.
In these most critical times when democracy is fighting for her very life and future existence. on oil and for oil, it seems to us that our leaders should be brought to realize more fully the necessity of an unstinted, all-out effort towards the proper drilling and thorough testing of the Gaspe oil-bearing strata.
Canada now imports practically all the petroleum she uses, and here we have a proven oil prospect of 250 square miles, situated at the mouth of the St. Lawrence; 300 miles nearer Europe than any other point in America (Labrador excepted), with petroleum seeping out of the rocks in dozens of places from the very shores of the gulf to thirty miles inland, and not one really serious effort being made towards determining what quantity exists at depth. Opposed interests must not be considered, and, as Mr. Johnston says, "there is a way to find out."
It does not take an over-vivid imagination to picture what petroleum in quantities here at the mouth of the St. Lawrence would mean to our dominion and our allies.
I will not go into details of our reasons for confidence in the prospect more than to say that I have personally seen one well flow thousands of barrels in this region, and I am convinced.
Yes we have iron ore, copper and other base metals for the building of ships and planes and we believe we also have the oil to propel those ships and fly the planes as well.
Following the publication in the press of the answers tabled in the house in February I received the following letter from an oil expert associated with Cecil Carpenter and Company, Limited:
I read with much interest your remarks at Ottawa regarding the last drilling results for oil in Gaspe. . . . My name as identified with the past exploration for oil in Gaspe possibly may not be known to you. I lived in Gaspe for many years operating as general manager of the Petroleum Oil Trust of London, England; subsequently manager for other companies operating there. At the closing of these operations I promoted, organized and built the A.Q. and W. Railway, now the Canadian National, from New Carlisle to Gaspe harbour.
The New Canadian Company Limited held the construction contract for the railway of which I was the managing director. Under these circumstances I have been much interested in the latest exploration to try for oil in quantity.
My oil companies retained excellent oil experts, both Russian and French; likewise the late Mr. Obalski, Quebec government engineer, kept in close touch with developments. It does not appear feasible that oil should be found in 80 per cent of my wells drilled and the stratification refuse to produce more. The consensus of opinion then was that once we could increase the width of porous strata we were on the road to success.
The letter concludes with this paragraph:
I would always be pleased to cooperate with you for the betterment and development of any enterprise in Gaspesia, because I put in so many years there and think the people in that country are the best in Canada.
C. B. K. Carpenter
Then, I received another interesting letter, dated at Hawkesbury, Ontario, March 2, 1942, as follows:
Dear Sir:
According to a press report before me, a report on the production of oil in the Gaspe peninsula has been tabled in the House of Commons.
I wish to say I have been and still am in the position of investigator of fraudulent work carried on to suppress the oils of Canada. I have been so for twenty-one years, not employed by any firm, group or government. I was requested by the British government through their British trade commission to take up the work in 1922, and found it so interesting that after taking five years in geology and field work I continued at my own expense.
War Appropriation

There is no reason why one dollar's worth of oil should be brought into Canada, if such fraudulent work were suppressed by the government; and now in our war effort surely something can be done.
An early reply will be appreciated, and I may add that I may this year spend a month in your district if time permits.
This letter is signed by Mr. A. C. McIntosh, Box 145, Hawkesbury.
Yesterday I asked the government if it was the intention to give some thought to the possibilities of oil production in Gaspe, in view of the fact that the oil and fuel problem is becoming so acute. We all know that the shortage of oil and gasoline seriously affect the whole of our population, and bring upon us many difficulties.
May I draw to the attention of the committee a further consequence of gasoline rationing. I have no doubt all hon. members have heard about Gaspesia-its beautiful scenery, its boundless sea, its vast mountains, its wide rivers, and its delicious fish. In past years Gaspe has been known as one of the most beautiful spots in Canada, and its beauties have been a strong inducement to tourists. The tourist traffic in that part of Canada has been a source of revenue from which the whole of the dominion has benefited. Under a system of rationing of gasoline however it will not be possible for the duration of the war to travel extensively through Gaspe.
There is a fine chain of hotels along the coast which provides very good accommodation for tourists. There is no railroad on the north side of the Gaspe peninsula and if we are unable to get gasoline these hotel owners will fail. There is nothing else to support them but the tourist trade. The tourist industry is very important to Canada. This bill is to provide for the defence and welfare of Canada and also for the payment of indemnity to those who suffer war damages. If the government are not willing to ease the gas restrictions for a month or two to permit tourists to come into this country, perhaps they would be willing to pay an indemnity to these hotel owners. I think something should be done, particularly in view of the fact that provision has been made for other classes of industry in Canada in the matter of war damage.
There are great possibilities on the Gaspe coast for assistance to our war effort. I have mentioned the metals that are to be found there. There are three mining companies which own properties on the Gaspe peninsula. Some thirty-five or forty miles from Ste. Anne des Monts the Federal Zinc Mining

company have properties from which they extract hundreds of tons of zinc and lead. These metals are lying there because of lack of transportation facilities. We are facing a shortage of metals and I think the government should do something to exploit these mines and permit the movement of these metals. The mountains of the Gaspe peninsula are covered with all types of hardwoods which could be used to build ships. There is a shortage of shipping in Canada and there are a number of fine inlets along the coast where skilled labour is available for the construction of wooden ships from one hundred tons to five hundred tons in size. I think the government should consider this proposition.
Another matter which should be considered in connection with this bill is the lack of transportation facilities to take the fish produced in the Magdalen islands to the West Indies and south American ports. The main production is smoked herring and salt mackerel. These fish are not suitable for home consumption and if they are to be sold it is necessary that they be transported to these foreign ports. The fish exporters in Halifax say that they will not be able to move this fish this fall because of a shortage of vessels. The Minister of Fisheries told me a few days ago that it was quite certain that ships could not be obtained for the transporting of this fish. If these fishermen are unable to sell their product they will have nothing to take them through the winter. This bill provides for the payment of indemnities to those suffering from war damages, and I think the government should take immediate steps to either provide ships or to pay indemnities to these producers.
A word or two as to the defence of Canada. If Canada is threatened, if there is a chance of our being conquered, we should take every possible step to save ourselves from attack. Much has been said about the defence of the Atlantic coast. Halifax is situated close to that entrance formed by Newfoundland on the one side and Cape Breton island on the other. There is no doubt that Halifax is in the attack zone, but the Gaspe coast and the St. Lawrence river provide the real entrance to Canada and they are inside this barrier. Engineers have said that from the defence point of view Gaspe harbour is most important to Canada. There are some defence works there but they are not adequate to protect the Gaspe coast and the St. Lawrence. Hon. members will recall that only a short time ago two ships were sunk in the St. Lawrence. One was sunk

War Appropriation
almost 250 miles above Gaspe, which is nearly half way between Gaspe cape and Montreal. The other one was a little further down the river. These torpedoings show the dangers of attack.
At Mont Joli, some ten miles below Rimouski, there is an air training school, but there are almost 250 miles of coast which are absolutely unprotected. The north shore of the St. Lawrence has no defence of any kind; there are no guns and there are no soldiers. Along that route to Quebec, Montreal and the upper lakes there is no defence at all until you get to Quebec. Some of the money provided by this bill could be used to good advantage in providing some defence works down there.
Perhaps if more ships were sunk it would be realized that the facilities of Gaspe should be properly organized. We should be able to take care of these ships that are damaged. There is no dry dock in that part of the country and there are only a few guns and defence works. That is not enough to prevent the Germans from attacking. I take advantage of this opportunity to offer my thanks to the government and congratulate them upon what has been done so far, but it is not sufficient. We want and we need more defence in case of attack. If there is no danger at all of attack, and no danger of losing our country, we do not need any defence; but if there is danger we need the proper defence works, and it is time to provide them.
I would ask the Minister of National Defence or any other of the ministers concerned if they would assure the committee that something will be done to develop the oil resources of Gaspe and to take advantage of our ability to build ships. The material is right there. All it needs is proper organization and communications to develop these resources. We have proven mines there of lead and zinc. What is the government going to do about these things? What is the government going to do about the tourist traffic, which is hampered by gas rationing? What is the government going to do for better defence of the St. Lawrence?


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bradette):: I would be the last person to dictate the lines of discussion and how members should speak. I know that some latitude may be allowed on this clause, but the Minister of Labour has two of his officials here with him, and I believe that if hon. members would concentrate on a discussion of labour matters it would meet wdth the general approval of the committee.	[DOT]


Mr. LECLERC:: I wish to say a few words about the wages paid in war industry in the county of Shefford. I am afraid that the war plants in my constituency are paying the smallest wages of any war plants in Canada. I am sure that the wages paid there are much lower than the wages paid, for example, at Valleyfield, Bouchard and Cherrier. It will be remembered that an explosion occurred at one of these war plants in my constituency, resulting in the deaths of six or eight persons.
Some time ago I asked a question in the house as to the scale of wages paid but, as often happens, I received a negative answer. It was to the effect that they were paying the average rate of wages paid in the locality. I maintain that there should be a uniform scale of wages in all war plants, throughout the same province at least. I would not expect the government to pay as high wages in war plants as they are paying in the shipbuilding industry in Vancouver, where the rate I understand is around $1 an hour. But certainly female labour should be remunerated in munitions plants at a higher rate than 25 to 27 cents an hour, and men at a higher rate than 35 cents an hour.
A lot of small munitions plants are to be started in Granby, and I hope that before they get started the government will see that the employees are paid a fair wage. I am asking the government to see that these employees get paid as much as employees of other war plants in the province of Quebec. I am sorry to say that in my own community, the city of Granby, the wages are not as high as they should be. I am told-I do not know whether it is correct or not-that some men who hold high positions in the town of Granby used their influence to prevent a new industry from paying higher wages. I do know that we have some sweat shops where female labour is paid 15 cents an hour, and while this is not perhaps a federal government matter I want to impress upon the government, which has control of munitions plants, the importance of paying a fair and reasonable wage. The Minister of Labour may say: We do not want to interfere with the labour laws of the province. But I can assure him and this government that if you pay labour 10 cents an hour more than the provincial scale of wages there will be no reproaches from anybody.


Humphrey Mitchell: wage of 25 cents an hour for women, and 35 for men exclusive of cost-of-living bonus. I am sure that my hon. friend appreciates the fact that we have no jurisdiction at the moment over the wages paid in the province of Quebec, or in any other province for that matter, in what might be termed private employment or non-war industry, and no doubt some of the employees to whom my hon. friend refers are engaged in non-war industry. I have received complaints, as I am sure the former minister did, that the wage rates that have been established through the federal Department of Labour have to some extent interfered with the wage structure in non-war industry. I might add that conversations are going on between the provinces and the dominion with respect to this whole matter of minimum wages.


Mr. McCANN:: What does the minister consider a war industry and what a non-war industry? Is a firm which is carrying on its private industrial operations and at the same time filling war orders as part of its operations classed as a war industry or as a non-war industry? I am afraid that some industrial organizations are taking advantage of the fact that they are carrying on their peace-time operations to designate themselves as a nonwar industry even though they are filling war orders.


Humphrey Mitchell: Any war contract let by the dominion government goes to a war industry. With respect to companies doing both war work and non-war work, that is a subject of discussion at the moment between the provinces and the dominion.


Mr. CHURCH:: Mr. Chairman, I should
like to deal with a matter which has not been taken up yet, but is under this bill, and it is one of the most important matters of all, being related to external affairs. Never since the war started have we had an adequate opportunity to discuss this department or its functions or even Canada's foreign policy- because Canada has never yet had a foreign policy. I should like to say a few words on external affairs in connection with this item on page 2921 of Hansard showing a total of $456,000 for external affairs, divided as follows:	Administration and passport office,
$265,000; representation abroad, $100,000- our representatives in Japan, Holland, Belgium, France and one or two other places have been washed out; consular services, $5,500; evacuation of staff from abroad, $5,000; Canada-United States permanent joint board on defence-very largely board and very little defence-$22,500; Canadian section of joint economic committee, $53,000-a total, Mr. 
Chairman, under one department of civil estimates of $456,000, and we have no adequate details as to how it is made up or anything about it.
I can tell you this:	in time of war these
separate Canadian legations and representations abroad have caused Britain's influence to be divided. They are bad enough during peace, let alone in war, and some of them have had a purely mischievous effect so far as defence and foreign affairs are concerned.
Canada has never yet had a foreign policy. No one can tell what it is-it is negative. At the last imperial conference, in 1937, when we knew of the danger to the empire, and Australia specifically pointed out the grave conditions in the Pacific, Canada took the position, "We have no commitments; parliament will decide," and things remained that way until war was declared. We would not even take part in or aid an empire shipbuilding policy at that 1937 conference.
I wish again, to raise this matter of an empire war cabinet. It is the most important thing that we can consider at the present time. The coordination of the efforts of the dominions is the most important duty of the hour. The peril is at the gate, and it is possible that three of the dominions, namely Australia, New Zealand, and south Africa, will be invaded. One of the northern islands of Australia has already been invaded, and New Zealand is in grave danger. Both of these fine dominions have had to appeal to the United States. The supremacy of the Pacific has been lost, and Japan is moving around the Pacific like a circus through 15,000 miles of islands, menacing the coasts of Madagascar, the islands of the Indian ocean and the very eastern shores of south Africa, in the Indian ocean, where the prime minister of the union, General Smuts, has appealed for support to the very native races from whom his people took the franchise in 1854.
As I have said, Australia pointed out over a year ago the dangers which threatened her in the far east, and asked the British government to reestablish the empire war cabinet. During the last war this cabinet functioned. It consisted of the prime ministers of the five dominions, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Canada and Newfoundland. Our Prime Minister remarked one day recently in this chamber that he could not attend such a conference or support such a war cabinet, and that it was not necessary.
During the last war a war cabinet did wonderful work to win the war. The principle was established that the Prime Minister or his dominion representative could be there. For example, the late General Botha, when

War Appropriation
prime minister of South Africa, nominated as his representative Lieutenant-General Smuts, now Field Marshal Smuts, the present premier of the union. The empire war cabinet did a great deal of good, increased dominion aid wonderfully and to its absence must be attributed many of the unhappy conditions which have developed in the far east in the last two years. Right Hon. Robert Menzies, the able statesman who, when prime minister of Australia, addressed this house last fall, and the present prime minister, Mr. Curtin, have referred to the absence of coordination, especially in the domain of joint policy in the far east, and the great need of an empire war cabinet. Recently they have complained that decisions have been made adverse to their interests without consultation with the Australasian or other dominions. Unless there is a war cabinet-which Canada, for some reason has opposed-there can be no joint consultation or cooperation or united action by the dominions in the present war. It is too bad that Canada has taken this stand, because our country is dependent on the mother country in this war as she was in the last for all our protection from invasion. It is a grave responsibility to refuse a war cabinet.
In view of the loss of the command of the sea in the Pacific, the disaster at Pearl Harbour, and the fall of Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaya and Burma and other strongholds, the need of an imperial war cabinet was never more apparent than now. It is a tragedy which will soon be costly to Canada. Since the Victorian era the imperial conference system has been a useful method of communication and consultation between the dominions and the mother country. The first colonial conference took place in 1887 and was continued every five years. Conferences have been held periodically, as in 1907, 1917, 1937 and other times. There were memorable meetings-at the time of the diamond jubilee of Queen Victoria, in 1897, following the accession of King Edward VII, in the closing years of the war, and at the time of the coronation of our present king in 1937. Although these assemblies have no legislative powers, they are valuable in peace time as a means of expression of the views of the dominions concerning imperial policies. They are even more necessary in time of war, because of the vastness of our empire and its manifold relations with foreign states. I have urged this matter repeatedly upon the government since the war started. It is discouraging to see this separatist stand taken and the plea of Australia ignored and our sister dominions, 44561-201
Australia and New Zealand have been, as a result, compelled to appeal for help to the United States. The help which our United States friends have given has been magnificent. True it is that the United States has been able as yet to provide only about 50 per cent of her expected allotment for 1942 to Russia and Great Britain or to Australia, but the will is there, and before six months is over this provision will have been greatly increased.
I raised this subject of the relationship of the dominions to Great Britain in connection with empire day, on the 22nd of last month. It was surprising to me that on a day like that, remembering all that we owe to the mother country in this war because she bore the whole brunt of it for two years alone, that this parliament did not see fit to say anything about it as I suggested on empire day or Victoria day, and to pay her tribute and thanks. Hon. Walter Nash, the very able minister of New Zealand, who addressed us recently, paid a great tribute to the old country. He said:
That little spot called Britain, when we understand what she has done, though some of what she has done have been mistakes, we must see that she has on the credit side an amazing balance. We are out to help her win because we want her to win. Unless the old country wins all that we cherish will disappear.
The non-cooperative attitude of Canada has been criticized elsewhere than in this country. That well known publisher and empire builder, the very able Sir Keith Murdoch, who owns a number of newspapers in Australia, including the Melbourne Herald, referring to the situation in the far east, remarked that not only our difficulties there and the trouble in the far east but also the fact that we have a war at all, must be largely attributed to the fact that the empire not only threw away her defences on land, sea and in the air, but threw away her friends as well. In a letter, urging a war cabinet, to the London Times after the disaster at Pearl Harbour, he stated:
. . . The entry of stout dominion minds into the war council, and of oversea service men and business men into the army, navy, air and supply councils has become of great importance for the two reasons that the dominions will not stand grave decisions going against them unless they are in those decisions, and that something must be done to improve the war management. . . .
He went on to criticize the weaknesses of our fighting services and emphasized lack of coordination as largely responsible for the disasters which have befallen us in the far east.
Mr. Menzies, the former prime minister of Australia who addressed this house, Mr. Chairman, from where you are sitting, stated that

War Appropriation

he had known for a long time of the inadequacy of the empire's defences in the Pacific, and that they revealed a very dangerous condition of weakness. These views are practically identical with those expressed by Prime Minister Fraser of New Zealand and by Mr. Curtin, successor to Mr. Menzies as Prime Minister of Australia, and it is charged in England and Australia that Canada knew all about it also and did nothing about it, and in none of these dominions were the people aware of the danger, or the facts disclosed.
The empire is worth fighting for in this emergency, because if it passes, freedom and liberty and civilization and religion will vanish from the earth. But for the glorious stand of the mother country after Dunkirk we on this continent, including the United States, would long ago have had to seek peace with the axis powers. It was a very grave mistake for our country, when asked by Mr. Churchill what our views were, to give the refusal we did. The two decades between 1918 and 1939 were the most disastrous years in the whole history of the world. Canada did not show up any too well in the discussion at the imperial conference in 1937 although Canada was one of the world's chief traders. We had no foreign policy; this external affairs vote showed that. The two decades I named above were full of mistakes and errors since the last war, and now this war threatens the freedom and liberty and religion of the world, and if we do not bestir ourselves it means the end also of civilization. It is too bad that we keep up in the clouds, dreaming yet about isolation and status. The upheaval brought about by this war was not occasioned by anything that happened before 1918. It arose out of what happened since, largely out of the desire for greater prosperity, and reliance on peace pacts and agreements, Kellogg pacts, Locarno, the status quo, the Monroe doctrine, and collective security-which is only security when we have an armed Britain. That is one of the reasons for this disastrous condition. We have forgotten to listen to the lessons of experience and history, namely, in peace to prepare for what may come after. Without a war cabinet we see the result in Hong Kong and Singapore. Most important matters have been settled and given against us, and we have not been consulted or had a word to say about it.
To-day is the eighty-second day of this session, and we have not had one word since we started on estimates on foreign affairs outside of the Prime Minister's statement last year about two or three new embassies. This country was the chief drifter from the British
tMr. Church.]
empire before the war started. It is bad enough in peace time to have this drifting, but in war time it is fatal. Three of the dominions are on the border of disaster. If we lose, they may not belong to the empire much longer; they have had to appeal to the United States for help. While our neighbours to the south are a great people, they were not a military power at the start, and for a couple of years they cannot do a great deal to help in the present struggle because it will take two years to be fully armed. With the enemy at the front door and the back door and the side door and every other door, we have to get on with the total war for which the people voted on April 27.


Mr. SLAGHT:: Before this important bill passes I desire to refer to a matter which I regard as of supreme importance. I have not in the last six weeks troubled the house by occupying any time in the discussion of this measure, and I make no apology for bringing to the attention of the committee and the government the matter with which I shall now deal very briefly.
I quote from section 2 of the bill, paragraphs (a) and (d):
(a) the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada;
(d) The earying out of any measure deemed necessary or advisable by the governor in council in consequence of the existence of a state of war.
In this connection I suggest to the government that it is of immediate and major importance that at least three strategic points in Canada should be protected with barrage balloons. I am not making this appeal without having submitted my views to the authorities, who I thought should first have them brought to their attention; and among those authorities is our division of the joint defence board. I found on their part no sympathy concerning the matters that I brought forward. Notwithstanding that, and notwithstanding the lapse of some time, I wish it to be understood that I make these suggestions in an absolutely constructive and friendly spirit and not as a critic.
I had the privilege, with five associates in this house, of visiting the mother country a few short months ago. Portsmouth, Liverpool, Glasgow, Hull, Newcastle-every important port in the British empire was provided with thorough and efficient barrage balloon protection. Men in the air force over there told me that they feared nothing so much in an attack upon enemy objectives across the channel as to be obliged to attempt to dive-bomb any objective which was protected by barrage balloons. They extend to between

War Appropriation
3,000 and 4,000 feet in height, entirely surrounding a port or city or war plant, and any enemy dive-bomber seeking to come within that area and get within 4,000 feet of his objective might just as well sign on with the suicide squad before attempting it. They are the greatest means of protection to-day.
Halifax has no barrage balloon protection. Esquimalt, the only dry dock under the control of the British empire on the Pacific ocean, has no barrage balloon protection. Patricia Bay, the great airport on the Pacific coast, has no barrage balloon protection. Halifax is a tinder town in this respect; it has a great many inflammable wooden build* ings, which are so susceptible to incendiary bombs that the very thought of it almost makes one shudder. Ammunition dumps are located there, as well as docks for the repair of vessels. We all know- it is the centre for the convoys which are made up to go to the motherland. The destruction of Liverpool tomorrow morning would not be as great a blow at the British empire, to say nothing of Canada, as any enemy action would be which would make a rubble heap of Halifax. There is no port, no strategic war industry on the whole north American continent the destruction of which would mean such a terrific loss to the British empire and the united nations as the destruction of Halifax overnight would mean to our war effort.
Some one may say: "Don't be an alarmist; it can't happen here." That phrase is long outmoded. If an enemy aeroplane carrier crept up under favourable weather conditions, fog and so forth, within 100 miles of Halifax, and released thirty or forty bombers which could drop incendiary and explosive bombs on Halifax, I hate to think what the result might be.
Now that we are appropriating $2,000,000,000 for national defence and security I make this suggestion in all seriousness to the government, to the authorities, to the joint defence board for north America. I feel sure that the United States members of that board, if asked what one spot in north America we could least spare, would be bound to say without a dissenting voice, the city of Halifax. I am making no appeal for the protection of the residents of that city. They are a game people. They are willing to take all the chances that war imposes upon them. But even leaving that aside, from the empire standpoint; from the standpoint of the war effort; from every standpoint from which a reasonable man who will examine the subject as I have examined it can reach a conclusion, I do suggest that we must at once provide barrage balloon protection for Halifax, Esquimalt and Patricia Bay.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am interested in the subject matter brought up by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght), and I have wondered why the suggestion was not made before. One reason why I have not made it previously was this. I too had the honour of visiting Britain last year, when I had a long discussion with the commander of the Dover area, as well as with officers at Portsmouth, with respect to this subject of barrage balloons. During the course of a tour down the Thames, covering a good many miles, we saw a long line of barrage balloons protecting that area. I questioned the officers with respect to both the expediency and the desirability of having this system of barrage balloons over strategic points. On balance they advocated their retention, but I was told some very curious stories. One officer told me that when the balloons were first installed over Dover the Germans were greatly intrigued. They would come over each morning and shoot down the balloons just about as soon as they were raised; when they were raised again they would come back and shoot them down again, and this happened on a number of occasions. Of course the balloons are very vulnerable and can be punctured by a bullet. After that the Germans left them alone, but the British are still of the opinion that these balloons form a valuable auxiliary to the defence of a given position. That is so for the very reason that has been explained to this committee by the hon. member for Parry Sound, namely, that they are a deterrent to dive bombing, and prevent those operating by air against a given point from coming too close. That is why they are being retained. I assume that our general staff, our defence officials, studied this position long ago, and it does seem to me they might state their opinion with respect to a port like Halifax, which I suppose is the most vulnerable of all.
Just in passing, I have often wondered why there should be so much concentration at Halifax. There are a great many important works for which there is not very much defence. I do not think the hon. member need apologize or give any excuse for raising this question. It is a matter of importance in the defence of some of the vulnerable places in Canada, and I commend his remarks to the Minister of National Defence.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Much as I should like to see the discussion of labour problems proceed, and much as I am interested in the question raised by the hon. member for Parry Sound, yet I do think that before our discussion goes too far afield, following the discussion we had on the night of June 5, I
31 SO
War Appropriation

should direct the attention of the committee once more to the all-important question of inflation, and how inflation might reasonably be met and guarded against. There is no more important question facing the peoples of the British empire and the United States to-day than the question of inflation, and I venture to say there is no question which is less understood. In my brief and limited experience there is no question less understood than the all-important question of money, yet there is nothing which has come closer to causing war, both international and civil, than that question. So if hon. members of the committee will bear with me, I will revert to the matter we were discussing on Friday afternoon.
The Minister of Finance was kind enough to make some remarks which I thought indicated a great deal of progressiveness on his part. I should like to read to the committee several of his statements, and I should like the minister to elaborate on those statements a little more fully so that I may see just how nearly I can come to agreeing with him. I turn first to page 3110 of Hansard, where I find this statement:
Mr. Ilsley: If the Social Credit party is not against borrowing and is not against taxing and is not against private ownership, then the difference between the Social Credit party and the government comes down to this, just a difference in judgment as to how much money should be issued from time to time.
I was startled when the minister made that remark, because I had been led to suspect that he was much further removed from us than his words indicated. Now, before beginning to develop my subject, may I just comment briefly on that passage. We were discussing the question of war financing; and let me fepeat that social credit does believe that it is necessary to tax during war. Ordinarily the attitude of social credit toward taxation is this, that for the major portion of the population it is not good to tax. Generally there is a shortage of purchasing power which renders the people unable to buy the goods which industry is able to produce. Consequently any measure which will decrease that purchasing power tends to aggravate the evil from which the community in modern times suffers, namely inadequate buying power. In time of war, however, we realize that in order to withdraw some of the surplus purchasing power which might embarrass the government by causing too great a buying pressure, it is necessary to use taxation discreetly.
With respect to borrowing, our general attitude is this, that it is inadvisable for a government to borrow. We believe that the bane of existence of the modern state is debt. We believe that debt should be guarded against

by every means at the disposal of an administration. Yet again we grant that in time of war a measure of borrowing is necessary.
Now with respect to the private ownership of industry, it is an essential characteristic of the social credit concept, as opposed to the socialistic concept, that industry will be much better taken care of, it will be much more efficient, the people engaged in industry will be much happier, and the state will be much more democratic if individuals own the industries. We therefore favour, to the fullest possible extent, individual ownership. So that thus far the minister's statement stands just as he made it, and it meets with my approval.
I should like some clarification of the minister's stand with respect to state-created money, and its use. The social credit stand, as I said on that earlier occasion, is that money which it is possible for the state to have created within it, ought to belong to the people of the state, and should be issued by the government as a clear asset to the government, free of debt. It should be administered by the government in the interests of all the people of the state. The other night the minister entirely agreed with that proposition. He and I may not agree as to just what the best disposition of the money would be, but it is good to know that our hearts are in the same place so far as the desire to use money for the welfare of the people is concerned.
The matter of state-created money is of great importance. One must consider how much can be used, and whether the state issue of money will cause inflation. The observations last night of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), addressed to hon. members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, in which he referred to Germany, brought to my attention more vividly the importance of discussing this whole question of inflation. There exists in the world some of the most grotesque distortions imaginable with respect to the whole German story. Men hold opinions so far from the truth as completely to astonish anyone who knows the story of the German inflation in detail. There are similar distortions respecting the assignats of France. The result is that most people are terrified at the mere mention of Germany or of assignats. As a matter of fact there is much for our generation to learn from both those experiments, and what is to be learned from them is entirely in favour of and not against the social credit proposals, strange as that may seem.


Humphrey Mitchell: The Germans got Hitler out of their experiment.

War Appropriation


John Horne Blackmore: As I have said, I should be pleased to take on the Minister of Labour, when he is ready, in a discussion respecting Germany. However it would be better to discuss Germany alone, and not mix it up with this matter, if the minister does not mind.
May I read one more quotation from the same page? The Minister of Finance said:
The reason why the hon. gentleman takes that $26,000,000 is that at that time there was a gold standard, which was departed from to the extent that that $26,000,000 was created. To-day there is no gold standard, and to the extent that we b rrow from the Bank of Canada, as we do to a limited extent, are we not doing exactly what that government did when it issued the $26,000,000?
May I congratulate the minister, after thinking it over, on that statement. It was a brave and progressive thing to say. It acknowledged the truth-truth upon which we can build a good deal of constructive thought.
In the light of that remark I wish to read from Hansard of March 20, 1941, page 1724 the answer given by the minister to a question asked by the hon. member for Acadia. I should like the minister to clarify the situation, bearing in mind what is contained in the following question and answer:
Mr. Quelch: Up to the present time the government have not used the Bank of Canada for the purpose of obtaining money to meet current expenditures, apart from refunding and the purchase of gold? That is really what I wish to know.
Mr. Usley: No.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That was last year some time?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes. Has the minister now departed from the policy which he indicated he had followed up to that time? That is, has he issued from the Bank of Canada money to be used for purposes other than the purchase of gold or the refunding of debt? In other words has money actually been issued from the Bank of Canada and used for the defraying of government expenses, as were the $26,000,000 to which we have referred? Would the minister care to tell us that?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall have to look into that. It is difficult to answer a question in this fashion. The hon. member goes away and digs out some answers I made a year ago. Then he comes back and asks if there has been any change in that time. I suggest that he make his speech. I may make an answer which he will produce the next day if I am not careful.


John Horne Blackmore: I realize a question like that is a difficult one for the minister to deal with, because of the tremendous complexity and immensity of the work he has in his mind. But we are vitally concerned as to whether or not the government does issue money from the Bank of Canada and does use that money for ordinary governmental purposes. For example, would the minister consider it sound to issue money from the Bank of Canada to the extent of, say $100,000,000, to buy gold from the refineries, so that the money so issued would go out directly into circulation in Canada? It is obvious that a distinct difference in policy would be involved. In one case the money never leaves the Bank of Canada; it is merely transferred from one drawer or one room to another. In the other case the money would go right out into circulation, as did the $26,000,000 at the time of the last war. That would establish an entirely different policy. I am not going to ask the minister to make a statement on it now, because he will need to look into the matter. But in order that there may be the similarity between the social credit concept and the government concept which the minister's words and my words would tend to indicate, it is necessary that the government be ready to issue money from the Bank of Canada, and buy gold right out in the country, wherever it can be obtained, direct from the mine. There would follow this conclusion, that if the government could issue notes of the Bank of Canada and buy gold in Canada from the refineries, it ought to be equally sound for the government to issue such money and buy wheat. The only difference would be that the gold, in one case, could be put into the vaults of the government or of the bank, and held as a sort of guarantee for the money issued. In the other case there would be wheat in possession of the government.
As the minister recognizes, this is a most important matter, because if the Bank of Canada could issue money to buy wheat, and the government could obtain that money without debt and without taxing the people, then there would be a way open for a possible solu-i tion of many problems troubling us to-day. I have raised this question so that everyone may see the difference between the concept of the social creditors, if there is a difference, and the concept of the government.
Another passage from the minister's remarks, to be found on page 3111 of Hansard, is as follows:
We are not going into debt when we borrow from the Bank of Canada because we are the Bank of Canada.
War Appropriation

With that I entirely agree.
Therefore, the difference between the hon. gentleman and myself comes down to this, does it not, merely a matter of judgment as to how far we should go in borrowing from the Bank of Canada?
Mr. Blackmore: I think so.
I had to be careful about what words I used, because I lacked the knowledge which the minister could give me as a result of the questions I have asked to-day. The question as to how far we should go being merely a matter of judgment is a sound question; I Should like to comment briefly on it before going on to other aspects of the whole question.
As I said the other day, the idea has got abroad-by the way, I have a statement from a bank manager contained in a bank letter this year which conveys the idea that if the government were to create a dollar bill, that dollar bill would be inflation. That is an utter fallacy; it is one of the most dangerous concepts that could be foisted upon mankind at the present stage of our affairs. The issue of new money would not be inflation. Inflation is the rise of prices only. Until the new money, even if it were hundreds of millions, began to cause a rise in prices, it would not be inflation. If the members of this house could agree to that truth, a great amount of the anxiety which now prevails in this country from shore to shore, and a great many of the anxieties of the government, would be allayed. I laid down this principle the other day and I wish to lay it down to-day: The amount of money which can be issued by the government and used depends upon the goods-and-services-producing-and-consuming-power of the country.
May I revert briefly to the German situation. The reason why Germany came into financial disaster was largely this:	that
Germany as a country was relatively poor and small, while her population was relatively large. The goods-and-services-producing-and-consuming-power of Germany did not justify the creation of as much money as was created in Germany. I shall discuss this at greater length when the Minister of Labour and I have our little friendly discussion.
It is not entirely a matter of judgment; at least in forming judgment one is not entirely without realities to go by. One knows that the amount of money which could be issued in Canada depends, for example, on the amount of milk that Canada can produce and consume, on the amount of butter, the amount of lumber, the amount of sugar, the amount of honey, the amount of vegetables and fruit, the amount of coal and gasoline and all other

things which Canada can produce and consume. Production and consumption are vitally bound up in the whole question of inflation. The minister indicated that he understood this in a speech which he made-a fine speech, upon which I would commend him-on March 17, 1942, to the Ontario federation of agriculture. He indicated quite clearly in that speech that he understood that agriculture and the productive power of agriculture were vital to the monetary situation in Canada; that is, that agriculture had much to do with whether or not Canada was in danger of inflation. That is what I gathered from the minister's speech. May I quote again from page 3112 of Hansard:
Mr. Ilsley: We believe it would be quite unsafe to go any further than we have gone, in view of the danger of inflation. We do not believe we could control inflation by our price ceiling policy if we went much further in the issue of money, because it would burst the price ceiling. If the price ceiling, by some miracle, should hold, then it would mean the indefinite continuance of the price ceiling after the war, because there would be such a volume of bank credit or currency or both that the removal of the price ceiling would be impossible because prices would soar so desperately.
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury):	The whole
theory means inflation; it cannot mean anything else.
By which remark the leader of the opposition indicated that he has a lot more to learn about money. The minister's remarks were quite sound. I should like to draw something to the minister's attention and to the attention of those who are worrying about this problem. After the war there will be a tremendous amount of productive capacity available, productive capacity which is now devoted to the fabrication of war goods. This capacity will be without further employment and will of necessity be diverted immediately or as soon as possible to the production of goods for consumption within the country. If the minister does not have at that time a substantial accumulation of purchasing power in the hands of the people throughout Canada, there will be a serious deficiency of buying power. The result will be that the new production which would be the result of the transfer of the war producing machinery to the production of peace-time goods will not be disposed of and there will be precipitated a most appalling condition of unemployment.
Such a condition would be deflation. I know the minister realizes that there are two serious problems facing any government. The one is to prevent inflation, and the other, equally important, is to prevent deflation. The government must guard against both, and also be prepared to take such measures as are neces-

War Appropriation
sary to ensure the stability of the employment situation after the war. This question is troubling the rank and file of Canadians far more than the danger of inflation. While I recognize that there is a danger of inflation, I believe it could be controlled to a greater extent than it is at the present time, although the government and the minister are doing a commendable work in their efforts to control it.
I wish the leader of the opposition were in the chamber, because I should like to ask him right to his face what he thinks he would do with all the tremendous amount of post-war production if he had an impoverished population. For example, I should like to ask him how he imagines the Canadian people would be able to consume the butter and cheese, particularly the cheese which we are now manufacturing and shipping to Great Britain, and the beef and the pork, unless they had savings. What will happen to the men who are engaged in the production of pork-just as a concrete everyday illustration-if the British market is in some measure closed to us or if we no longer have the tremendous number of sinkings on the seas? What would happen to the men whose money is now or will be invested in pork production? All these are matters of vital concern to the Canadian people, but they are matters which the leader of the opposition has evidently been too busy to consider.
I wish to read one more statement made by the minister. He said, at page 3112 of Hansard:
The hon. gentleman denies that his policy means inflation.
I certainly do; for I say that the social credit proposals are the only means by which inflation can be fully controlled. He goes on:
We argue and believe that it does, if it goes much beyond what we are doing anyway, or probably if it goes at all beyond what we are doing anyway. That is what we believe. We get the best advice we can; we exercise the best judgment we can, and our judgment tells us that we want to withdraw' purchasing power from the consumers of this country. We want desperately to do that, because of the terrific upward pressure on the price level if we do not.
I believe I have been quite fair to the minister. I have tried to select statements he made to show his point of view so that there can be no misunderstanding. I sympathize with the minister in this statement of his. I urge upon the minister that the social credit proposals could be of great assistance to him, as I propose to demonstrate in the course of my remarks.
The first all-important question is, what is inflation? May I give a definition which I believe is absolutely sound? Inflation is a
rise in price which results from having more money in circulation that there are goods in the market to buy with the money; putting it in another way one might say that inflation is a rise of price resulting from a scarcity of goods. In other words, the stress should be placed not only upon money but upon goods. I made the remark to the Minister of Labour last night that the difficulty that Germany faced was that she lacked goods, and the more you examine the story of Germany the more you will realize that that is true. It was fundamentally the shortage of goods in Germany that caused her inflation. We cannot bear in upon our minds too emphatically this fact, that inflation can be controlled by having more goods, more production. That was the great thought which the minister gave in his speech of March 17 to which I have referred.
As an illustration of how state money or any kind of money can be used to prevent inflation, to prevent a rise in price, to increase production, may I elaborate on what the minister is already doing? He is subsidizing prices. Some members of the opposition have been inclined to criticize the minister for spending the amount of money he is spending in subsidizing prices. But in this the minister is wholly sound. He can spend many times the amount of money he is spending on subsidizing and still be doing a work of very great value for the people of Canada. He does not need to be afraid of subsidies, or afraid of his critics; when he said the other day that he would fight an election on that issue he was certainly taking very sound ground. It is possible to spend a large amount of money in a way which according to orthodox principles would seem unsound and yet obtain a result which is of such tremendous value to the state as a whole that the money must appear very well spent.
To illustrate; Great Britain in 1941, I found when I was overseas and talking to a prominent member of the British house, spent 100 million pounds in keeping down the cost of goods to the people. Great Britain in that same year spent 30 million pounds, I was told, in subsidizing the prices of the primary producers. As an illustration, I gathered this from an article I was reading not long ago. The British government are paying the egg producer 75 cents a dozen for eggs and then selling those eggs to the consumer for 50 cents a dozen, which means that on every dozen of eggs the British government is paying out 25 cents; and still that is good business, and for two reasons. In the first place it is a stimulation of the production of a vital necessity, and in the next place it is
War Appropriation

making it possible for the consumer to buy without causing inflation. Some people would say that that kind of procedure, paying 75 cents a dozen for eggs and then selling them for 50 cents, is bound to lead to inflation. Not at all; for on the consumer market, where you judge the impact of inflation, prices have been brought down. If the government had not given 75 cents a dozen for eggs, egg production would have greatly fallen off, and prices would have risen to perhaps SI a dozen. That would mean inflation.


Mr. GILLIS:: Why not call it profiteering? That is what it is.


John Horne Blackmore: It is not profiteering
at all. I think I shall have to stop for just a minute to deal with the hon. member's question. In western Canada to-day the farmers are paying for the 147 things they buy 152 per cent of what they were paying for those same articles in 1914. Now if their costs increase by 52-2 per cent, how in the world can they continue to produce if their prices are not increased? And yet the price of their commodity on the market is lower to-day than it was in 1914. How are you going to bridge that gap? When you get down to reasoning it out, you will be so close to the social credit concept of adjusting the price to the consumer and subsidizing the price to the producer that you will not be able to tell the difference.


Clarence Gillis: And the taxpayer would
have to pay for it.


John Horne Blackmore: The taxpayer would
not be paying for it if the money were being created. That is the important principle of state-created money, that prices can be adjusted without taxation or borrowing.


An hon. MEMBER:: I cannot understand
that.


John Horne Blackmore: There will be those
who cannot understand it, but it can be understood. It is the truth and it is understood by the best thinkers to-day all over the world.


Mr. TUSTIN:: How would you produce
state money?


John Horne Blackmore: As I said the other
night, you created it during the last war, when the government printed $26,000,000 of new money. They just printed it; they could have created it as credit. The principle in both cases is sound. The printing of that $26,000,000 certainly did not cause inflation. If there was an inflationary tendency it would have been overcome by the application of a price ceiling such as the minister has applied.


George James Tustin: Yes, but $26,000,000, comparatively speaking, would not be anything at all.


John Horne Blackmore: The principle is established. I was asked where the money would come from, and I have said where it would come from.


Mr. MacNICOL:: That is a pretty easy way to get it, is it not?


John Horne Blackmore: It is just like anything else; you have to know how and to what extent to do it, and exercise the power with wisdom.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Who knows?


John Horne Blackmore: That must be discovered. It depends on the goods-and-services-producing-and-consuming-power of the country. Obviously, if Canada were a desert you could not have any money without having inflation. And the more completely Canada becomes removed from a desert condition the more money she can have. That is obvious.
I wish to go on and finish what I have to say, and after that I shall be delighted to answer questions. I am pleased with the interruption. I have been through these questions a good many times.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But we never know any more.


John Horne Blackmore: I have known students in classes to go through the subject a dozen times, and yet not know the grammar or the advanced algebra; but there was nothing wrong with the grammar or the advanced algebra.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps, with the teacher.


John Horne Blackmore: Or with the teacher either. I have illustrated the need for subsidies and discounts. I just want to point out to the committee something which is contained in the May 20 issue of the Searle index, to show the conditions now existing in western Canada. I quote:
The present price of wheat is now 43 per cent below the 1913-14 parity price and when the new 90 cent price is established for this new crop it will be 31 per cent below parity. The price of hogs is now 14 per cent below parity and steers 10 per cent below the 1913-14 parity, with lambs 7 per cent above the 1913-14 parity. But the average hourly rates of wages received by industrial labour working at munitions and other war industries is 44 per cent above the 1913-14 parity.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that in that little statement is pictured a set of economic conditions which is threatening and which will ruin this country unless measures are

War Appropriation
adopted to offset it. It challenges every thoughtful man in this country. It is a situation which must be overcome. I turn now to the back page of the same document and read what is stated regarding prices:
The Searle Index of the cost of things farmers buy (147 items) now stands at 152'4 (1913-14 equals 100).


James Lorimer Ilsley: Are those consumer goods?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, they are mainly consumer goods. But they include such capital goods as, we will say, certain kinds of machines. There is a long list of them which I can give the minister. There are such things as post hole diggers, mittens, and other articles farmers buy for use in their ordinary work.


James Lorimer Ilsley: How does the cost of production compare?


John Horne Blackmore: Obviously every increase in the cost of articles used by a farmer, is going to increase the cost of producing, let us say, milk.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What about his tractors?


John Horne Blackmore: They all add to his cost of production.


James Lorimer Ilsley: And what about the cost of a bushel of wheat?


John Horne Blackmore: The costs of producing wheat have all gone up.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is the hon. gentleman sure of that?


John Horne Blackmore: I am sure of it. I can produce a number of figures; in fact the Searle figures are in point. I believe there are hon. members here

the hon. member for Souris and the hon. member for Moose Jaw-who could give them right off. All these costs have gone up astoundingly.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It does not sound over five.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Dealing with the argument as it affects agriculture, and seeing that we have with us the Minister of Labour, I might point out that the other evening I tried to get some information from the Minister of Agriculture, which the Minister of Labour may be able to supply. I believe it is generally realized that prices of agricultural products have been frozen at a very unfair level and have caused us certain difficulties, especially in the harvest months.
These difficulties will be multiplied this fall, and harvest is less than two months away. There are men travelling through the country to-day who do not care to work and who are not much interested in the war effort; they ask rates of pay for harvest work which create great difficulties to the farmers. I believe the man who assists in the harvest field or elsewhere on the farm is entitled to fair remuneration, but I should like to know from the Minister of Labour, under whose jurisdiction this matter comes, whether in his opinion some equitable basis of pay could be worked out and set in operation before harvest time which will be fair both to the farmer and to the labourer.


Humphrey Mitchell: I believe my hon. friend knows, perhaps better than I do, that no attempt has ever been made in this country to regulate harvest wages.


James Arthur Ross: No attempt was ever made before to set price ceilings for produce such as have now been put into effect.


Humphrey Mitchell: Just a minute; listen to me. I should be very glad if my hon. friend could make any suggestions along this line. If he can, he is just the man I am looking for, and he can rest assured that my office is open to him every day in the week, twenty-four hours a day.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: I think first of all I should congratulate the Minister of Finance on the success with which he has imbibed the social credit philosophy. We here are beginning to wonder whether the government will be moving over to this side or whether the social credit section of the house will be moving across to the government benches.
There are two or three questions I wanted to bring before the minister in connection with this bill. When it was under discussion before I raised a question with regard to the closing down of the Canadian Associated Aircraft plant. At that time 40 per cent of the employees had already been discharged, and the remainder had received notice that they would be discharged in two weeks' time. The Minister of Munitions and Supply said at that time that these men would be absorbed by the adjoining plant, the National Steel Car company. Word has come that National Steel Car management, in correspondence with the management of Canadian Associated Aircraft, indicates that there is no place whatever in their plant for the personnel of Canadian Associated Aircraft. Can the Minister of Labour tell us whether any provision is made under which these
War Appropriation

aircraft workers, some of them partly and some of them expertly trained, can procure other employment within a few days' time when that plant closes down? I understand that National Steel Car is only in the stage of tuning up for the new bomber which it will produce later.


Humphrey Mitchell: My department is
already in touch with the situation, and if the men have the skill that my hon. friend says they have, I do not think there should be any great difficulty in their being placed through the employment service.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The second question I wished to raise is this. I have received representations from a number of de Havilland workers who were discharged the latter part of last week. As the minister probably knows, in each case the discharged workers were trade unionists, all taking a prominent part in organizing their trade union in that plant in competition with the company union that the company was fostering. Is there nothing the minister or his department can do to facilitate cooperation between trade union organizations and management within these plants? I have noticed again and again in the plants of which I have some knowledge that just as soon as a group of trade unionists begin to organize a union in a plant, the management immediately sets to work organizing a company union to offset the influence of the trade union, with the result that there is conflict between the employers and employees and production is interrupted. Are there no steps the government can take to prevent that conflict, which arises in nearly every industrial plant in this country? It seems to me it is a matter in respect to which something could be done.
We have heard a great deal of the importance and necessity of oil; and I am sorry the Minister of Munitions and Supply is not here. I believe the government have announced during this session that they are not interested in financing the production of oil in any field- I think that is their policy-but they are willing to promote the production of oil in any field in any way short of actual financing of it. If I am wrong in that I should like to be corrected. I have figures showing that the oil production in the Turner Valley field last year was almost 10,000,000 barrels. Forty-one new wells were brought into production. Of that number twenty-five were private or independent wells financed by the sale of royalties. I am informed that 40 per cent of the present production in that field is produced by these independently financed wells. The sixteen new wells brought into production by the oil companies which control large areas

there are all, I am told, offsetting wells brought into production only to prevent the independent companies from drawing the oil from their properties. They all adjoin wells which had already been brought into production by independent companies.
It seems to me that the government should facilitate in every possible way the development of oil wells. I am told that there are only two methods by which the opening of these wells can be financed : one by the sale of royalties to the public, and the other by the big oil companies. Apparently at the present time it is not the policy of the big oil companies to bring their wells into production. My information is-and again if the minister has more recent or more accurate information we should have it-that the big oil companies have more than a hundred proven wells in that valley that are capped at the present time and not producing, and that they are producing only where it is necessary to offset some well brought into production by the independent producers.
It has been called to my attention that the salesmen interested in the financing of these independent wells, twenty-five of which were brought into production last year, are prevented from carrying on further work by reason of the fact that the oil controller allows them only an A category gasoline ration. I have a report here of the negotiations carried on with the oil controller, showing that he changed his mind at least a half a dozen times on this subject. At first he granted these salesmen a higher category; then the books were called in, or some of them, and some were left with category A, others with category E, and final decision was reached that no one interested in the sale of oil royalities should have anything more than A category. In view of the fact that by that means twenty-five wells were brought into production in 1941 it seems reasonable that the government should encourage further opening of wells by that means.
Another matter that I should like to call to the minister's attention is a suggestion concerning our rubber supply, particularly salvage rubber. A number of dealers interested in preserving our rubber supply have made to me the following representations, which I pass on to the proper authorities.
My attention has been called to the fact that there are thousands of tons of salvage rubber at the present time left exposed to sun and weather. No attempt has been made by the government to see that these thousands of tons are protected in any way from the elements. There is no regulation under which

War Appropriation
the usable part of that salvage rubber, consisting of tires many of which can be vulcanized and used, is separated from the scrap. My information is that at present large quantities of tires which could be vulcanized and used again are in the junk piles and no effort is being made to separate them. So far as I can discover, there is nothing in the regulations to prevent second-hand dealers from hoarding all the second-hand tires they can acquire. It is true the government has a record of these, but I am informed that there are second-hand rubber dealers who are hoarding large quantities of this material. On the same subject of leaving tires exposed, if you look at the second-hand car lots of this country you will find thousands of tons of tires exposed to the weather, deteriorating, on cars which, in view of the gasoline situation, probably will not be used for years. I seriously believe that if rubber is so scarce, some steps should be taken to save these thousands of tires from deterioration.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think the first question asked by the hon. member was with regard to discrimination at the de Havilland plant at Montreal, was it not?


Joseph William Noseworthy: No; at Toronto.


Humphrey Mitchell: Very well. I do not know whether my hon. friend is aware of the fact, but order in council P.C. 4020 gives the Minister of Labour power to send in a commissioner and to act upon the recommendations of that commissioner, and the action of the minister is final and binding on both parties. I would say to my hon. friend that almost from day to day we hear of cases of alleged discrimination on both sides. At the moment we have five permanent commissioners, one located in the west, one in the middle west, one in Ontario, one in Montreal, and one for the maritimes. I remember quite vividly that when I was chairman of the industrial disputes inquiry commission we dealt with a number of cases of the nature of the one to which my hon. friend referred, and in every case we were able to arrange a satisfactory settlement. I am sure my hon. friend appreciates that in the process of organization tempers sometimes become frayed on both sides, and that order in council has been of great service not only to the employees but also to the employers. If my hon. friend cares to look up that order in council, he will find the provision to which I have referred in section 5.


Clarence Gillis: This afternoon the hon.
member for Rosetown-Biggar brought up the question of the Dumart plant and asked the Minister of Labour if it was the intention of
the government to place a controller in that plant in accordance with the wishes of the employees. The minister categorically replied that it was not. That plant has been closed for some four weeks. It is an essential industry. Bacon is practically under government control; the bacon board demands a certain quota from each plant each month, and there is no doubt that the attitude of the operator of that plant is interfering with the war effort.
This dispute had its origin in a trivial matter; two employees were dismissed over a slight argument, and as a result there was a walk-out of the employees. The same evening a representative of the Department of Labour arrived on the scene, and, after negotiation, felt he had the matter settled. He went to bed that night in the belief that the dispute had been satisfactorily settled, as far as the workers were concerned and, as he thought, also to the satisfaction of the employer. The employees reported for work at seven o'clock the following morning, and were notified that the plant was not open; evidently the employer changed his mind overnight. The situation at present is that this is an illegal lock-out. That is not my version of it; the representative of the Department of Labour, who was sent to negotiate the dispute, made that declaration publicly. For some four weeks the employers have refused to open that plant. The union which functions there is of the government's own brand; it is an employees' committee, and the employees are under contract with the plant. One of the provisions of the contract is that ail disputes must be taken up with the local superintendent. The man who dismissed the two employees was not the local but the general superintendent, which placed the local superintendent in a position where he could not very well settle the matter in accordance with the terms of the contract without going over the head of his superior. The situation is in quite a tangle now, and I think it is time someone took hold of it and tried to do something about it. Some three weeks ago I had the privilege of meeting a committee from that plant, just a couple of boys and a couple of girls who had not very much of an idea what it was all about, who came here to see me.
I am not going to elaborate the matter further. I say it is absolute neglect on the part of someone. I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Labour, however, to an editorial appearing in this afternoon's Ottawa Journal, dealing with a speech delivered by the director of national selective service to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. It is well worth reading by anyone interested in relations between employer
War Appropriation

and employee. He makes an observation which I think is pertinent, having in mind the attitude of the management at the Dumart plant:
To those who don't want good relations or don't appreciate their value, I say: The country cannot afford to have you as an employer at any time, particularly in war time. You must change your ways. . . .
Waving a flag in a workman's face and calling on his patriotism cannot be a substitute for decent treatment. You cannot write a memo about it, and accomplish it. . . . It must be an attitude, a frame of mind, a recognition of existing facts and conditions which can be turned to mutual advantage for an employer and employee-and for the country.
I believe that statement is absolutely pertinent to this case. The employer is wrong. He is interfering with an essential industry. The matter was settled by arbitration. There is nothing in the dispute to-day that should keep this plant idle, except stubbornness on the part of the employer. The employees want to return to work one hundred per cent, including the two men who were dismissed, and then they are willing to have the matter arbitrated. They are prepared to go before any board of arbitration and negotiate what may be in the mind of the employer or any grievances they may have. Their contract has been violated. The general superintendent, in precipitating this trouble, placed the management, the local superintendent and the employees in a position where they are deadlocked, and the plant is closed. I think it is time the Minister of Labour or someone demonstrated the attitude of mind which Mr. Little mentioned in the remarks I quoted.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Will they go back to
work without the two men who were dismissed?


Clarence Gillis: There is no reason why
they should. The plant has been idle for a month now. The dispute was over nothing in the first place; it had to do with a short period they had at the noon hour. The two men dismissed were working at the far end of the line, and when the dinner hour arrived, as I understand it, they got away five or ten minutes later than the other employees, but they came back at the same time. As a result they were not getting sufficient time to complete their meal, and they merely requested that they be allowed the extra time they had to stay on the line after the other workers left. For that they were dismissed. I just happened to come across a parallel case which occurred in Britain, and perhaps it is worth while putting it on record. This concerned the dismissal of a woman in a plant. The union presented their case; the 
management presented their case, exactly as was done in the present instance. The matter went to a court, which found that while the employees did not do right in walking out, nevertheless it was the only way they had to demonstrate in order to assist the woman who was dismissed for a reason which was found insufficient to tie up a plant. The matter was straightened out in that way. The court of arbitration in Great Britain decided in that manner, and for four weeks the employers in the plant have sat back and refused either to recognize common sense or loss, or the seriousness of the war situation, or the essentiality of their plant in that setting.
On the basis of the Kirkland Lake dispute, and many other disputes which have taken place across Canada I say it is high time somebody got down to business, and set up a court with a man like Elliott M. Little at the head of it. My opinion is that it is a disgrace to have a plant of that kind tied up for four weeks-and to all intents and purposes the same situation is going to continue. I myself cannot understand what the trouble is. Through one of its officials the Department of Labour have declared this an illegal lockout. If to-morrow there is an illegal strike, what happens? The Minister of Labour immediately places the responsibility on the Department of Justice, and those responsible for fomenting and carrying on the illegal strike are tried and interned. For example, C. S. Jackson was interned.


Humphrey Mitchell: Not for an illegal strike, was he?


Clarence Gillis: Jackson was interned for that strike in Toronto at the General Electric plant.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: And for lesser allegations than that.


Clarence Gillis: I would not argue the point, but that is the way I feel about the matter. If one of the minister's officials publicly states that this is an illegal lock-out, and it is carried on for four weeks, is it not about time that it was passed on to somebody else for some action? Certainly that plant should be working.
I have no intention of labouring the matter further. I spoke this afternoon because the matter had been discussed by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. I had the privilege of sitting in on the committee. I saw a couple of boys and girls who are willing to work, but who are certainly not in a position themselves, with their knowledge of affairs, to arbitrate and to get a fair settlement in the matter.

War Appropriation
If the Minister of Labour and his department, who are experienced in these matters, are not prepared to take hold and see that matters are settled to the satisfaction of all concerned, then something else will have to be done. The trouble can spread.
The Bums packing plant is a big organization. Packing plant workers in Canada belong to a powerful trade union, and they have powerful international affiliations. I do not think they are going to sit back much longer and allow a certain portion of their workers to starve in the street, in the present circumstances, without some justification. The natural procedure is to support those people.


Humphrey Mitchell: As my hon. friend is well aware, I have never taken the position, and do not now intend to do so, that it is in the public interest immediately to take over a plant because a group of workers or employers act in opposition to government policy. I should like that to be clearly understood.
I am not going to discuss with my hon. friend whether this was a lock-out or an illegal strike. As he knows, since I have been Minister of Labour I have decentralized the conciliation service of the dominion and placed it under the jurisdiction of provincial governments. That was done primarily because there had been some delay in facing up to industrial disputes. The settlement of the dispute in question was under the jurisdiction of a provincial department of labour. I believe that is a fact which may readily be agreed upon. May I add that there has been considerable trouble at Dumarts, ever since the place was organized. I believe that can be freely admitted. There was ample provision under some of the orders in council which have received criticism from certain people in the dominion to take care of the situation which arose there. The people at Dumarts knew it. Let us keep the record straight on that point.
It should be stated that the strike took place when the business agent was having a discussion with the management. The management claimed that the language used by the two people discharged was not the kind of language which should be used. Possibly it was the language of the slaughterhouse- because we know that miners, electricians and engineers do not always use the most pleasant language at times.


Clarence Gillis: Very expressive, though.


Humphrey Mitchell: Hon. members will see
the difficult position in which it places a minister of labour, whether he be a minister in the Ontario government, or myself. When people go on an illegal strike a minister's hands are immediately tied.


Clarence Gillis: But it lasted only about
four hours.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is not important.


Clarence Gillis: Your official settled it.


Humphrey Mitchell: There must be discipline in these matters; let us be fair. As I said this afternoon, when I was chairman of the industrial disputes inquiry commission I looked into disputes of this kind on many occasions. I could have sent a commissioner in within twenty-four hours, and got back his report, as we have done on many occasions. But the company claimed that these people left their employ, rightly or wrongly, and they contend that a good deal of business had been lost through this dispute.
I have always felt that there was a grave risk in putting people out on the street. My hon. friend will agree with me that that is one of the easiest things in the world.-to have men and women on the street. But sometimes it is not so easy to get them back to work. Industrial leadership is the fly-wheel. There must be leadership on both sides; sometimes it breaks one way, and sometimes the other way. But if we took that leadership away, whether it be among the employers or the employees, I am afraid industrial conditions in this country would be in a very grave state.
I suppose for many years I have been as close to the rank and file as most people in the labour movement of Canada. I have found on every occasion that if people are given the right kind of leadership, one can take them out or leave them in-as long as one is frank with them. For instance, in my own trade, in my own city, we were among the highest paid in the dominion. Yet we never had a strike, during the whole of our existence. That is why we were among the highest paid in the dominion.


Clarence Gillis: But you had good wages and good conditions; there was no necessity to call the men out.


Humphrey Mitchell: Not always.


Clarence Gillis: These things were not all
handed to you on a platter.


Humphrey Mitchell: I appreciate that.
May I say with regard to Kirkland Lake that I am quite prepared to discuss the whole matter at another time. As I said, however, at the moment the Dumart dispute is in the hands of a provincial government-and I am not saying that to get out from under any responsibility in the matter.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Where does the angle of war production come in? Do you turn over
War Appropriation

all these disputes to provincial governments, or are matters affecting materials essential to the war not handled from the dominion department?


Humphrey Mitchell: The plant is not closed.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It is operating?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Then what are the
employees doing?


Humphrey Mitchell: Half of them are at work, and half have left. I do not know a great deal about the slaughterhouse business, but my information is that as soon as this trouble was encountered the company stopped buying, because their private business was in danger. It created a problem for the employers as well as for the employees, who resented it very much. Had I been with the employers I would have taken those people back to work. That, of course, is only my own view.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: On a question of general principle, if a business is engaged in producing essential war goods, and a labour trouble develops, does the Department of Labour at Ottawa ask the department in the province in which the business is located to look after the dispute?


Humphrey Mitchell: They do so automatically.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: So that we are not likely to have a situation such as arose in connection with the National Steel Car company at Hamilton, where the Department of Labour at Ottawm appointed a manager or supervisor? Do I understand that system no longer obtains?


Humphrey Mitchell: He was not appointed by the Department of Labour; he was appointed by the Department of Munitions and Supply.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Was the decision of the government arrived at without bringing in the provinces?


Humphrey Mitchell: If the employer or the employee is in difficulties it is necessary that something should be done. This is one of the fly-wheels, one of the governors in what might be called industrial statesmanship. The reason why I did not do a certain thing was the consequences that might follow to employer and employee alike.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was not the taking over of the plant by the government really a last resort?


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: Those who were put in charge of the plant did not know how to operate it. They had not been nurtured in that particular business, and they could not operate to the same degree of efficiency as the management, on the one hand, and the employees, on the other, if both the management and the employees were brought to their senses.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: Yesterday I asked the minister a question as reported on page 3126 of Hansard. The question was:
Is the order recently made by the national war labour board of Canada fixing the wages of common labour in the Yukon at 75 cents per hour plus cost of living bonus being enforced against all employers of common labour in Yukon?
The minister's answer was an unequivocal yes, but he went on to give certain facts which showed that his answer was a conditional yes. The fact is that the order is being enforced against Canadian employers and Canadian employees and not against foreign employers and foreign employees working in that part of Canada. The minister explained the necessity of hastening the construction of the Alaska highway for the defence of Canada and the United States. I say to him and to this committee that if the immediate defence of the United States and Alaska and Canada are dependent upon the completion of the Alaska highway, it is too late. At the present moment great numbers of fighting men and large quantities of mechanical equipment and weapons can be moved from the United States and Canada into Alaska without the use of the Alaska highway. These goods and men can be taken in by boat and by rail, and there is no limit upon what can be carried. I contend that to enforce the order of the Canadian wartime labour board as to wages for work in Yukon, wages paid by all employers and earned by all employees, would not hinder or delay the construction of that highway, the use of which is not immediately necessary because other and better means of transportation are available. I say that it is manifestly unfair to the Canadian wage-earners to limit the Canadian wartime labour board's order to the wages paid to them. I maintain that that order should be applied to all employers and employees in Yukon, Canada, regardless of nationality. It is not correct to say that the foreigner must pay and receive higher wages than the Canadian in order to hasten the completion of that highway. If the minister were a Canadian labourer working on that highway job, I am sure that he would not approve his own policy or the policy of his government. I ask him and I ask the government to

War Appropriation
enforce that wartime labour board's order without favouritism and without exception. It is the only fair and proper thing to do.


Humphrey Mitchell: First of all, I am not going into matters of high strategy with my hon. friend. I am not going to discuss whether troops should be moved to Alaska or to the Yukon by ship or by rail. I am one of those who think that this war is going to last another ten years, although I hope I am wrong. We may be very glad to have that road before the war is over. The other day my hon. friend drew to my attention the fact that wage rates in northern British Columbia were getting out of control. Agents of United States contractors were going through the west recruiting labour for the Alaska highway. We acted with about as much expedition as we could and arranged a conference through external affairs with United States government representatives in an effort to overcome some of the disagreeable conditions that some think exist to-day in Newfoundland.
My hon. friend knows as well as I about the tremendous shortage of labour that will follow the building of this Alaska highway up through British Columbia and Alberta and also the highway from Prince Rupert to a point to the east. It will be necessary to recruit thousands of men, many of them skilled men, in the United States. In order to do that, it will be necessary to pay the going rates in the different communities in the United States where the men may be recruited. It is a general practice of law that when United States citizens work abroad they shall be paid a bonus of 25 per cent for foreign service. Then there is the matter of the exchange on the United States dollar. I do not need to tell my hon. friend what bearing this will have upon wages and prices in British Columbia when these men come to work during the ensuing summer months.
It was agreed between the representatives of the governments that the Canadian contractors should employ Canadians and that the United States contractors would have the right to bring in labour from the other side. As far as the Canadians were concerned the workmen's compensation and the unemployment insurance benefits would prevail. United States conditions would prevail for the United States workmen. It was suggested also that the United States workmen should be advised to remit as much of their wages to the United States as they possibly could. I do not know of a more practicable way of dealing with the matter.
I appreciate that to some the rates of wages for unskilled labour in that part of the country
may seem high, but I know something about board costs there. I think we all know something about the climatic conditions that prevail, the mosquitoes and the black flies. I think my hon. friend will agree that this thing should be given a trial in order that we may try to overcome some of the difficulties that may exist at the moment in Newfoundland. Our wage policy in northern British Columbia and Alberta must be such as to meet the tremendous demands for labour to build the Alaska highway.


George Black: I can only repeat that I think Canadian laws should prevail, that the foreigner should be subject to them just as must as we are.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is a lovely theory, but it does not always work, and I do not say that in any critical way. In connection with unemployment insurance and social security measures, there is already an arrangement between the United States government and our own which permits certain persons, particularly those who work on the railroads, to retain pension rights, social security rights, workmen's compensation rights and so on in the United States. The same condition prevails with respect to certain Canadians. From my point of view that is all to the good. If this exchange of opinions and services that has existed as between the dominion and the United States had existed in Europe, I do not think we would be fighting this war to-day. I cannot imagine, for instance, the French government owning a railroad to Berlin in the same way as the Canadian government owns that prosperous piece of track running from Port Huron to Chicago. In all these matters we find there is a necessity for the interchange of regulations and prohibitions between the two countries. Do not forget that the United States is paying for the Alaska highway, and we are not.


George Black: True, the United States is paying for it, and Canada is letting the United States build it through Canada, but I say again that it is not fair to the Canadian workmen to make them work for 75 cents an hour, while an American working alongside him and doing the same work gets $1.05 an hour.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the minister not think we shall have to come to the higher level, or have endless confusion?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not objecting to the higher rate.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Neither am I, if they are entitled to it.
W ar Appropriation


Humphrey Mitchell: But the understanding is that United States contractors will employ United States labour and they will be in their own camps. Canadians and Americans will not be working alongside one another as is generally understood of work on a construction gang, but there will be United States camps and Canadian camps, miles apart. If the Americans are going to recruit shovel runners, truck operators, what they call operating engineers in construction engineering-and I understand they will need about three thousand of them-I imagine that it will be necessary to get them from the places where these men can- be found in the United States. I think I know something of the wage structure in that industry, and the only way you can get those men to go to Alaska is to pay them the proper rate, just as Canadian contractors will pay the prevailing rates for that part of the country.


James Arthur Ross: I did not get a chance to ask the minister about farm labour. He said that no government had ever attempted to handle that problem before.


Humphrey Mitchell: I said no Canadian
government.


James Arthur Ross: And no Canadian government has ever handled the price ceiling before. The minister asked what I would suggest. I would remind him that last fall, on November 10, I appealed to the government to introduce national selective service at that time for industry, agriculture and the armed forces, and I pointed out that there were many good men in industry and agriculture who were worth ever so much more there than they could be in the armed forces. I know a young foreman in my own neighbourhood who was operating a very large farm. He did not want to go into the armed forces, but on the other hand he did not want people to say that he had not offered his services. He could render many times the service to this nation in managing that farm that he could in the armed forces; nevertheless he joined up.
The Prime Minister of this country delivered his man-power speech on March 24 of this year, but notwithstanding that speech nothing has been done to this day with respect to applying national selective service to agriculture. Great inequities prevail. Organized labour has been guaranteed a fixed price for its labour, using 1926-29 as the base period. Later on it was guaranteed a cost of living bonus, and there was a guarantee of salaries in industry. I think it would only be just if the government set

a ceiling price for agricultural products, taking the same base period, and guaranteed the farm labourers the same rate of pay, plus a cost of living bonus. Farming is essential in carrying on the war, and I cannot see why the government should not guarantee a rate of wages to both farm labour and organized labour on exactly the same basis. There is a great disparity in the price ceiling, for instance, on butter fat, with a price of 50 cents a pound when it is used in making cheese and 35 cents a pound when it is used in making butter-a product that comes from the very same cow. There are many inequities to-day, and I think it would be reasonable to guarantee a ceding price for agricultural products and to guarantee wages for the farm labourer, all on the same base period.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend mentions selective service. If I remember correctly, the first thing which the department did after the Prime Minister's speech was to freeze labour on the farms. That was the first industry we attacked.


James Arthur Ross: In what respect?


Humphrey Mitchell: No man working on the farm could leave it and go into industry without a permit. With respect to farm labour this summer, I might say that last year we had an agreement with Ontario, which felt there was going to be a shortage of labour in agriculture; the dominion government matched dollar ^or dollar with the province, up to an expenditure of $60,000 by the dominion, to provide farm labour, and under this scheme 23,000 persons were recruited for farms in Ontario. I think it is agreed that while there may have been difficulties, there was no acute shortage of labour in Ontario to harvest the crops. I discussed the very question my hon. friend now raises with the Minister of Agriculture last February, and we immediately set in motion a policy somewhat similar to that which we adopted with respect to Ontario last year. This year we are prepared to match dollar for dollar with Ontario up to an amount of $100,000, and we are hopeful that with the same enthusiasm and ingenuity the farm labour problem will be solved in Ontario again this year. I have enough faith in the vim and vigour of the Ontario government, working in cooperation with our own, to believe that we shall be able to meet the farm labour problem in Ontario satisfactorily this summer. Similar offers have been made to all the other provincial governments, but apparently they wish to handle the matter themselves, and after all, that is sound policy, for the best kind of government in some things is the one which is closest to the people.

War Appropriation
Up to date we have had no request for similar assistance to that which we are giving to Ontario.
My hon. friend speaks of a cost of living bonus for farm labourers. It has been my good fortune or otherwise to be concerned with a good deal of labour and social legislation in this country, both federal and provincial, and unfortunately much of it exempts agriculture just as it exempts fishing and, to some degree, logging. In certain countries of the British commonwealth, in Britain, in New Zealand, and to a lesser degree in Australia, established rates have been set for farm workers. In this country our problem is a seasonal one created by conditions over which we have no control. I am a comparatively young man, but I hope to live to see the day when we shall set up in this dominion for the employment of men and women on the farm a scheme similar to that prevailing to-day in New Zealand or Britain or Australia. So far as the farm labour problem this year is concerned, I am hopeful that with the assistance of the Employment Service of Canada and the cooperation of the provincial governments, and, more important still, the cooperation of the people most vitally affected, the farmers, themselves, we shall be able to face up to the labour problem in every province during the coming year, notwithstanding the apparent shortage of labour particularly for war industries.


James Arthur Ross: Just to follow up the minister's answer about freezing labour on the farms: I do not think that is definite enough. I would remind him of the example I gave of the young man, thirty-five years of age, who is an efficient tractor mechanic, and who has the faculty of handling men. I suggest we ought to be in a position to tell that man where he can give the best service. He does not want to be in a position where, in spite of his efficiency, he will have to meet his pals who have come back from overseas, while he has stayed at home in a machine shop or on a farm. That sort of thing would be avoided if we had a national selective service system under which the government would have authority to say to that chap, "You will be rendering a greater service by remaining where you are; that is where you belong." He would be more than pleased. We have been too haphazard about the whole matter. We cannot get action with regard to it.


Humphrey Mitchell: I may tell my hon. friend, with regard to what he has mentioned, that is the purpose of the whole order, and this question is receiving consideration at this
very moment, because, next perhaps to price regulation and wage stabilization, it is the biggest job which has been tackled during the war. He can rest assured that we are working, with all the speed that health and strength will permit, to launch a policy which we think will receive the approval of the Canadian people in the not too distant future.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is a unique opportunity for members of parliament to discuss each of the departments, whether military or civilian. There is a main difference between the legislation that is before the committee and the estimates, in this sense, that when the estimates are brought up each minister must come in turn to answer the questions of the members, but in this case all ministers should be present to answer any questions from any hon. member on any item in their departments. Therefore, sir, it is my privilege and pleasure to congratulate the Minister of Finance upon his assiduity, and also his colleagues who have been here to answer questions from members, and I pay due compliment to the Minister of Labour, who has done fairly well in spite of the difficulties of the present time. I extend the same compliments and pay the same tributes to his colleagues who are here. But I shall have just a few questions to submit.
In the first place I would remind the members of the cabinet of a question which was asked of me at the meeting of the federation of mayors and municipalities here in Ottawa a couple of years ago, when the mayor of a city in beautiful Prince Edward Island, after I had been speaking of the work of the works progress administration in the United States, said, "Do you mean that we should imitate everything that is done in the United States?" My answer was, "No; we should imitate only what we think is the very best, because when we imitate everything it is not imitation; it is just aping." In that connection what strikes me is the reference to what is done in other countries, and the suggestion, which follows, that a thing is good provided we can say that it is done in any other dominion, in the United States, or in any other friendly country. This afternoon one of our colleagues went further and quoted to us the example of Germany with regard to monetary matters. Of course, we shall always benefit from the experience and wisdom of others. On the other hand, however, judicious selection should be made between what suits and what cannot suit this country. Therefore, sir, what I deeply regret is a complete lack of
War Appropriation

imagination, in the adoption of everything that is done outside Canada and that is known to us.
The second thing I have to bring before this committee is the apt remark which was made by the Minister of National Defence- some time in May, if I am not mistaken- when he said that one of the troubles of his department was that his officials could hardly make a distinction between what was essential and what was non-essential. It is very easy for any man or woman working in the office of a cabinet minister to deceive him, if that man or woman is unworthy, by putting on top of the files letters of no consequence at all and matters which unduly distract the minister's attention, and thus prevent him from reaching the essential and crucial points which he has to decide for the solution of any important problem.
I am in full sympathy with the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Labour and their colleagues, and, with all my colleagues of the house who are now sitting in committee I pledge my support to them inasmuch and just as generously as I can give it. But they should not be under the false impression that criticism is hostile. Criticism may be hostile, but no one has the right to forget that most of the time criticism is constructive, and criticism from members of parliament is the more constructive because they have the opportunity of seeing things which ministers will never see, on account of the fact that the treatment given to ministers and to members of parliament by this dominion bureaucracy is altogether different, and that when a minister tells his secretary, "Telephone Mr. So-and-so for such a thing," the answer is always, "yes"; but when a member of parliament does the same thing, the answer is, most of the time, "We regret very much that it is impossible to do what you ask."
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: This bill introduces a new set-up in legislation. As has been pointed out, it is altogether different from the customary practice. It would be interesting to know what could be suggested to be done by all departments other than the war departments to cooperate with the war departments so that we might have the most complete war effort in this country. What struck me was to read not long ago that in the United

States the war effort so far as the steel industry was concerned was not considered complete although it was said to be 98 per cent. In this country the same question could be put with regard to each phase of our war effort. In the first place, in my humble view, the first country to consider is our own. We should never forget the particular interest of Canada in dealing with any other country. Patriotism is more than an ordinaiy quality; it is the virtue par excellence of citizenship; it is love of the land on which one is born or which one has adopted as his own country.
After the last war there was the treaty of Versailles and the establishment of the League of Nations at Geneva, which seemed to broaden the scope of patriotism but, in fact, deformed it. It is very sad to think that a good Canadian by birth or by heart is not given as much consideration in this country as a migratory bird who comes here only for the duration, and who is considered ipso jacto as an expert, endowed with all knowledge and exempt from all criticism.
What I want in each branch of each department of this government is a real Canadian spirit which will serve as an inspiration and guide to all those who have to give their utmost cooperation to the head of the department, who is the minister. It seems that after the complete failure of the League of Nations, a failure that was acknowledged by two prime ministers of Britain, Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Baldwin, before the beginning of this war, we should put utopias aside and come back to the old tradition which has been the strength of this country in years past.
I will take the list of the various departments that we read in this bill. I put in the first place the Department of Justice, because it is the department that interests us, the lawmakers of this country, most. Our statute book has been revised time and time again. We have been told that there are too many legislative bodies in Canada. There was too much legislation in this country even before this war began. We need think only of the statute books coming out yearly from our legislative bodies, from this parliament and the legislatures of the nine provinces. Who is the lawyer, however eminent he may be, who has made himself familiar with each one of those pieces of legislation?
Now, since the start of this war, conditions have completely changed, and it is impossible for us lawmakers, not only to be familiar with, but to follow the legislation by order in council, which is tremendously large and which comes, I would say, by the dozen. I will not

ll'ar Appropriation
ask my colleagues if they are familiar with the statutes of all the provinces. I would ask them if they know anything of the 24,000 orders in council which I am told have been passed since the beginning of this war. I would draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that a distinction should be made between orders in council of a strictly legislative nature and those of an administrative nature, so that members of parliament may be informed, and in turn may inform their electors, as to the so-called progress of legislation by order in council. As was suggested the other day, it would be helpful to have a sort of loose-leaf system, so that very little time would be required to find what was needed. In reply to that suggestion we may be told that these orders in council are published in book form; that five of these books already have been issued, and that we are to have another in the near future. Here again, however, my complaint is that these books containing orders in council are not complete. We have evidence of that fact in the statement made by the Prime Minister the other day in reply to the hon. member for Lake Centre, when the Prime Minister said that it was most difficult to give a complete enumeration of the orders in council of a legislative nature; and, if my memory serves me aright, he added that such a distinction was not made in the office of the privy council, and suggested that my hon. friend get in touch with the clerk of the privy council and discuss the matter with him.
Sometimes members of parliament are told that their questions are long, or that it would be expensive to answer them. But many times members of parliament have asked for facts or information supposed to be before the minister, if the minister was familiar with his department. Many times during sittings of committees I noticed that people did not know how to w'ork. They had to be told how to do their work; they did not know at which end to start. They had to be told what to do, step by step, and then when it was all done they were proud of themselves. But mark you, sir, many questions which are termed extravagant should not be called such without knowing their background, and very often a question asked by a private member is of great assistance to the minister who secures the information from his officials. So my suggestion in regard to the Department of Justice, with all due deference to the minister, is to ask him kindly to come to the help of members of parliament by making information as to legislation easier of access and more available to them, and therefore more available to the people of Canada.
The second department in importance is naturally the Department of Finance. This year we legislate almost entirely in regard to finance, and therefore we must be interested in the financial structure of this country. I remember the electoral propaganda of the province of Ontario at the time when it had leaders like Blake, Cartwright, Mills, Alexander Mackenzie, Mowat and many others who were fighting for provincial rights, as Mercier in the province of Quebec was fighting for equal rights. I remember the discussions carried on by Sir Lomer Gouin and the then Conservative premier of Ontario in regard to increased provincial subsidies, discussions that remind us of those which took place not long ago. We want a sound financial structure for this dominion. At times the minister must find it hard to say no when a request is made of him, and I am sure he is greatly pleased when it is possible for him to say yes. But he will never be mistaken if he takes with a grain of salt all extravagant suggestions that are made outside of the regular lines of logic, because there must be logic in finance as in any other science. While large sums are required at the present time for the prosecution of this war, the minister will realize that in the long run the dominion government will benefit by respecting provincial autonomy. At present there are officials in the employ of the treasury of each province who have shown themselves to be men of experience, who know their business. It would be most unfortunate if they should be ignored or put aside, so that they would not exercise the same responsibilities they have discharged for so many years, during which time they gained experience not only in the collection of taxes but also in the distribution of public money.
My further suggestion to the Minister of Finance is to give an opportunity to members of parliament to submit their views to him, not only with regard to taxation but with regard to the general policy of his department. After having heard all they have to say he would be in a better position to make decisions. I am not complaining about the minister. He is most accessible, and I know he is open-minded. But I should like him to give members of parliament an opportunity to discuss his policies before they are enacted, rather than after they are enforced.
The third civilian department in importance is, naturally, the Department of Labour. There are two things with which that department is not familiar enough. One of them is the fact that there is still unemployment in Canada. Those who deal with the subject are satisfied with what they read in the
War Appropriation

papers, and are under the impression that there is not a man in this country who is willing to work who does not have that opportunity.
I congratulate the hon. member for Cape Breton South upon what he said yesterday and to-day. His manner of speaking reminded me of an able debater whose memory still survives in this chamber; I refer to the Hon. H. H. Stevens. I do not want the Minister of Labour to think that because the hon. member for Cape Breton South made some apt suggestions he was at all antagonistic. I am sure he was not. But he did want to bring the case of miners in his constituency to the attention of the minister, and in doing so he served them very well.
The minister knows that a man whose condition of health is good, but who has passed the military age, cannot get into the army. He knows, too, that there are many young men who have been declared physically unfit, and who cannot secure work. It seems to me that the Department of Labour should have a thorough investigation made by the officers in the unemployment insurance branch, and that the facts gathered thereby should be submitted by the Minister of Labour to the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Public Works so that it may be seen what can be done to relieve unemployment and to contribute in a high degree toward increasing the war effort by distributing useful work among those at present unemployed.
Is it not possible to improve our highways, our links of communication between the various provinces, between Canada and the Yukon on the Pacific side or between the St. Lawrence river basin and the United States on the eastern side. This is a policy I have advocated for a long time. I have pointed out that our means of communication should be improved, and the men who are now unemployed are precisely those who could do that work. It would be a most useful work, one which would be necessary and, in fact, indispensable in the event of attack from an enemy. This is what should be done: How long and how often must we repeat it to have it understood? This is not a matter of patronage; it is a matter of protecting the country against any invader, and it is essential to our very lives. These things could be done easily, and without disturbing the war effort or the technicians, because it is done by manual labour.
I warmly congratulate my dear friend the former speaker, the hon. member for Yukon, upon the stand he took this afternoon when he 
refreshed the memory of the government about the road to the Yukon. What has been done about this road? We have heard about it for a long time. For some time we were told that we were not to build a highway, but that a railway was to be built connecting the boundary line between Canada and the United States with the Yukon. What progress has been made? Something may have been done which it is believed should be kept as a military secret; but if that is so, why do we not have a secret sitting to explain the whole matter to members who are eager for the information.
Besides that, we are not so sure that the enemy will invade this country along the coast; he may decide to invade this side of the Rockies, and Edmonton may be exposed. We know nothing about that, but we shall protect ourselves by having good roads which will facilitate communications and the transport of troops, munitions and supplies from one point to another in Canada, and between points in Canada and the United States. Those are things which could be done easily.
How much would it cost? Here we have a bill providing for the expenditure of two billions of dollars. I understand that it includes all expenditures for the army, navy and air force, and for some work of civilian departments. Certainly the building of good1 roads should be one of the first things done. It was done by the Romans two thousand years ago in Great Britain, and in many places those roads still exist. We see in England roads cemented by Caesar's men, and they have defied the centuries. We want roads in Canada which will afford the greatest opportunity of movement to Canadian troops, and give them the best possible chance to defend this country.
My second point in connection with the Department of Labour is this. The minister is a union man, and I regret to have to say to him that I have been disappointed with the unions. I will ask him to corroborate what I have to say. It is unfortunate, but the fact is that quite often the leader of a union represents himself, his immediate associates, his relatives and friends rather than the general membership. I have known of cases in the Canadian National Railways where the men did not get the support they expected from the leaders of the brotherhoods. I say that without any rancour; I say it just to put my case before this committee. I am just representing my electors. Quite often when a man gets to the top of the brotherhood he does not seem to be the same as when he was taking his first step upwards. It is difficult for the men to lodge complaints with

War Appropriation
the department when they cannot secure the approval of the head of their union. That is why they come to the members of parliament. They explain their cases in all confidence and ask us to defend them on the floor of the House of Commons. I hope the minister will be able to do something along the lines that have been suggested.
The Department of Transport has to do with the Canadian National Railways. I do not want to see an amalgamation of our railways because competition is necessary in this country. I would fear an exploitation by gangsters in an effort to make money by an undue increase in the price of the stocks of either one of the railway companies. I want competition, but I also want fair play for the men. I want a complete exposure of what has happened in connection with the financial structure of both railways.
I should like to say a word about the Department of External Affairs. Most of the agitation that has taken place with regard to Free France has been coming from civil servants. They are canvassing this one and that one and using intrigue in an effort to cause trouble in this country. I suggest that instructions should be given by each of the ministers that civil servants should mind their own business, especially in connection with external relations.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think everyone in this house and in this country will get comfort from the fact that on May 1 the number of unemployed registered at the Enployment Service of Canada was the lowest in the history of the dominion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It should be.


Humphrey Mitchell: I agree with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. I would say to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) that I have knowledge of vacancies for 4,000 men who could be put to work tomorrow in his own province. The unemployed figure is 26,000, which includes men and women. Many of those are in and out of employment. You often run across that class of person in the country, a very necessary class of persons who are willing to undertake what might be termed casual work. In our search for manpower, order in council P.C. 1445 was passed on Alay 1. This provides for the registration of everybody between the ages of sixteen and seventy years who is out of employment. We want to know those people who want to work and those who do not want to work.
I consider we have the most efficient employment service in the history of this dominion. What we are trying to do is to make it a living thing, something that will render service not only to the employee but to the employer. I hope, when this period of stress is over, we shall have an employment exchange in the truest sense of the word, an exchange where men and women can be placed in close contact with work irrespective of where that work may be. Where necessary, we have paid the railroad fares of those persons who we considered were necessary to the war industry of Canada.
Some mention has been made of the labour union officials. I have had some knowledge of the officials of the labour unions of this dominion, and I think they compare favour ably with those in any other country in the world, and that covers a lot of territory. I believe this is exemplified by the situation that exists to-day in connection with strikes. At the moment there are 238 persons in Canada who are on strike. I do not think any country in the united nations, or probably in the dictator nations, can show a record like that. One strike is at a coca-cola plant, but I think we can get along without coca-cola. No one will suffer except people who are on a diet who drink a bottle of coca-cola and smoke a cigarette for lunch. Our future generations are likely to suffer because of that kind of thing. Then there is a window-cleaners' strike in Montreal, involving six people. We can get along without windows if necessary. Where the blitz is in operation in Europe, particularly in Germany, I imagine they are getting along without windows. Then there is a small strike at the Canadian Bridge company, involving twelve people. If my information is correct, these twelve men quit work to go somewhere else to work. All this I think demonstrates the good work being done by the trades union leaders and employers in this country. All parties in this parliament and the public in general should be encouraged by reason of that state of affairs. It is something of which we should be proud. I trust I have answered some of the questions raised by my hon. friend.


Mr. McIVOR:: I should like to ask the
Minister of Labour a question which I think has something to do with our war effort. It has bothered me for some time, especially when I hear and see the ability of hon. members to represent just causes in this house. Some of us were privileged to visit the magnificent plant in Montreal of the Canadian Car and Foundry company. We were interested in what they w.ere turning put, but I must admit that I was more interested in the men and women who toiled there than I was
War Appropriation

in the output. Repeatedly I asked how much the men were being paid, and I found that they were receiving the same rate of wages as was paid at the head of the lakes less the higher cost of living there.
I found, too, that in aeroplane works all across Canada wages were pretty much on the same level, but it was forcibly brought home to me when I was at home during the Easter holidays that persons engaged in the pulp and paper industry are paid much higher hourly wages at the head of the lakes than for similar work in the province of Quebec. I know the cost of living is higher at the head of the lakes because perhaps the food is better and of a higher quality, but a man who does a job has a right to the same rate of wages wherever the job may be done. The minimum wage in the union at the head of the lakes is about 57 cents an hour. In, the province of Quebec the rate is very much lower. This makes for unrest among the workers of Quebec and among the manufacturers of pulp and paper in other places. That is perhaps the reason why at the head of the lakes there is more lay-off than in paper mills in the province of Quebec. I would ask the Minister of Labour whether it would not be possible through the cooperation of the provinces to have a uniform scale of wages applicable to every industry throughout the length and breadth of this dominion. I think that wmuld make for a more united Canada. I understand that an administrator is to be appointed for the pulp and paper industry, and I am sure that a uniform rate of wages is one of the things that he will take up. I am sure the hon. member for Temiscouata would say that an employee in the province of Quebec should have the same rate of wages as an employee in the city of Fort William. I am sure he would say that the French Canadian can do as big a day's work as a man anywhere else, and I say to the members from the province of Quebec that this is one of the outstanding problems they must face in the future, namely, a standard wage level throughout the length and breadth of Canada, for a man is a man no matter where his employment may be.
Moreover, I think a lady, because she is a lady whether she toils or not, who does the same kind of work as a man should receive the same wage as a man. Here is one place where man should step down and recognize the ability of woman to work as well as he can. That is seen in this House of Commons where the lady members rival the best of men.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Earlier in the afternoon a question was asked of the Minister of Labour concerning the capping of certain wells in Alberta. An answer should be given by the government because the question implied a serious charge against the owners of certain oil properties in that field. If the wells were capped in peace time for a good, rational purpose, the government should explain why they are still being capped, if they are, and what is the intention of the government in this regard. I do not consider that such an allegation-for there was an allegation contained in the question-should go unanswered in this house. The hon. member who made it was sincere. If it is not answered it will appear that the government is unable to answer it, and that is likely to cause a certain amount of ill feeling throughout the country if the allegation contained in the question is true. I would therefore ask someone in the government to give an answer to the question.


Humphrey Mitchell: Since the hon. member addresses his question to me, may I say that I have enough misery on my doorstep-and lots of pleasure too-without intruding into the affairs of another department, but I can say that the hon. member may rest assured that there must be an answer to the question and that an answer will be forthcoming as soon as the responsible minister has an opportunity to look into the matter.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: The minister has been talking about strikes. It is not only strikes that interrupt work. There is sickness. It was brought to my attention on Saturday that in some plants in the United States a doctor goes up and down the aisles among the workers tw'o or three times a month to check on their health. A good doctor can tell at a glance whether a man or woman is sick or whether there is anything wrong. If he sees somebody needing attention he will say to him: "You go into the office." One doctor I know has three plants to look after in this way, and he has other doctors to help him. By this method these plants have cut their lay-offs by more than one half. Would the minister take something like that under consideration?


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend had been around industry to the extent that some of us have-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I have.


Humphrey Mitchell: -he would be amazed at the strides which have been taken in that direction during the last generation. This dominion takes second place to no other

War Appropriation
country in that regard. While this is a matter that comes almost exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provincial governments a tremendous improvement has been made in the last generation in looking after the health of the workers. That improvement is not static; it is dynamic; progress is being made all the time. We have seen the development of workmen's compensation, which in itself has given a tremendous impetus to reducing the industrial accident rate in every province. My hon. friend may rest assured that the provinces and the dominion government itself are not unmindful of the important contribution that can be and has been made by accident prevention and by looking after the health of employees engaged in industry.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I quite agree with the minister that great strides forward have been taken. Most factories have a nurse on the staff, but a nurse as a rule lacks the necessary training to check up on the workers as a doctor can do. That is why in some plants they are engaging a doctor to look after the health of their workers,


Humphrey Mitchell: Only two weeks ago I was at a plant which had two doctors to look after 4,500 employees. Of course, however, there may be difficulty to-day in obtaining doctors in view of the demands of the armed forces. I was a member of the hospital board in my own city of Hamilton for fifteen years, and I know something of the interest that is taken, particularly by the larger industrial organizations, in the health of their employees. When I spoke a moment ago of the tremendous strides forward that have been taken in the last generation I spoke of what I know, having been engaged in industry myself twenty-five years ago, and I know what a different approach there is to-day, largely brought about through the efforts of public-spirited citizens and the adoption of measures such as unemployment insurance and workmen's compensation in the various provinces and the dominion.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But instead of there being a doctor in just one plant here and there, that practice should be general throughout the country. The minister mentioned Hamilton. There was brought to my attention yesterday the case of one plant in Hamilton where a doctor was engaged to look after the health of the workers, and there was another plant in Toronto, and two in Peterborough, but the system should be general.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Under order in council P.C. 1550 of March 2,
1942, paragraph 2, my hon. friend will find ample authority for the inspection of all such premises throughout the dominion, and that is now being done, exactly with the purpose in view that he suggests, that is, studying the question of industrial fatigue and making recommendations for improvements in all our industrial war plants.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that
mandatory, and is it being carried out?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes; it is being carried out by arrangements in our department, the Department of Pensions and National Health, also the Department of Munitions and Supply and the Department of Labour.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Just before this section carries-and I hope it will carry very soon-I want to ask the Minister of Finance a question with respect to the interpolation of the phrase in clause 2, "subject to allotment by treasury board." I believe that is a new provision. Would the Minister of Finance be good enough to explain just what has caused the government to include this in the substantive part of clause 2, and what circumstances dictated this change? I am inquiring just for information.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It was suggested by the
auditor general. He was doubtful whether the practice being followed, which is that allotments are made by treasury board after the programme or project is authorized by the governor general in council, was within the powers of treasury board, but he suggested that it should be put beyond doubt by the insertion of this provision in the bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In other
words, this is for certain.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: The Minister of Labour is surely familiar with the road policy of the dominion government during these past years. For a time grants were made under the Minister of Railways and Canals. At that time the Department of Railways and Canals were building parts of roads with subsidies which were spent under that department; afterwards the Department of Labour was associated with the provinces and the municipalities in the building and upkeeping of roads; and finally the contributions were sent by the Department of Labour to the provinces for certain particular roads which were described in the requests from the provinces. Afterwards roads and parts of roads were built by the Department of Mines and Resources and the Department of Public Works. But that was
War Appropriation

done before the war. Since the war started, I do not know of any roads that have been built by this government. I draw the minister's attention to the fact that the money spent for the trans-Canada highway has been much greater in Ontario than in the province of Quebec. In Ontario the expenditure for that purpose was S14,000,000, while in Quebec it was only about $400,000.
That being said, I ask the minister if it is not the policy of the government to build good military roads in this country, particularly between the shores of the St. Lawrence river and the boundary line of the United States. There are three highways there: the King Edward highway, which perhaps is now called the Laurier highway, between Rouse's Point and Montreal; the Levis-Jackman highway; and also the Riviere du Loup highway, which is a section of route No. 2, trans-Canada highway, and an old military route which was rebuilt at the time of the Fenian war. Work on this road, particularly because of our close relations with the United States, should be expedited. In fact it is now used by the army, in spite of some curves which should be reduced; and the pavement of that section of No. 2 highway should be put in the best possible condition. I ask the minister whether the government is not disposed to proceed with this work at the earliest available opportunity, so as to provide the greatest possible mobility for our troops in the event of an attack in that part of the country.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Clause 2 carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know that the clause has been carried, but I would ask the minister to be kind enough to say whether it is the policy of the government or not. If it is, I will congratulate them; if it is not, I shall continue my efforts to try to get them to do something.


Humphrey Mitchell: As my hon. friend, no doubt, well knows, the federal government stopped contributing to relief roads last year, and I understand that any roads which are now being built are built at the instigation of the Department of National Defence and for military purposes. The matter is completely outside the sphere of my department, and I think the appropriate department should answer for itself, if the question is to be answered.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister for his answer, .and I will ask him if the Department of National Defence has adopted the policy of building roads required for military purposes. That is what I want to elucidate.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The only one that I remember is the Terrace-Prince Rupert highway, but there may be others. These are important defence projects for specific purposes, and if there is no other way to get the roads built, the dominion government does it as a matter of defence. Like my colleague, the Minister of Labour, however, I do not pretend to keep these projects in my mind; it is within the realm of another department.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I call the minister's attention to another road coming within that category, to which I think the government should give attention. It is on the east coast, between Bathurst and the Miramichi river, commonly known as the Bathurst road, which would be an important road if it were necessary to remove any body of troops quickly along that area. I know there have been negotiations between the Department of National Defence and the province of New Brunswick. The province simply will not surface that road. I suggest that this ought to be called again to the attention of the Minister of National Defence with a view to reviewing the position.


Jean-François Pouliot: I agree with what the leader of the opposition has said. It is a vital problem. We cannot insist too much upon it. Look at the size of this country. In the east there are only three railway lines; the transcontinental ; the Canadian Pacific Railway, which passes through United States territory for a certain distance; and the Intercolonial. If a bridge is blown up, the traffic stops; and it is necessary not only to protect bridges but also to improve the highways to provide against any deficiency with regard to railway traffic. At the present time railway traffic, both passenger and freight, is jammed, and of course the roads are most necessary for transportation by truck and car. Many military convoys pass over the route I have already mentioned.
I admit that the Prince Rupert highway or the British Columbia-Yukon highway may be very important. I do not discuss it at all; I agree with it. It is not, however, the only highway that is necessary in Canada from a military point of view; there are many others. They are the more necessary because we have not as many railways as have other countries, for the reason that our population is more scattered. Therefore it is most important to do that highway work at the earliest possible opportunity. Whether it is done by the Department of National Defence or the Department of Public Works or the Department of Labour or any other department does not matter, provided it is done. It should

War Appropriation
be done in case of emergency, or in case of any bridge being blown up and the traffic being blocked at any point. Under present circumstances it is most urgent to have it done. For instance, what would happen if the bridges on the Miramichi were blown up, if the bridge near Moncton where the transcontinental joins the intercolonial were blown up. Anything might happen. I do not need to say more; the maps and the timetables are there, and hon. members know the geography of our country. It is one of the most urgent things to be done, independently of any party consideration. It is vital to cut red tape at this point.
There are some guards, most of them returned men, on bridges; all right, give the returned men a chance; but the guards should be able-bodied men, familiar with handling a gun, to protect those vital arteries, the railways and highways. We cannot do too much in order to have that work done just as soon as possible, the same as it is done in any other country that is preparing itself for defence. I am told that the preparation has started. It is the very best thing to do, not only in the view of military experts but for the purpose of giving security to the population.
It is also very important to decentralize industry, particularly with regard to the railways. If a bridge is blown up and locomotives cannot cross to the shops where they are repaired or rebuilt, is it not vital that there shall be the largest number of shops available for urgent repairs in such cases? At the present time the policy of the Canadian National Railways is wrong in that respect. It is a policy of centralization at five or six points in Canada, to the detriment of smaller places. For instance, centralization is going on at Moncton, Montreal, Point St. Charles; at Stratford in Ontario; at Transcona near Winnipeg, and so on. At Riviere du Loup there are very fine shops. There is an erecting shop, one of the six or seven mechanical erecting shops, and there is a roundhouse. They can repair locomotives very well, and they do excellent work. At present many men there are laid off because there is not enough work, while at the same time at Moncton they cannot do all the work they have, and from Montreal they send their locomotives to Transcona for repairs. Think of the mileage cost. One must come down to common sense and not forget that what is done in smaller centres is probably more important than what is done in large centres.
I insist again on that policy of military roads, arteries. For commerce they may be used incidentally; after the war they may be 44561-202
used for tourist traffic, but now they are essential from the military point of view. I hope that the government will consider the matter, and that what I have said has not fallen on deaf ears.
Mr. O'BRIEN:	Earlier in the day the
hon. member for Parry Sound and the leader of the opposition, speaking of the defence of Halifax, brought to my mind' the situation just mentioned by the hon. member for Temiscouata. I wanted to refer to the matter at that time but the opportunity was not available.
The Miramichi river in my constituency, is one of the largest rivers in eastern Canada, having direct access to the sea. Some thirty miles from the sea we have a depth of water as much as forty-five feet. It is my belief that because of the knowledge the Germans have of that part of the country, from information gathered during their two or three years there carrying on shipping, they know every foot of ground probably much better than those of us who live in that community. For that reason I believe it is a strategic point in the defences of the eastern coast, particularly of Halifax.
The Canadian National railway crosses the two large branches of the Miramichi over very heavy steel bridges; and while we often hear the saying, "It can't happen here," it would not surprise me if any morning we learned that a submarine had come into the Miramichi and proceeded to damage or blow up these bridges. If that happened, Halifax would eventually starve to death, because the main line of the railway from upper Canada through Halifax to Great Britain would be cut. Halifax is reasonably well defended except for lack of the barrage balloons which the hon. member for Parry Sound mentioned and which I think is a worth-while recommendation. But it seems to me that if any attempt were made to damage Halifax, it could be readily done through the Miramichi. Some time ago I wrote to the Minister of National Defence pointing this out. I believe it is a most important and critical point in the defences of eastern Canada, and at present there is no protection whatever. A reasonably small net across the mouth of the Miramichi bay would, I think, afford adequate protection against the danger which I foresee, but which I very much hope may not happen.


Mr. QUELCH:: There is a question I should like to ask the Minister of Finance. Earlier in the session I addressed my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but he quite properly stated it was a matter for the Minister of Finance to decide. Farmers in western Canada, while not criticizing the policy

War Appropriation

of maintaining price control, do feel critical of the government for having established a price ceiling without first establishing parity
of prices. The Searle Grain company in their letter of May 20 last established that fact quite well. They show that the present price of wheat is now 43 per cent below the 1913-14 parity price, and the 90 cent price established for the new crop is 31 per cent below parity. The price of hogs is now 14 per cent below parity, and steers 10 per cent below, but I understand the latter has now been adjusted. In any event this shows clearly that as far as agricultural products are concerned parity of prices has not been established.
It is interesting to note that when the matter was raised in the house the Minister of Agriculture stated: "We are taking every last dollar out of the treasury of Canada to deal with these problems which we feel it is safe to take at the present time." I do not think anyone would suggest that by this statement the minister meant that there was no more money available to the government wherewith they could pay a parity price to agriculture. I take it what the minister meant and what the Minister of Finance would mean is that if the government were to increase the price of agricultural products, they would thereby increase the purchasing power of the farmers, which would increase the demand for goods, and the result would be inflationary. I take it that this is really what the Minister of Agriculture was referring to at that time. 1 noticed a statement made by Mr. Donald Gordon some time ago in Winnipeg, and quoted in The Western Producer of April 23, as follows:
I do not want to leave the impression that in this question of the farmers relation to the price ceiling I dismiss the farmer's case and say: Take it or leave it.
Then he goes on:
What I do say is that if the price-ceiling policy is going to be successful it cannot be subject to qualification. Increases in agricultural prices would start the inflationary spiral in motion again . . . and the farmer has as much to lose as anyone in that event.
First of all he states that it is not a question of saying that the farmers must either take it or leave it, but later on he says that if prices of agricultural products were increased, the result would be inflation, and that, therefore, such increases cannot be allowed. I have a suggestion to offer to the Minister of Finance. Surely that difficulty could be overcome if the government would make up the difference between the parity price and the present price the farmers are receiving by a payment in the form of a certificate that could not be cashed until so many months after the end of the war.

That would absolutely obviate the danger of inflation and at the same time make it possible for the farmer to establish a sinking fund for the purpose of paying his debts at the end of the war. I wonder if the minister could explain why such a policy could not be adopted. I think he will have to admit that it would avoid any danger of inflation, so long as these certificates could not be cashed until after the war, and at the same time it would guarantee the farmer a parity price and put him on the same level as other industries.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, Mr. Chairman, I was hoping that the debate would end some time-


Victor Quelch: This debate has gone on for five or six weeks-


Humphrey Mitchell: Seven weeks.


Victor Quelch: and up to the present I have taken only one-half hour during the entire debate. So I do not think I need ask the indulgence of the committee when I submit one question at this time.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman has asked what would be the disadvantage in issuing war savings certificates to a number of people, I presume a large number of people, in this country. The disadvantage would be the great increase which would result in the national debt, and which we try to avoid if we possibly can. That is why we tax as heavily as we can instead of borrowing all the money we need; we do not want to increase the national debt any more than is absolutely necessary.
With regard to the question of parity in farm prices, surely we have debated that over and over again. I personally have made several speeches about it both inside and outside the house; and when I have been in this chamber while my colleague the Minister of Agriculture was addressing the house, I have been made very conscious of the fact that the debate on agricultural prices was going on not only hour after hour but day after day. I would respectfully suggest that after the tremendous length of time we have been on this bill, after having discussed the resolution for a great number of weeks and taken up these very questions, we should try to conclude the discussion to-night without opening up these matters all over again.


Mr. CLAXTON:: Before we finish with the Minister of Labour there is just one matter I should like to bring to his attention, which I am sure he can deal with very quickly. It is a matter which is causing a good deal of concern, and it is of some urgency. I refer to the question of the children of married

War Appropriation
women employed in war industries, which I understand comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour.
The extent of this problem may not be fully recognized by the house or by the country, though it is beginning to receive some attention in the press. In Montreal, in one plant alone, it is said there are employed 1,717 married women with children. In another plant it is said that of the 2,100 employees, 25 per cent are married women, while in a third plant out of 1,300 employees, 27 per cent are married women. In Montreal there are only three institutions equipped and qualified to look after the children of married women who go out to work. In Toronto a survey was conducted of five schools, and it was found that the mothers of 25 per cent of the children were out working, principally in war industries; and it has been stated in one magazine that 20 per cent of the children attending school have their mothers out at work. In Toronto there are only seven institutions equipped to look after these children. The facilities are hopelessly inadequate, and a single agency is said to have turned away 1,500 mothers who wanted to place their children regularly with it. I have no doubt that the same problem exists in other cities throughout Canada, such as Hamilton, Oshawa, Peterborough and so forth.
We can easily see what this leads to. In the first place it leads to malnutrition, and already there are alarming reports of increases in infant mortality in Ontario. It leads to truancy from school. It leads to a considerable increase in juvenile delinquency, an increase estimated at as much as from 50 to 100 per cent in the ages from eight to twelve. If we want married women working in war industries-and I think we do-then we need to look after them and their children, and this is a responsibility of the federal government, which is responsible for carrying on the war and providing the munitions necessary for that purpose. On the other hand, the problem is a complicated one, by reason of our relations with the provinces. Speaking in this house on March 24 of this year the Prime Minister said, as appears at page 1565 of Hansard:
The series of measures being undertaken to bring women into industries include:
6. The provision of nurseries and other means of caring for children.
Since then I understand the Minister of Labour has had this matter under consideration, but there is a great deal of concern being felt, and I think it would be exceedingly 44561-202 J
useful if at this time he gave a short statement indicating that the problem is being-attended to and that a solution will soon be found. It seems to me, if I may offer the suggestion, that three measures should be undertaken in this connection. First there is the problem of the children below school age, who do not go to school because they are too young. For them day nurseries should be provided near their homes, to take children in groups of fifty or sixty. These might be conducted in unoccupied schools, churches or other buildings, and trained personnel would have to be provided to look after these children. Then there are the children of school age, and that problem is becoming particularly important now that the summer is coming on. In this connection I suggest that the recreational facilities of the schools be made available during the summer months, so that the children may not be turned loose on the streets. This would continue the advantages of school life during the summer, and that is why this matter has become urgent. Then there is the whole question of the utilization of married women in war industries, and in this connection I suggest that we might well follow the practice which has been adopted in Britain; that is, as far as humanly possible limiting the employment of married women in war industries to employment on the day shifts.
This matter has already received some attention in Ontario, where there was passed,. I think at the last session of the legislature, a statute providing for cooperation. The matter has received attention in the province of Quebec, where Hon. Edgar Rochette, provincial minister of labour, had an exchange of correspondence with various trade unions^ and labour organizations. It has also received' attention in the press. In view of the urgency of the question and the concern that is felt, I think it would be interesting to learn from the minister what is being done in this connection.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend and I have discusesd this matter before. Hon., members may rest assured that it is receiving, the earnest consideration of the Department of Labour. As the hon. member has indicated, the question comes under the jurisdiction of the director of selective service. What we have in mind is setting up standards and, if necessary, making some contribution to the establishment of these important services, if women are to go into war industries on the scale that we anticipate may be required in the not too distant future. I think he will probably agree with me it will be far better
War Appropriation

first of all to start off in the large metropolitan centres, where they have had some experience in this regard. I agree with him that in a measure it falls within the jurisdiction of the provincial government, municipal organizations and voluntary organizations which have taken a great interest in this important function in connection with our war effort. He can rest assured that the agency under the director of selective service has a deep appreciation of the necessity for protecting the children about whom he has spoken so eloquently this evening. I believe the committee may safely leave this matter with the Department of Labour, particularly to the selective service branch, and rest assured that every move will be made with expedition to see to it that these good people are protected.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That, of course, is a reassuring statement.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is intended to be.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes; it is intended to say, "We are going to do very well; leave us alone." What plan has been devised, if any, or are they just thinking about it? I was in a plant on Saturday which engages several thousand women working in three different shifts. Among them are a great many married women. Many of those married women work at night, and they travel long distances to get to their work. On that lovely June afternoon I just wondered to myself where their children were. More than that, as I watched them changing shifts I wondered to myself what was going to become of those people after the plant finished operation. That matter was discussed among ourselves. Those of us from the smaller provinces may not appreciate the full magnitude of the problem. A woman has to go out to work by the day, possibly, and somebody looks after her children. But here is a case where thousands are in these munitions plants, and there must be many hundreds of children who are not being looked after. It is not enough to say, "Oh, just leave it to us; we are thinking about it and talking about it." That is not quite good enough.
Having given this admonition to the minister, I shall ask the Minister of Finance a question which, I hope, will help us to get this measure through. If anyone examines the bill he will observe there is a new provision in it this year. I try to analyse these measures as they come along, in the light of past experience, and I now call attention to the fact that subsection 2, of section 3 is new. I believe I am correct in that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This subsection has not been in earlier war appropriation bills. It provides:
Any expenditure required to be made by the government of Canada under any contract for munitions of war and supplies entered into by the government of Canada for the purpose of enabling any company wholly owned by the government of Canada to fulfil its obligations in respect of orders received by such company from the government of any British or foreign country allied with his majesty may be paid out of any unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund.
I assume the procedure set up in connection with these wholly owned government companies, partly owned government companies or companies partly owmed by this government and partly by the British government is that they have to be financed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is no question about that. So far as I know they are doing good work. Some of the best brains in the country are operating them; I believe I may pay that tribute. They are operating them in some instances at a dollar a year. I know the head of one of these companies, and he is working like a galley slave for this government for a dollar a year, without even any expenses. I do not think any of his own companies are getting any government contracts, either. It would seem, therefore, that he is the perfect dollar-a-year man. I had not intended to eulogize him, and I shall not mention his name. But I should like to know what control parliament has over these moneys?
This has introduced a new principle. We vote money, but what responsibility is there to parliament? That may be a purely academic question, but this is public money which has been taxed or borrowed from the people of Canada, and I should like to know what reports we have from any of these companies. Does this information appear in the auditor general's report? Do we learn in that report how the money is spent?
I will not go over the whole gamut of the operation of these companies, but I would ask the minister whether or not a principle is at stake. This is public money-and I say this, always keeping in mind the hon. member for Temiscouata, because what I say may serve as a text for another speech from the hon. member. I hesitate very much providing him with that; perhaps he does not need it.
However, I have been thinking about this matter ever since the announcement respecting the establishment of these wholly owned

War Appropriation
government corporations. Some huge corporations have been set up under this plan. Canadian Car Munitions Limited is a plant in connection with which $18,000,000 have been spent, and they are operating on what might be described as a fee basis. From what I can judge, I believe it is a well operated plant. I have great confidence in the management of it, and they are doing wonderful work for the country. But that is not the point I have in mind. What control has parliament over the operation of that kind of plant? I am sure the minister will say there is adequate treasury control, and I would be astonished if there were not. In fact, I take it for granted that the treasury are looking after the operation of that plant, and endeavouring to see that the government get adequate returns for the moneys expended, not only in connection with capital expenditures, which were made hurriedly and quickly, owing to pressure, but also in connection with the operation of the plant.
I suggest to the minister that a principle is involved which should be explained to the Canadian people. How are these companies to be made accountable to parliament? Are these to be ordinary government expenditures, or are we just to let the matter go? I do not know whether I have put the matter very well, because my ideas have not been well crystallized. I have made no inquiries; I suppose, had I called up some of the officers in the Department of Finance, they would have made an explanation. But I think this is the place where the explanation should be made.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: We would not have had the explanation if it had been sought privately.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is so. I suggest that it should be made here so that the public and the membership of this committee will understand the position. Here is a situation involving many millions of dollars not only in capital but also in operational costs.


James Lorimer Ilsley: These crown companies are not comparable with the Canadian National Railways, for example, which has a separate set of auditors, and which is separate from the government. These companies are financed just as if they were government departments or branches.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Therefore they are closer to the crown?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. The auditor general is the auditor, and the comptroller of the treasury keeps his officers in close touch with these
companies at all times. I do not know just why they were incorporated. That would be a question which would have to be answered by the Minister of Munitions and Supply. However, no doubt there were reasons for their incorporation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think one reason was connected with the buying of supplies. I have rubber in mind, particularly. I remember that at the time I thought incorporation was a proper procedure. If it got to be known that the crown was a bidder in a certain market the price would go up quickly. That was a perfectly proper business procedure, and on the whole I would say to the minister that it was considered by those advising the government that the question of service was uppermost in the minds of those who advocated this theory. I am not controverting the principle.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Two or three companies
were incorporated without any one knowing that they were owned by the crown., but just what companies they were I forget at the moment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was in the beginning.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There were excellent reasons from the public point of view why that was done, but there were other companies to whie*-those considerations did not apply.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Possibly
it was to obviate the provisions of the Civil Service Act. I think that was a controlling factor why the companies were made autonomous and could hire and fire as they pleased. I think probably they were right, because they could not go through the whole civil service procedure of advertising positions and so on. This is no reflection upon the civil service. The fact is that this thing grew so large that they just could not cope with the conditions. I want to know about the responsibility to parliament for expenditures.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is exactly the same
check as there is on any government expenditure. Advances to these crown companies are provided by the usual machinery. There is either an order in council or an allocation by the treasury board of so much money for the purpose stated to the company in question. My recollection is that some of the companies borrowed money from the banks on a government guarantee, but I believe those were retired although I am not just certain. Ordinarily that is not the way in which they are financed; it is done by government funds directly just as though they were a branch of some department of the government. I do
War Appropriation

not know exactly the stage, but the comptroller of the treasury keeps very closely in touch with them, because frequently he speaks to me about some of the expenditures being made. They are also subject to audit by the auditor general.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
a post-audit.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is a post-audit, but the auditor general is responsible to parliament for watching the expenditure of public funds voted by parliament. He does not regard these companies as being outside his jurisdiction simply because they have been incorporated.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: What is the
total amount of money invested in these government-owned companies?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot say at the
moment, but I could get that information.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The reply of the 'minister is hardly satisfactory. He has a theory that such and such is the case, and I think by and large he is right, but lie has not answered my question. When will the accounts of these wholly owned crown companies be laid before parliament in the form of a blue book or in some other form? I think the answer will be "never." So far we have had nothing about them. I call that to the minister's attention in the hope that he will give it consideration.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall look into it and
report later. It is an important matter.


Mr. FAIR:: A few moments ago reference
was made to providing for the children of mothers who might be working in industry. There are a number of parasites in Canada at the present time who could be put to work before homes are broken up. The war has already broken up sufficient homes without any more being broken up unnecessarily. If the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) wants to know one instance, I can give him one to which reference has been made on several occasions.
I have particular reference to a gambling den which is authorized and legalized by this government and by other governments in the past. I understand there are thousands of *employees in this den who are paid at the expense, directly or indirectly, of the farmers of western Canada. These farmers are now asked to go without the cost of production of a number of their products. If anyone should make a mistake as to the organization to which I have reference, it is the Winnipeg grain [DOT]exchange. On different occasions we have tried to have this exchange closed and have pointed
{Mr. Ilsley.)
out that the grain exchange in the old country was closed at the beginning of the war. Some of us are convinced that the government of the old country would be quite satisfied to have the exchange here closed if some of our friends in the government were willing. Apparently that is not the situation. Before any more homes are broken up, I would suggest that all the parasites in this gambling den in Winnipeg be put to work in some profitable manner. Let them get out and make an honest living for a change.
A short while ago the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) asked the Minister of Finance about the payment of parity prices for farm products and outlined the method by which that could be done. Because there was some sense to the question the minister immediately wanted to close off the debate and get this bill through. Some of my hon. friends to my right have suggested on two or three occasions that the debate has gone on long enough and should be closed, but some of us who want to say a few words find that we cannot because they are still talking, in a number of instances, nonsense. The Minister of Finance said that it would increase the national debt, but I ask him if the national debt is not being increased in order to pay several manufacturers of war commodities far in excess of that to which they are entitled. I have no objection to their receiving the cost of production plus a reasonable profit, but I cannot see why they should be paid exorbitant profits when growers of food are asked to go without their cost of production.
Before sitting down-I may have quite a time having an opportunity to speak again because it took me a long time to get the floor on this occasion-I should like to say that I support the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) in his remarks about labour. I believe something should be done, and done in a hurry, along that line. It has been suggested that farm help be trained, but I want to say that help cannot be trained in a week or two, or a month or two, to do the work that must be done on a farm to-day. Tractors, in some instances costing as much as S2.500, binders and other machines are used, and they might not be operated efficiently by someone who has lived in a city or town all his life. Some of them might act like the city man on the farm who was sent out one morning to put the harness on a horse. When the farmer went out later he found this man had put the harness on a milch cow. Because the cow happened to have horns, the so-called farmhand found it impossible to get the collar on. I think a lot of damage would be done, I admit not intentionally, by using untrained labour.

War Appropriation


James Lester Douglas: An important principle has been touched upon by the leader of the opposition. I do not want to delay the passage of this bill by asking a number of questions, but the minister has promised to bring down, at some time during the session, a statement as to government controls and parliamentary controls over these government-owned companies. I think we should also have a list of these companies-I believe there are eight of them-the total amount of money which the government has invested in each, and their directorates. That information ought to be available to hon. members.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall see that it is supplied just as soon as possible.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to follow the text that has been indicated to me by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. At times he makes a good speech. He makes a good speech when he accompanies it with a broad smile. Then he is himself. To-night he spoke very well, and so did my hon. friend the member for Weyburn and the Minister of Finance.
It is easy to come to an understanding; but what the government must not forget is this, that centralization does not come from the ministers but comes from underneath. It comes from those in the civil service-call them civil servants or officials, it is of no importance-who are greedy for power. It is in virtue of this principle of centralization that men are paid, not according to their worth, but according to the size of their staff. The more staff they have, the more important they are; the more power they have, and the bigger the salary they get. That is the reason why we have centralization in Ottawa. It is just because of the greed of high officials who want to become more and more powerful, at the expense of old-established traditions and rights, at the expense of the constitution, and perhaps at the expense of unity in Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: No; it is not carried, and the more "carried" is said, the less likely the section is to carry. I am not here to cause obstruction. I am here to express my views and deep convictions. We have heard a great deal about unity in this country, and the conclusion of what was said was that the province of Quebec was a reserve and that the people of that province were entirely different from the people of the rest of Canada. We have had sermons on unity which gave the impression that we are asking the majority in this country to be lenient and kind toward
the minority of the province of Quebec. That is not the way for us to deal together as free citizens in this great land. No, sir. We both, English-speaking and French-speaking, have our qualities and our defects, but we must come together just as we are to try to solve our problems. How can that be done? It can be done if we have the truth about the French-Canadian war effort. We do not have it. I wrote to the minister on January 14, asking his help in securing some information about French Canadians who had enlisted in English-speaking Canadian units. I had received no answer by March. Then I put the letter on Hansard. Still I had no answer. I sent a copy of Hansard to the hon. gentleman concerned, accompanied by another letter. Still no answer. Afterwards I met his secretary, who showed me a letter that had been signed three weeks before by the minister, and that letter was not handed to me because it was not permitted by the Department of National Defence and other departments. Then I wrote another letter. The secretary of the minister telephoned me that the minister had put a note on my letter saying that according to him I was perfectly right in asking for that information. But I have not yet received an acknowledgment of my first letter. Is that reasonable?
What I want are the complete figures about the French-Canadian war effort. When we have them we shall be able to discuss the matter with anyone. If we are wrong, so much the worse for us; if we are right, so much the better for us. We shall not be afraid to tell the truth, and we shall not be influenced by anV propaganda published by those who have a personal interest in slandering the province of Quebec.
I want to defend my own people because they are worthy of being defended. I have the utmost respect for the farmers, the sailors, the airmen and the soldiers and all the citizens of my province, who are equal to anybody in this country. We must not be considered a reserve in the province of Quebec. That is most insulting. We want to be treated exactly as others are treated. We do not want any unfairness or injustice. We want to be treated fairly and squarely.
Some people speak on our behalf. They have no right to do it because when they speak they do not think of the common people, and they do not interpret the views of the common people. They express views that are not ours, and it is for their own selfish purposes that they do that.
In this war effort the people of the province of Quebec cannot be ignored. There
War Appropriation

must be a complete knowledge of what has happened in the past so that we can be fair in judging the present and the future. Let us have the figures. How is it that we cannot get them? How is it that they are not accessible to all members of parliament and to all citizens of this dominion? That information would mean more for national unity than any eloquent speeches uttered by gifted speakers in this country, or speeches delivered by some one but written by others. It is time that we speak face to face, say what we have to say, and not be afraid of any kind of propaganda. The most disastrous propaganda was that used in the last plebiscite campaign in which all those who were not seeing eye-to-eye with the government were branded as traitors. Even in this chamber there were members who were making the worst insinuations against their colleagues who did not see eye-to-eye with their views, however absurd they were.
I hope, sir, that in the future, the errors of the past will not be repeated; that a broad outlook will be taken, and that all Canadians, whether English-speaking or French-speaking, will understand that this is our common country; that we are all in the same boat and that we have an interest in coming closer together for a common purpose. Let us not make anyone out worse than he is. Let not any French Canadian think the Englishspeaking Canadian is otherwise than he is, and let not the reverse occur either. There are no angels in this country. There are guardian angels over every citizen, but they are invisible. Those we see are not angels, although they may be very good citizens.
Is it not possible, sir, to come back to the love and defence and protection of our land? I have been advocating it. If this argument is not accepted, let us try another one with those who are not Canadians at heart, with those who are imperialists. Let us say to them: "We want immediately the roads that are necessary for the war effort. If you will not build them for the defence of this country, build them at least for the transportation of supplies to Great Britain and our friendly allies overseas." H the defence of our country is not enough in the eyes of those who do not consider Canada worth defending, let us use the other argument and ask that roads be built for the transportation of supplies to Great Britain and our friendly allies. Let us also have mobile units for the defence of this country, not only trains but trucks for the transportation of our soldiers. We should have

automobiles, tanks and all the mobile equipment that is required for an army in a country the size of ours. These things should be provided.
Besides that, let us have in each branch of the Department of National Defence the direction in the hands of Canadians, not outsiders. We should have Canadians to decide the policy of this government. We should not be in the hands of outsiders. The reason why our defence is neglected is that everything is suggested by outsiders and is done on their advice. We want Canadians at heart, whether born in this country or not, but people who are to live in this country after the war is over, and who are not to go away like migratory birds.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On Section 4-loans authorized.
Victor Quelch: This is the section under which we would naturally discuss the question of the financial policy of the government; but, in view of the fact that it is desired that we get through with this bill as rapidly as possible, I will defer the discussion to a later time.
The minister on several occasions has pointed out that the government's policy of taxation and of issuing bonds is to restrict the spending power of the public. We have asked why he does not make use of the services of the Bank of Canada, but he has never given a satisfactory answer to that question. At a later stage I shall be prepared to discuss the matter at some length and ask the minister to give a satisfactory explanation of why we are not using the Bank of Canada instead of the chartered banks. Since the declaration of war, we have borrowed directly or indirectly from the chartered banks close to one thousand million dollars-to be exact, I believe $950 million. We consider that when it is necessary to expand the amount of money in circulation, that should be done through the Bank of Canada and not through private moneyed institutions.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have already given the reason. I will give it again, though.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Third Victory Loan

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 96, to authorize the raising, by way of loan, of certain sums of money for the public service.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. McCann in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-loan authorized.
James Lorimer Ilsley: The leader of the opposition asked me yesterday to place on record a statement showing the borrowings in New York and the times when such borrowings took place. He asked me to prepare and put on record a statement of the borrowings by the dominion government and also those of the Canadian National Railways. I have a statement relating to the dominion government, and with the permission of the committee I will have it printed in the proceedings at this stage. This is the statement:
Particulars of the Issue of Dominion of Canada
Bonds Outstanding which are Payable in New York Funds
1.	Thirty-year 5 per cent bonds dated May 1,
1922, due May 1, 1952-$100,000,000.
This issue was sold in 1922 to provide cash for various general purposes of the government.
2.	Thirty-year 4 per cent bonds dated October 1,
1930, due October 1, I960-$100,000,000.
One hundred million dollars issued for cash in October, 1930, of which $25,000,000 was used for the redemption on April 1, 1931, of 5 per cent bonds dated April 1, 1916. This latter issue was part of a $75,000,000 loan issued for the refunding of maturing loans and general purposes.
3.	Ten-year 2J per cent bonds dated August 15,
1935, due August 15, 1945-$76,000,000.
The proceeds of this issue were used for the following purposes:
(a)	Redemption of $50,000,000 Dominion of Canada 2 per cent promissory notes dated September 1, 1934 and due September 1, 1935, which, in turn had been issued to redeem $50,000,000 of a $60,000,000 issue of fifteen months' notes on September 1, 1934. This latter issue had been sold on July 1, 1933, for the refunding of an issue of $60,000,000 dated October 1, 1932. The issue of $60,000,000 notes dated October 1, 1932, had been sold to provide cash to redeem in part $40,000,000 two-year 4 per cent notes dated December 1, 1930, and $13,000,000 treasury notes dated September 19, 1932, and maturing December 17, 1932. This latter issue was the balance outstanding of an issue sold in September, 1931, in the amount of $19,000,000 for the general requirements of the
government and the Canadian National Railways. The $40,000,000 two-year 4 per cent notes referred to in this paragraph were the renewal of a note issue sold in 1927 to obtain funds to pay off part of the 1917-27 victory loan.
(b)	Redemption of $26,000,000 Canadian National Railway Company 4J per cent dominion guaranteed bonds due September 15, 1954, called for redemption on September 15, 1935. This issue had been sold in 1924 for various railway requirements.
4.	Twenty-five year 3J per cent bonds dated
January 15, 1936, due January 15, 1961-

The proceeds of this issue were used for the following purposes:
(a)	Redemption of $40,000,000 44 per cent bonds dated February 1, 1926, due February 1, 1936. This issue in turn refunded part of $70,000,000 4 per cent one-year notes dated September 1, 1926, which, in turn, had refunded one-year notes dated September 15, 1925. This latter issue had been issued to refund in part an issue of treasury notes dated September 15, 1924, which had been issued to provide cash to refund in part treasury bills and the 1919-24 victory loan.
(b)	Redemption of $2,737,986.67 2 per cent treasury bills due January 30, 1936, which had been issued to provide moneys to assist the Canadian National Railways in retiring certain maturing obligations.
(c)	Redemption of $5,418,000 2 per cent Canadian National Railway Company dominion guaranteed bond due January 30, 1936, which had been issued to redeem part of Canadian Northern Railway Company dominion guaranteed bonds dated February 1, 1925, due February 1, 1935.
5.	Seven-year 2J per cent bonds dated January
15, 1937, due January 15, 1944-$30,000,000;
Thirtv-vear 3 per cent bonds dated January
15, 1937, due January 15, 1967-$55,000,000.
The proceeds of this issue were used in part to redeem at maturity $89,787,000 5 per cent war loan bonds dated March 1, 1917, due March 1, 1937, payable in Canadian and United States dollars.
6.	Thirty-year 3 per cent bonds dated November
15, 1938, due November 15, 1968-$40,000,000.
The proceeds of this issue were used to redeem $40,000,000 tliree-year 2 per cent notes dated January 1, 1936, and due January 1, 1939. This latter issue had refunded two short-term note issues of $20,000,000 each which had been issued to provide in part cash to redeem at the call date, October 1, 1935, Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada 7 per cent debentures dated October 1, 1920, and to redeem at the call date, December 1, 1935, Canadian Northern Railway Company 7 per cent debentures dated December 1, 1920.
7.	Two-year 21 per cent notes dated May 1,
1941, due May 1, 1943-$10,000,000.
The proceeds of this issue were used in part to redeem part of $20,000,000 twenty-seven months' notes dated February 1, 1939, due May 1, 1941. This latter issue was sold to provide New York funds for general purposes of the government including loans to the Canadian

Third Victory Loan

National Railways for the purposes of redeeming Canadian National Railway obligations payable in London and obligations payable optionally in New York, London and Canada.
N.B.-It will be noted that of the $459,000,000 outstanding at the present time, $306,000,000 represents loans or renewal of loans issued in the period 1922-1930. It should also be noted that $200,000,000 represents loans issued to refund obligations first issued during the last great war.
The Canadian National Railways' statement is not ready. It is a difficult one to make up and has to be made by the Canadian National Railways themselves. With the permission of the committee I will put that on record when the annual Canadian National Railways' financing bill is before the house. I have not the information at the moment. That would be the more appropriate place for it, anyway.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have had some communication with the minister's office to-day, and I understand the position. I would like him to make it clear just what the amount of our direct borrowings were.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is $459,000,000 outstanding now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But the borrowings between 1922 and 1930 were something over $300,000,000, were they not?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Three hundred and six million dollars represents loans or renewals of loans issued in the period 1922-1930. It should also be noted that $200,000,000 represents loans issued to refund obligations first issued during the last great war.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That will be satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Charge upon consolidated revenue fund.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Do I understand that this bill is for the redeeming of maturing securities? Would the minister give the committee a statement showing what interest these outstanding securities are carrying and what the new interest rate will be? Does the list which the minister has just tabled outline the interest rates that they bear?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. The statement I have just made relates only to securities payable in United States funds-payable in New York.


Thomas Langton Church: What is the meaning of the last seven words in section 2, "and for
(Mr. Ilsley.]
public works and general purposes?" Is public works under the estimate? How much is under war and how much under general purposes?


James Lorimer Ilsley: This phrase has been contained in all the loan acts since 1930, and it is carried in here more for the purposes of uniformity than anything else. I cannot say what, if any, public works will be constructed under this bill, but at any rate they have to be subsequently and separately authorized. This bill is merely a borrowing bill; it does not authorize expenditure upon any particular public work.


Thomas Langton Church: Is this to pay for postmortem public works?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Pardon?


Thomas Langton Church: Is part of it to pay for postmortem public works and money that has been spent for general purposes?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Loans authorized.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Has this been in the bills heretofore?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the purpose of it? I must have asked an explanation before, but I do not recall what it was.


James Lorimer Ilsley: All I can say is that my information is that this is just a copy of former bills.	*


Richard Burpee Hanson: But what is its purpose? What use may be made of it? I realize that securities will have to be issued for refunding purposes. It may be that certain orders in council or other orders and regulations may be passed to give effect to the true intent and meaning of the bill.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I can imagine regulations or orders in council that might be issued-


Mr. MICHAUD:: Regarding denominations.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, and regarding the issue and sale or pledge of securities of Canada and the paying or redeeming in whole or part of loans or obligations of Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Governing methods.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: That would come under section 2.

Third Victory Loan


Richard Burpee Hanson: Section 2 gives the government wide-open powers to do anything. There must be some reason for section 4. I think we ought to know as a matter of record.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Strictly speaking, any order in council passed under section 2 would be limited in scope to the authorities and powers contained in that section.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are very wide.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But it might be necessary to state the procedure which would be followed in the United States or Great Britain or Canada for the purchasing of unmatured obligations for example, that they should be deposited in a certain place and all that kind of thing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not wish to delay the committee, but I make this suggestion: Would the minister ask his officers to draw up a memorandum, and in some proper place the minister could put it on the record.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall be glad to do that.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: May I offer this suggestion. Section 2 deals with raising an amount by way of loans and with the sale or pledge of securities and so on. It deals only with that. But those moneys are to be used for paying or redeeming the whole or any portion of loans or obligations outstanding. Under section 4 you might have occasion in redeeming a loan to make a preliminary contract with some corporation or persons with respect to the terms under which you redeem. Under section 2 you would not have authority to do that; you have only borrowing authority. Therefore section 4 gives complete authority to ratify a redemption contract. It seems to me that section 4 is necessary.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would remind the committee that last spring I asked the Minister of Finance if he thought that Sir Edward Peacock would come to Canada, and he said no. Since then I have been asking a question as to the coming of Sir Edward Peacock to Montreal on June 25 when Sir Arthur Salter was also at the Ritz-Carlton, and I asked if any minister had met him. I know the Minister of Finance was not in town; he was in his own beautiful province at the moment, but Sir Edward Peacock was met by the Minister of Munitions and Supply and also by the Minister of National Defence in the capacity of Acting Minister of Finance. I thought the work of Minister of National
Defence was a full-time job, especially in view of the fact that the minister is seldom in his place here. I thought he was always veiy busy 'with his staff discussing the-problems of his department. So I was greatly surprised when I learned that he was Acting Minister of Finance and acting so precisely when Sir Edward Peacock and Sir Arthur Salter came to Montreal. Sir Edward Peacock is a director of the bank of Montreal and the Canadian Pacific Railway company and is the gentleman supposed to come to- America' to sell the stock of the Canadian Pacific. Whether or not he was successful in the United States I do not know, but I know he was successful with the Bank of Canada. If he did not sell the Canadian Pacific stock to the Bank of Canada, it is held there under guarantee awaiting the action of the government, probably awaiting the enactment of this bill, and we shall have amalgamation of railways under that.
The committee and the house know that I have always been opposed to amalgamation of the railways, opposed from the point of view of the public and also from the point of view of the employees of the railways. It has been the traditional policy of the Liberal party to oppose the amalgamation of the railways and to condemn the Tories just on account of their railway policy during the last war. If we are to have amalgamation by this government, what difference would there be between the Liberal party and the Conservative party?


John Ritchie MacNicol: The Conservative party would be better.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not know, but I am greatly disappointed. It is impossible to get anything definite in that regard. When I told the minister that my expectation was that Sir Edward Peacock would come to Canada, he replied, 'T do not believe so; it is not my expectation that he will come." But two months afterwards he came just the same, and then it was the Minister of National Defence who met him. Did he meet him with Mr. Magee, president of Barclays Bank? I do not know. But in my humble view-


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will ask my hon. friend to keep his voice for his own speeches.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I rise to a point of order. This bill deals only with the purchase of obligations of the Dominion of Canada. It has nothing to do with Canadian Pacific railway stock, and the hon. gentleman, interesting as he always is, is quite out of order.
44561-203 ^
Third Victory Loan


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, you know very well that what my hon. friend has said is undoubtedly very clever; but at the present time we have a bill like this, which might be changed at any time by order in council under the War Measures Act, and what are at present securities of Canada no one knows. It may be securities or stock of the Canadian Pacific that has been held and guaranteed by the Bank of Canada and paid afterwards by the Dominion of Canada. I will not insist any ' more at this time; I shall have other opportunities to bring up the matter, but I warn the committee again against any scheme for the amalgamation of the railways. It would be a great mistake for this government and a very bad thing for the country, and I will oppose it on every occasion I have an opportunity to lo so.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, during the last
few days, and especially yesterday and to-day, I have endeavoured in every way to facilitate two very important government measures. We have now passed the $2,000,000,000 war appropriation bill and the $750,000,000 loan bill; we have given them third reading immediately, without any delay. I suggest that there is a limit to what we can stand in a day, and the government should call it eleven o'clock. As far as I am concerned, I cannot work all the time. If the government want to go on, well and good, but I am suggesting that we have made splendid progress to-day and that we ought to rise. That is my suggestion to the government, and I hope they will accept it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As far as we are concerned we would like to go on and take up the agriculture estimates. Some of us have been waiting quite a while for them, and we have hurried through the other business in order that we might get on to the amendment to the National Resources Mobilization Act to-morrow. We should like to continue, unless the leader of the opposition is insistent.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I am not insistent; it was just a suggestion. If you are going into the agriculture estimates, go ahead.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, Mr. Chairman, we certainly appreciate the progress we have made to-day, in having both these bills receive third reading, and I want to thank the leader of the opposition and other hon. members for their cooperation in helping us reach that very much desired goal. But there is still a great deal of work to be done, and we should like to have the estimates of the Department of Agriculture considered until eleven o'clock. If there are any items that are contentious they can stand, because notice was not given last night of our intention to take up this business. I think we might make some progress. We would like to call an item in fisheries and one in trade and commerce, if that is agreeable.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It does not make any difference to us which department you take up. Go ahead with agriculture.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. McCann in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
71. Departmental administration, $132,340.
Richard Burpee Hanson: What is
this?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We have only four departments in so far. We want to call an item in fisheries, and have it stand, and then an item in trade and commerce and have that stand. Then we will proceed with agriculture.
Item stands.



DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
341. Departmental administration, $140,900.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $125,558.
Mr. PERLEY:: Would the minister make a general statement on this item? Is that the way in which he intends to proceed? It would be interesting to have a general statement now, if he proposes to make one.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: I have no objection to making a
general statement, but within the last week I made one which I think, covered practically everything in the estimates.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was
a political statement.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I imagine any
statement I might make now would be called

Supply-Agriculture
a political speech too. I have no objection to dealing with any of the estimates or answering any questions with regard to them, but I think I would be only wasting the time of the committee if I made another speech on agriculture at this stage.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: When the minister was before the committee some time ago some question was raised with regard to the policy followed in connection with the payment of inspectors who have been working under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I had some correspondence last year in connection with the amounts paid some of the inspectors in my constituency. It appeared to me that the accounts they submitted for expenses were quite out of line with what would be paid by men representing commercial firms, doing similar work and staying at hotels in that constituency where it would be impossible to engage a room costing more than $1.50 a day. Would the minister explain the policy which is followed and tell us what check there is in order to ascertain whether or not these accounts are being padded, whether the inspectors are required to send in itemized statements, and so on?


James Garfield Gardiner: That really comes under item SO, and we are dealing with item 1. I would rather deal with that when we reach the proper item.


James Arthur Ross: I tried to get a
question on the order paper yesterday, and perhaps the minister could answer it now. It was based on an article which appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune of Thursday, June 4, and had to do with the matter of filing preliminary applications for the acreage reduction bonus. Yesterday I received a copy of a letter addressed to the superintendent, wheat reduction plan, province of Manitoba, Union Trust building, Winnipeg, under date of June 5. That letter said, in part:
Following our interview of yesterday, when you informed me that I was not eligible for a 1942 wheat reduction bonus because the date on my application would read June 4th instead of May 31st or earlier, I decided to write you and present you with evidence that farmers are not entirely to blame for the confusion that exists. . . .
Then follow three or four pages of this evidence, in which is pointed out the waste of gasoline and tires that would be entailed in driving to the office to file these applications. I should like to point out also that the press throughout the prairie provinces, during the months of April and May, carried information to the effect that where there was no change in acreage from 1941, it would not be necessary to file a preliminary application.
According to the article in the Tribune and according to this letter, that policy must have been altered within the last few days, and there is great confusion among the farmers of my province, who are holding district meetings this week at which they are agitating about the matter. I suggest that the minister make a statement to clarify the situation, as to whether the policy has been changed or not, and say whether an operator who has not filed an application by May 31 is now barred from coming under the bonus.


James Garfield Gardiner: That has to do with
item 31. There is no general ruling this year that a man must have his application in by May 31. However, the office did ask them to put in a return if there were any change in acreage, and also encouraged others to put in returns, even if there were no change in acreage. It is not compulsory under the regulations to do that this year, with the exception of those who did not put in applications last year.


Mr ROSS (Souris):: Those people would not be barred.


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


James Arthur Ross: Then, on March 23 I had a question on the order paper resulting from an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of March 21, stating that the armed Canadian forces were to use horses for transport. I took the matter up with the Minister of National Defence, and his secretary informed me at that time that they were making inquiries of the Department of Agriculture to see how many horses might be used for army transport purposes without seriously affecting agriculture. It was pointed out that they desired to use horses to some extent, if they were available.
My idea at that time was that it would not handicap agriculture, because I believe people are using tractors as much as possible, and I thought this would be a market in which surplus horses could be disposed of. While travelling on the train one of the controllers-I believe it was the coal controller, or someone connected with him-told me that the T. Eaton company in Winnipeg were changing their deliveries from trucks to horses, and that they were not allowed to obtain a permit to purchase horses. I thought that was rather far-fetched; but if there is anything to it, I should like to have the matter clarified by the minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know of any regulation requiring anyone to have a permit to buy horses, or to substitute horses for other equipment. However, inquiries have
Supply-Agriculture-Publicity

been made by the Department of National Defence with regard to the use of horses in substitution for some other equipment. Nothing final has yet been done. The matter is still in the exploratory stage.


James Arthur Ross: There would be quite a number of horses available without seriously affecting agricultural production.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, in many sections of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
2. Publicity and extension division, $108,715.
Ernest Edward Perley: Would the minister explain the change?


Mr GARDINER:: The details are found at page 53 of the estimates, and at the top of page 54. It will be found that total salaries and- wages stand at $76,490, as against $75,650 in the previous year. Cost of living bonus stands at $5,755; express, freight and cartage is decreased by $S00; printing and stationery shows a decrease of $3,200; supplies and materials show a decrease of $2,500; telephones, telegrams and postage show an increase of $1,800, and travelling expenses have been reduced by $1,200. When these figures are balanced they show a decrease from $109,650 to $108,715.


Ernest Edward Perley: How many shared in the cost of living bonus?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are thirty-five listed among those receiving salaries. I should imagine most of them would receive the cost of living bonus.


Mr. SENN:: I understand publicity is carried on by the department in a number of ways. One is by the sending out of publications through mailing lists; another is through the press, where articles are sent to the press from time to time. Then there are exhibits at fairs. Is there any connection between the data accumulated by the Department of Agriculture and that accumulated by the bureau of statistics? Sometimes it is thought that the figures are not altogether reliable, and I should like to know whether there is any connection between the two branches, whether they collaborate in the gathering of data, and, if so, to what extent.
Then, what amount is spent on each class of publicity-that is, on exhibits at fairs, publications of articles in newspapers, and the like? How are mailing lists made up? Are they changed from year to year, or do they go on from one year to another? How are the newspapers, in which these articles are published.
IMr. Gardiner.]
chosen? Are they chosen all across the dominion, regardless of size, circulation or political leanings?


James Garfield Gardiner: The first question has to do with the manner of gathering statistics. The bureau of statistics, which is connected with the Department of Trade and Commerce, does consult with officials of the Department of Agriculture in the gathering of material. They have a service, and we have a service which checks on the different markets. Sometimes there is a variation in the figures obtained.


Mark Cecil Senn: Quite a serious one.


James Garfield Gardiner: The figures put out by the bureau of statistics are sometimes based upon estimates gathered by certain methods, and by comparisons with conditions existing previously. Some of our statistics are gathered directly from the markets, through our inspectors on those markets. A correction takes place as between the two branches. But it is just possible that between the time statistics are gathered and the time the correction is made, some figures available to officers in the Department of Agriculture may differ from those given out by the bureau of statistics.


Mark Cecil Senn: That holds good not only with respect to markets but also with respect to the number of cattle and hogs throughout the country.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; it might apply to any of those things. But usually before anything is given out to the country, the figures are corrected as between the two departments, and conform as nearly as possible.


Mark Cecil Senn: How are mailing lists made up, and how are the newspapers, in which these articles are published chosen?


James Garfield Gardiner: Certain articles appear only in farm papers. My understanding is that those articles appear in all farm papers across Canada. There are other articles which appear only in local papers, and the method followed there is, I believe, to get in touch with the secretary of the association, and to deal with all papers of certain classifications across the country.
No attention is paid to political leanings or anything of that kind. As was mentioned a moment ago, papers of a certain classification are taken right across Canada. I presume that is based largely upon the subscription lists of the papers or the community that they serve. For other articles we use the daily press. It all depends upon the importance of the article and the necessity of getting it out in a short space of time. Articles that have

Supply-Agriculture-Publicity
to do with something that we want done within a week or two weeks would be of no value if published in a monthly agricultural paper, or possibly in a bi-weekly publication. In that case we would have to use the daily press in order to get the articles out to the public in time. Of course we supplement the publicity in the press with publicity over the radio and with information in pamphlet and other forms.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the department deal directly with the newspapers, or does it work through an advertising agency?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a press sheet made available weekly without any intermediary, but the advertising is done largely through the Canadian advertising agency with headquarters in Montreal.


Mark Cecil Senn: Nothing is paid for the printing of those press sheets?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is correct.


Mark Cecil Senn: Exhibits are quite often put
on at fall fairs, and I should like to know if it is intended to carry out this practice during this coming year. How are the fairs chosen? I have noticed bacon exhibits and other types of exhibits which are quite instructive. Are these fairs chosen on the basis of attendance, because they are class A or class B fairs, or is the selection made indiscriminately?


James Garfield Gardiner: As hon. members know, during the last two years we have eliminated grants to fairs, and we have also limited our activities in connection with exhibits because of the cut made in the estimates. We follow the practice generally of having an exhibit in one zone in one year and then switching the exhibit in the following season. That makes it possible to have an exhibit shown generally throughout the country over a period of years. There will be some exhibits at class A fairs and there will be other exhibits at class B fairs; in each case, some of these fairs have ceased to operate during the war period. Generally speaking, we are carrying on the same activities as were carried on prior to the war, but at a lesser cost and in lesser volume.


Mark Cecil Senn: I am interested in a fair which is neither class A nor class B, although it has a fairly good attendance. I have never understood how a board of directors or a secretary of a fair should go about getting an exhibit of this kind. I have been at fairs where these exhibits were shown, and they attracted a lot of attention. I think they are a good thing, and I should like to know how to go about making an application, particularly if a certain attendance is necessary before such application is considered.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not the practice to show exhibits at the smaller fairs, but that is done on occasion. Any fair board is at liberty to make application to the department for an exhibit, which application will be considered. It sometimes happens that an exhibit is being shown at a larger fair, and the necessary equipment can be moved to a smaller fair and the exhibit shown in about the same period of time. There are many details that enter into the matter.


Ernest Edward Perley: What amounts are paid to the weekly, daily and monthly press?


James Garfield Gardiner: Nothing is paid for the articles that go-out from the department, but we do pay for advertising. A certain sum is paid to the advertising agency for the publication of advertising matter in a certain classification of publication. The agency makes the arrangements with the different papers.


Ernest Edward Perley: What sort of advertising?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is largely war projects. We may want more hogs, and we advertise accordingly. We may want certain things done in connection with apples, or we may try to boost the sale of apples. In that case advertising is issued right across the country. It is advertising to increase the sale of farm products or the production of farm products.


Ernest Edward Perley: What amount was paid by the agency to the weekly press in the provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: The amounts of which I have been speaking really come under the war appropriation vote which was discussed last week. I refer to the advertising of pork products and other things of that kind. I have not the information with me as to what was paid to the different papers.


James Arthur Ross: Was that amount paid direct to the weekly newspaper association, which would divide it?


James Garfield Gardiner: We indicate to the agency what we want done; a price is set, and the agency makes the distribution of the amounts.


Ernest Edward Perley: What amounts were paid by the agency to the weekly and daily press?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will bring the war estimates with me the next time I am before the committee and answer that question for the hon. member. I have only the general estimates before me.


Ernest Edward Perley: This is an estimate of the department; it is not a war appropriation.
Supply-Agriculture-Publicity


James Garfield Gardiner: The money spent under this vote is largely to prepare the material that goes out to the press, for which we do not pay. Since the war we have cut advertising out of this vote, and it is now done under the war requirement.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Is all the advertising under this vote done in Canada, or is any done in Great Britain?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no advertising under this vote. This covers publicity in the form of pamphlets and so forth, material for which we do not pay. We send it out to the newspapers, and it may or may not be published, although most of it is.


Mr. MARSHALL:: What portion of the $109,650 voted last year has been expended?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no balance; it has all been spent.


Ernest Edward Perley: How many publications are issued? Does the whole cost of printing, paper, and so forth come out of this vote?


James Garfield Gardiner: The full cost does not come out of this vote. The cost of the staff that prepares the material comes out of this vote, but further down there is an item covering the printing and stationery.


Mark Cecil Senn: I have often thought that the material which is being sent out by the department does not get enough publicity. By that I mean that a number of excellent pamphlets are issued by the department from time to time and kept in stock showing how different crops and different plants should be cultivated, soya beans, for example, and sometimes I think the public know little or nothing about these pamphlets being available. From the pamphlets the people would be able to learn how to produce these things, but do they know they are available? Is anything being done to acquaint the public with the fact that this great number of publications is available and that by asking for them the public can get them and study them with a view to producing to better advantage than perhaps they are doing at the present time?


James Garfield Gardiner: All of the publications that go out from the department are reviewed in the press at the time they are published, and also reviewed over the radio. Then we have a long mailing list to which we send these publications. We try in every way to get the knowledge over to the public that the publications are in existence and can be had by people asking for them. A few of them have to be purchased. We do everything possible to make the public acquainted with the fact that the publications are available.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think the hon. member for Haldimand has raised a very good point. The department prepares a great deal of free literature about which the people know little. I know that one year I secured a large quantity of different pamphlets on various subjects, poultry raising, hog feeding and so forth, and sent them out to rural schools in my constituency. The teachers put them on a desk where the children had access to them, and I was surprised how many people wrote in asking where they could secure copies. They had not known they were available. Many people do not get the newspapers, and those who do might not see the review. I do not know whether it would be possible to make these publications available to rural schools. That might be too large a territory to cover, but certainly the agricultural clubs should receive them and perhaps school teachers might be circularized and told that this material was available, and that if they had an agricultural club in their community the department would send them the literature. I know that people wTho have received this literature were grateful to get it, and we ought to make it known that these publications are available.


James Garfield Gardiner: The pamphlets are not sent out in bulk, not even to members of parliament, unless they make application that they require a large quantity for some special purpose, but the figures before me indicate that a very large number of publications do go out. These figures Cover 1940-41:
Statistics covering 1940-41-[DOT]
86,422 personal requests received for publications.
468,380 publications mailed on personal request.
593,720 publications mailed in bulk.
1,420,482 copies of market reports mailed on request.
499,285 copies of press notices.
86,108 clip sheets.
521,170 farm notes.
11,209,015 copies of miscellaneous articles.
8,084 stencils cut for mimeographing.
8,345,326 copies printed from mimeograph stencils.
1,118 jobs on multigraph and offset.
3,085,695 copies printed on multigraph and offset.
2,003,270 pieces of mail addressed.


Major James William Coldwell: Some years ago I think the schools used to receive in the early fall a leaflet giving a list of the publications that could be applied for. I am thinking of twenty years ago. Has that practice been discontinued? I know I used to pick out a number of pamphlets from the list and send in for them. I can see the list in my mind's eye now. I do not know whether the list went out to all the schools, but I got one for several years.

Supply-Agriculture-Publicity


James Garfield Gardiner: There is such a list available to people who apply for it. I do not think it is customary to send it to all the schools, but it would be sent to a school if the teacher asked for it.


Major James William Coldwell: Perhaps I wrote in for the list in the beginning, and my name was continued on the mailing list.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. People send in for the list and then select what pamphlets they wish.


Gordon Graydon: Is the publication known as the "Agricultural Situation Outlook" still published?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not published in the form in which it was issued originally, but a monthly review is published.


Gordon Graydon: In the early part of this session I made inquiries of the department with regard to this pamphlet which was issued for a number of years in peace time. I find among the farmers I represent quite a demand for the "Agricultural Situation Outlook". It was an informative publication covering several branches of agriculture and contained many interesting articles on the farm situation generally. I was wondering why the publication was discontinued unless there was some good reason for that.


James Garfield Gardiner: The reason was the
expense of getting out a publication of that kind with our estimates cut down as they have been since the war started. I might add that it is much more difficult, I think the hon. member will agree, to publish such an outlook in war time than in peace time. The term "outlook" indicates the nature of a publication of that kind.


Mr. STOKES:: How is the mailing list
compiled and kept up to date?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a continuing list which has been built up over a long number of years, and we try to keep the list as up to date as we can. If you check the list tomorrow you might find the name of somebody on it who died last year, but even in that event the publication would not be wasted because there would no doubt be someone at that address who would get the mail. As close a check as possible is kept of the list, and names are struck off when persons have moved, but there is just the possibility that there may be some overlapping in a list of that kind.


Ernest Edward Perley: I agree with the hon.
member for Haldimand that a great many of these publications are very useful. Last year I carried some home with me in my car, and I would slip them out to farmers.
One was on soya beans, I remember, and another on beef and how to select and cook it. I happened to leave one or two of these publications with a family in my town. Last week the Wolseley community war service organization put on a carnival, and this woman, who is one of the homemakers' group, wrote to me that they were conducting a booth at this carnival and asked if I would select a number of pamphlets such as I had left on this occasion, or any others, and send them to her. I selected eight or ten. One was entitled "Milk, the Perfect Food," and another was headed "Why Pasteurize Milk?" There were also two or three about canning and preserving fruits. I have received word that they went like hot cakes. The homemakers' group made over $100 at their booth. No doubt there will be a demand for some of these publications. I understand that the minister's department is putting out a pamphlet on how to can preserved fruits without sugar. I believe that if such a publication is intended, it would be a good thing to get a little publicity through the weekly press or advertise it in some way, because now that sugar is rationed it would be a fine thing to have this information in the hands of the people generally.


James Garfield Gardiner: The only thing I can
say with regard to the matter is that our department has a service which is working out plans of that kind. Many women have been canning certain fruits and vegetables without the use of very much sugar; and all information with regard to that sort of thing is gathered together, put into the form of publications and sent out for the benefit of others. That work is going on constantly and I am sure, is helpful.


Mr. CARDIFF:: Does each agricultural
representative get a quantity of this literature, or how is it distributed?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; they are all on
the mailing list and get quantities of it from time to time.


Gordon Graydon: Could the minister give the committee any idea of the number of hours per week on the average occupied by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation broadcasts sponsored by the Department of Agriculture?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is half an hour
every day in connection with giving market prices and that kind of thing. There is some time in addition, but I have not complete figures.


Major James William Coldwell: Is that sponsored by
the department, or is it Canadian Broadcasting Corporation activity?
321S

Supply-Agriculture-Publicity


James Garfield Gardiner: These are Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation broadcasts. I hope the hon. member is not confusing it with the agricultural forum which was sponsored by the federal and provincial authorities.


Major James William Coldwell: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: The department itself
does not actually sponsor the agricultural programme. We supply the material; that is the basis for it. In that sense maybe we are responsible for it. I would not like to say that we are sponsoring it.


Gordon Graydon: From a practical point
of view, when the Department of Agriculture decides that it is in the interests of the farmers of the dominion that a broadcast should be made over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, is that initiated by the Department of Agriculture and, if it does, what is the practical means whereby the broadcast goes on the air? Does the Department of Agriculture go to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and ask for a date and for the particular length of time during which it wishes to broadcast? Does that come direct from the Department of Agriculture to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. Whenever any
special programme is put on, or we desire to have any special broadcast, we go to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and arrange for the person who is to broadcast, and so on.


Major James William Coldwell: Do you pay for it?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, we are not
required to pay for it. Where it is in the national interest we are not required to pay.


Major James William Coldwell: Has the department paid for any programme over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, not from my
memory, excepting broadcasts which are put on in connection with a matter like our acreage reduction plan, advertising in the west. Some of that is paid for.


Major James William Coldwell: When you pay for it, do you place it through an advertising agency or direct through the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


James Garfield Gardiner: The last arrangements, which were made-for example, for the putting on of the broadcasts with regard to acreage reduction last spring-were made through the J. J. Gibbons Company, whose office is at Regina. They made the arrangements for the radio, largely because they are the agency which does that kind of thing in that area.


Major James William Coldwell: Who paid the commission on the government advertising over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in connection with this particular matter?


James Garfield Gardiner: That was not all over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It was over local stations, a combination of local stations. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation may have been in it as well, but much of it went over local stations.


Major James William Coldwell: But if that was a network programme it would be placed with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The point I am getting at is this. We were amazed this morning, in the radio committee, to find that the victory loan campaign and certain other campaigns were placed with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation through advertising agencies, and that commissions were paid to the advertising agencies for radio time obtained by the government for these national campaigns. Yet we have been told in this chamber that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is an agency of the crown. It seemed extraordinary, and I wondered if the Department of Agriculture were doing the same thing.
Mr. GARDINER; Ordinarily we go direct to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and make our arrangements direct with them. The only case I can recall, which is an exception, is the one I have mentioned. I am quite sure that that agency did make some arrangements for our advertising in the west. It was largely because we were making arrangements for the general advertising put out by that agency, and I am quite certain that they arranged for that broadcasting as well.


Gordon Graydon: To hark back to the evidence which came out on the radio broadcasting commission: there is an interdepartmental committee headed by Mr. Justice Davis, deputy minister of national war services, a purely advisory committee, but one which apparently is working on the question of coordinating the matter of governmental official information which is to be relayed to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for dissemination throughout Canada. I was wondering whether the Department of Agriculture, before it initiates a broadcast over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, sends or has the informational scripts sent to the interdepartmental committee; whether arrangements are made direct with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation itself, or through the interdepartmental committee which was set up.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think I am correct in stating that that organization is not yet func-

Questions
tioning. It has been, recommended, and it is up for consideration. When it does function, if it functions, it will operate in the way the hon. member has said.


Gordon Graydon: I hope that the minister is correct in what he says in this regard, because the evidence we have heard is not in entire agreement with his statement with respect to the setting up of the committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: In what way?


Gordon Graydon: I understood that the committee was functioning, and had been for some considerable time.


James Garfield Gardiner: Unless I am misunderstanding what is suggested, it is not yet functioning. Probably we are not talking about the same thing.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order
Wednesday, June 10, 1942