1943-07-01

PRIVILEGE-MR. KNOWLES REFERENCE TO PRESS REPORT OF SPEECH OF MR. CRERAR AT STONEWALL, MAN.

Mr. S. H. KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. The privilege to which I refer has to do with a newspaper report concerning a speech of mine made in this house, in which report there was an entirely incorrect statement, as I shall prove by reference to Hansard.
The report to which I refer appears in the Winnipeg Free Press of June 29, 1943. The article is entitled, "Aluminum contract defended by Crerar." The portion which I wish to read is directly within quotation marks and is attributed to the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar). The speech was made, according to this report, at Stonewall, Manitoba, last Monday.
"Suppose the government had taken over the Aluminum Company of Canada, as the C.C.F. wanted us to do, what might have been the result? The international cartel might have denied us the use of bauxite and cryolite, two necessary ingredients, and we would not have been able to produce any aluminum.
"I asked Mr. Stanley Knowles in the House of Commons what he would have done under such circumstances. He gave me no answer."
It is in connection with that last sentence that I rise to a question of privilege-the statement that I gave the minister no answer, which, in the light of the record, to me is misrepresentation. I hold in my hand a copy of Hansard of June 14. On page 3634 I find the following:
Mr. Crerar: Assuming that the government had stepped in and expropriated or taken over the whole enterprise of the Aluminum Company of Canada on the Saguenay river, what would it have done for raw material? All the raw material that is converted into aluminum in the plant on the Saguenay comes from another country, and we do not and could not control that by any expropriation proceedings.

Canada and the War
Mr. Knowles: The answer I make to that is, first, that the raw material comes from Newfoundland and from British and Dutch Guiana, all of which countries are part of or under the united nations.
Then there were certain interruptions, points of order and so on. A little later in the column the Minister of Mines and Resources repeated his question:
Mr. Crerar: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre offers strong criticism of the government because it did not do a certain thing. I think I am quite within my rights in asking him how he proposes we should have done it. I ask him how he would have done it.
Mr. Knowles:	I take it that the minister
has admitted that the aluminum interests had the government on the spot, so that the company could say to the government: This is the world price and you must pay it. And the government agreed to it.
My point, Mr. Speaker, is that the statement that I did not answer the minister's question is entirely incorrect, as Hansard bears out. He asked the question twice, and I gave an immediate answer on both occasions.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: No answer at all; absolutely none.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: I do not know if I am in
order, but since my hon. friend has raised the question I may be permitted to make a comment on his remarks. I submit still that any reading of Hansard indicates clearly, and what my hon. friend has read indicates clearly, that he did not answer the question I asked him. I will put it to him now, and perhaps when he goes out to-


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Selkirk.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, to Selkirk or Montreal or anywhere else, he will answer it then. I asked him what the government would do if it had taken over the plant and raw materials were denied to it, and my hon. friend did not answer the question. He has not answered it yet, and I venture to say he will not answer it when he goes on the hustings in Selkirk to make speeches.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if I had
taken time to quote further from Hansard I could have shown that I said that the entire properties of Aluminium Limited should be taken over under the National Resources Mobilization Act, and further the minister knows that the properties outside Canada from which the raw materials are taken are owned by Aluminium Limited one hundred per cent, so that we could have taken them over at the same time.



CANADA AND THE WAR


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: To-day Canada celebrates the seventy-sixth anniversary of confederation.	To-day is also the fourth
Dominion day to be celebrated since the outbreak of war. To place our war-time situation in perspective, I should like for a moment to recall the conditions of war in previous years.
On July 1, 1940, the whole free world had been shaken to its foundations by the collapse of France. That was the darkest period in the war. The British nations alone stood- and they stood almost unarmed-against the seemingly invincible nazi war machine. Italy had joined the aggressor, and her armies were poised on the borders of Egypt. Most of the world waited anxiously for some inevitable climax.
The year which followed was the year of survival for the cause of freedom. The seemingly inevitable did not happen. Britain stood, battered but unbroken, against the nazi onslaught.
On July 1, 1941, the character and scope of the war had just been vastly changed by the furious and treacherous nazi assault on Soviet Russia. The minds of free men, deceived for years by lying propaganda, were suddenly called upon to face a wholly unexpected situation. None of the free nations faltered. In that hour, all extended the hand of friendship to the Soviet Union.
In the following year, as the titanic struggle on the steppes of Russia ebbed and flowed, the war in the east was joined with the war in the west. The dastardly attack upon Pearl Harbor made of the war a global struggle.
On July 1, 1942, the war had reached another dark hour. The soviet armies were being driven back; Japanese power had been extended far and wide in southeast Asia, and the islands of the Pacific. The gates of India were threatened by Japan; the Germans and Italians had reached the outskirts of Alexandria. Suez was in deadly peril. On the Atlantic and on the Pacific, enemy sea-power was increasing. The shores of North America were threatened.
The past year, however, witnessed the turn of the tide. In Russia, the Germans were driven back. In the Pacific, Japanese advances were checked. The axis forces were driven completely out of Africa; and on the Atlantic the U-boat menace has, for the time being at least, been greatly reduced.
Canada and the War

On this Dominion day, July 1, 1943, the world scene is vastly changed from a year ago. The united nations have everywhere gained the initiative. In the Atlantic, in the Mediterranean, in Europe, in the far east, and in the Pacific-in fact, in every theatre of war, there are substantial reasons for encouragement. The united nations are prepared for even fiercer fighting. They have steeled themselves to endure heavy losses, and to meet reverses and setbacks. All are determined to do their utmost to win. All now believe that their combined efforts will result in ultimate victory.
Each Dominion day in war time has marked steady progress in Canada's contribution to the cause of freedom. In 1940 we had only one division of our army overseas, a mere handful of airmen in action, a few ships on the Atlantic. Air training was only beginning; war production barely beyond the stage of planning and organization.
In 1941, our army overseas had served for a year as a bulwark of Britain's defences in the period of her gravest peril; our trained airmen were already a considerable factor in combat; our navy, greatly expanded, was taking a growing share in guarding the vital north Atlantic sea lanes; our war production and our foodstuffs had proved essential to Britain's continued resistance.
In 1942, our forces on land, at sea, and in the air had still further expanded. Canada's fighting men had continued to keep the world's citadel of freedom secure from invasion. Our fighting men had seen action on every sea and in the air, over almost every battlefront in a world-encircling conflict. Our war production was approaching its peak; our production of foodstuffs reached heights which seemed incredible. Our country was approaching a total effort.
To-day, July 1, 1943, as the united nations everywhere turn to the offensive, Canada is ready to take her full part in the forthcoming combined assault upon the enemy. We have mobilized our production, our forces, and our resources for the great offensive.
The war effort of Canada-on the production lines of the home front, in the skies over many an embattled land, on all the seas around the world, and in preparation for the supreme offensive against the European stronghold of the nazi enemy-is an evidence of our strength and of our purpose. It is an affirmation of our faith in the cause for which all the united nations fight. It is a gauge of Canada's emerging importance among the great nations of the world.
In the course of the last great war, we saw general recognition given to Canada's status 
as a nation; a status later accorded full recognition at the imperial conference of 1926, and still later confirmed by the parliament of the United Kingdom in the statute of Westminster. In the course of the present war, we have seen Canada emerge from nationhood into a position generally recognized as that of a world power.
In the greetings which have come to the governent from many parts of the British commonwealth, and from foreign countries, this note has been predominant. The consensus is summed up, I believe, in the following paragraphs, which, according to a Canadian Press cable, appeared to-day in a leading London newspaper:
Britain and the empire join in a salutation on the dominion's 76th birthday.
They hail her not only as a member of our group of peoples, but as a world power in her own right.
Such is the energy of her people that industrially, and by measure of armed power, Canada ranks fourth in all the company of the united nations.
As our contributions to the war effort of the united nations have increased, so also has the stature of our nationhood. We are all proud of the extent to which mutual aid from Canada is helping other allied nations in arms, in the fight against axis aggression. In the years that lie ahead, our country will have responsibilities never hitherto imagined. There will be taste of helping to feed the liberated peoples whose homes and homelands have been destroyed and despoiled; of joining in the economic rebuilding of shattered national economies, and coordinating them within a world-wide system of interchange of goods and services; of sharing in the ordering of the world community for the future, so that there may be peace and justice, freedom and security for all. These are great tasks for any nation. We are already preparing to take our full share of these tasks.
The realization that we may still be at war when we reach July 1st of next year must certainly colour our thoughts and remembrances on this national anniversary.
The new year of our existence as a dominion, which begins to-day, will witness the supreme effort of Canada. Our people may, in the course of its days, be called upon- to pass through an ordeal greater than our country has ever experienced. In that ordeal we know that our fighting men will nobly uphold the honour of our country; that they will display the utmost resourcefulness, fortitude and heroism. The coming months will demand from all of us steadiness, determination and the utmost unity.

Canada and the War
After nearly four years of war our country, fortunately, is more united than it has been at any time since the outbreak of war. Canadian workingmen and women, Canadian farmers, Canadian business men, Canadians in all walks of life, have shown their readiness to put the interests of their country and of the world's freedom before their own immediate interests. In a world in which racial strife and racial domination are the instrument and the aim of the enemy, we in Canada have achieved a measure of racial harmony which is surpassed in no other country. It may truly be said that we have built a nation founded on the principles of equality and brotherhood among men. If a new era in which men and women can enjoy peace and prosperity is to be achieved, the application of these principles must be extended to the relations of all nations with one another. By our strength in war, and by our understanding and cooperation in peace, Canada can contribute mightily to the building of a better world.
To-day it is the prayer of the people of Canada that the Divine Power which has guided and guarded our country throughout the years of its growth may sustain our armed forces in their endurance of bitter conflicts, may give courage to our homes during the period of supreme trial that already is so nearly upon us, and may endow all the forces of freedom with the power and wisdom necessary to secure for mankind a just and enduring peace.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on this memorable and historic occasion, as we pass another milestone along the pathway that has led us from confederation to this day it is with no small feeling of pride and of responsibility that I rise to add a word to what the Prime Minister has just said.
It is a sobering thought, and I could not help but think how sobering it was as I listened to the Prime Minister this afternoon, that perhaps in this seventy-seventh year of our Canadian federation, upon which we are now entering, we, the Canadian people, may be called upon to endure an ordeal such as this country has never before experienced. Since the year 1913 on eight different occasions, including to-day, we have celebrated Dominion day in the midst of a global war. We have been engaged in two global wars since we celebrated Dominion day in 1915. We can all at least hope and pray that whatever may lie ahead, whether or not it may bring the peace for which we are all looking, in the holocaust through which we must go before the rays of the sunshine of peace fall upon us, the Canadian people will carry the burden in the historic and traditional way of Canadians in years gone by.
Canada so far in this war has enjoyed relative security compared with many of our allies among the united nations and the British commonwealth itself. We have been spared some of the sorrows and sufferings which our allies have had to undergo. But as we celebrate the anniversary of confederation-and may I say, sir, that we celebrate it not simply as English-speaking and Frenchspeaking Canadians, but as Canadians all, whatever our extraction-I am proud as a Canadian to join with the Prime Minister in marking this important occasion.
I should like to close with this reference. In the midst of our thoughts are the members of our armed forces, our soldiers, our sailors and our airmen. They have written in the past and are writing now and will write in the days to come glorious pages in the history not only of Canada but of the British commonwealth of nations-yes, and of the world too. As we send them our greetings, whether they be overseas or in Canada, we wish them godspeed and good luck. To their loved ones left behind, and to those who have already lost some of their dear ones in this war, we extend as a parliament our condolences.
I think parliament too must pledge to the men of our armed forces, to whatever branch they may belong, unanimous support to the full limit of this country's resources in manpower, materials and finance in the perilous task in which they are engaged for the sake of all of us. We owe them a debt of gratitude which it will be very difficult for us in the years to come to pay. But we must resolve as a people to pay that debt, no matter how much it may be.
We are proud indeed as Canadians, as we look upon the past and assess the present and face the future, to feel, as the Prime Minister has said, a new power within ourselves from the position -we occupy in the great British commonwealth of nations and in the world at large.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I have always rejoiced in the coming of Dominion day; for I have always been proud of our country, Canada, and have always been glad to contemplate the great future which can be in store for Canada if we manage our country wisely. It is a cause for satisfaction to all Canadians that Canada has attained national status; that she has become a world power; that she is now recognized as the fourth among the world powers. It is cause for deep satisfaction that we have almost boundless responsibilities in the world which is to come-responsibilities for the feeding of the peoples of the world, and for the rehabilitation of the world. But while we are rejoicing in what has been achieved; while our hearts are swelling with gratitude for what
Canada and the War

has been done in our behalf, I trust that oh this fateful day we shall not allow ourselves to be lulled into complacency with respect to the things that are ahead. Not only must we win this war; we must win the peace, and the foundation of that peace must be laid right here in this parliament, this year.
I am sorry to have to say, and I trust it will not mar the spirit of this occasion, that up to the present time there has not been one single, solitary fundamental principle laid down by which the reorganization of a sound and safe world may be undertaken. The allimportant problem for the Dominion of Canada, as for the world as a whole, is to learn how to distribute goods both within this country and among the nations. Until the Prime Minister can stand in his place and tell us that this problem has been solved, that the principle upon which the solution depends has been discovered and that he will adopt that principle, most of his beautiful speeches will remain just beautiful speeches.
The men are doing their share. On many occasions I have expressed reverence for the youth of this land; they have conducted themselves magnificently. I am not going into details to show how little right we had to expect the glorious achievements that our boys have brought about, but in spite of the handicaps under which they were placed they have achieved greatly, and an everlasting tribute of gratitude is diue from all the people to the youth who have risen to such heights. My only concern, Mr. Speaker, is as to whether or not the men at home are to be worthy of the youth who have gone to fight our battles, or whether they are to betray those youths when they return, as they have already betrayed them into war.
Canada can contribute a glorious share to the future of the world. The important question is whether she will do so, or whether, when this war is over, she will plunge into fierce commercial rivalry. Is Canada preparing to-day to engage in genuine cooperation, or is she preparing for commercial rivalry? That question should be answered; and if the answer is that	she is	looking forward to
commercial rivalry, then on this Dominion day we are far from having attained the degree of perfection which we should have attained.
There is great hope for the future. When the war broke	out I	said we	must	notexpect to be destroyed. There is a splendid future in store for us if we are but wise enough to know how	to enter	into	thepromised land.	If we	cooperate	with	the
members of the British commonwealth of nations as we could and should, we can build 
a greater and stronger commonwealth and empire than has ever been dreamed of during its long history. If we do not cooperate, we shall be on the way downward with respect to the empire. If Canada and the members of the commonwealth and the United States can learn to cooperate as they should, then we can assure the world freedom from war in our own right, as an Anglo-Saxon race associated with the friends who are within our gates. The question for us to ask ourselves is whether we are to discover the principle upon which true cooperation is based.
May I, sir, join with those who have already expressed solemn gratitude to the boys and girls who have gone forth to fight this war, to defend the principles of freedom, to defend us and all that we hold dear. May I join also in the note of reverence with which the Prime Minister concluded his remarks. I feel that we should be filled with the deepest thanksgiving to-day to the God of our fathers who has thus far guided our destinies through this dreadful conflict and given us the hope which we are now able to enjoy. In these two respects I wish to join with those who have already spoken, in expressing profound gratitude and thanksgiving on this Dominion day.
Hon. LOUIS S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, may I also, as a Canadian who is proud of a title which befits all of us, of whatever racial extraction, be permitted to add just one word?
This is the anniversary of the birth of the Canadian confederation and on this occasion I deem it appropriate-and I am sure all hon. members of this house have the same feeling- to emphasize that the term "Canadian" applies to the citizens of a nation whose parliament is bilingual.
I shall not attempt to summarize again in French the events which have marked the last four anniversaries of our confederation. If I refrain from doing so, it is for the simple reason that both languages are official, and because what is said in one language does not need to be repeated in the other language; it is said to all. I wish particularly to associate myself with the noble statement made by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to the effect that our young nation intends to fulfil ever proudly her part as a member of the united nations, everywhere recognized as a full grown, important and sui juris member of the family of those great nations which are to-day united in defence of liberty and Christian civilization, which constitute the most treasured heritage of each of them.

Canada and the War


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: In the absence of the leader of this party it is appropriate that I should say a word for our group on this anniversary of confederation. We should be thankful indeed for the improvement in the war position to-day as compared with 1940. I doubt if any member of this house can ever forget the dark days of the summer of 1940. I am sure I can never forget them, because they were the most terrible days I ever experienced.
In considering the improved position to-day I think we should try always to keep in mind how we arrived at this position. We have reached our present position through the cooperation of all the people of the united nations. It was not the work of governments; it was not the work of industrialists; it was not the work of this class or that class. It was the welding together into one whole of the combined efforts of our people for a common purpose. In that, and in that alone, lies the hope of the future. If after this war is over, if after peace comes we are not able to continue this cooperation, then I am afraid all we shall have won through suffering and bloodshed will be lost.
The Prime Minister spoke about the great achievements of this dominion, and mentioned that we have now reached the status of a great power. I believe that we have; and having reached the status of a great power we have immensely increased our responsibilities. We must no longer in the councils of the nations allow other people to make our foreign policy for us. We must exercise the power which we have now obtained.
In the reading of history I have not derived comfort from the achievements of the great powers. I do not think any great power to this day has used its power for the good of humanity. Power has been used for the creation of empires. Empires have not always been used for the welfare of humanity. If we are to be great, if we are to achieve greatness in the future, if we are to have peace and harmony, then we shall have to stop thinking of empire and begin thinking in terms of a world community-not Anglo-Saxon, not of only English-speaking races, but of the whole world.


Gordon Graydon: The hon. member will not forget the empire, will he?


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of the splendid addresses of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the leader of the opposition (Mr. Gnaydon), the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Black-more) and the hon. member who spoke on behalf of the Cooperative Commonwealth
Federation (Mr. Maclnnis). They have rewritten to-day the axiom laid down by Sir John A. Macdonald a.t Kingston in 1844, with respect to the destiny of this country. I was pleased, too, to hear the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) speak on behalf of French Canada.
Four years ago we were honoured by the visit of the king and the queen. The tremendous popularity of the monarchy was clearly demonstrated in all the provinces; in Quebec the school children turned out in . such large numbers to welcome them. We are fighting this war for the right to live, but we must not forget the peace terms. The little man who saved England and who fought at Dunkirk will have something to say about those peace terms. And unless we as a dominion remain .part of the British empire we shall have very little to say at the peace table. Let us not forget that we are allied with two powerful and imperialistic nations, the United States, and our great ally Russia. They may not be imperialistic in the sense that they want to grab more territory; that remains to be seen. There are many leading men, however, in those countries who do want extra territory. I say, however, that they are imperialistic only in the sense that they want to have a large share in world affairs and in the stipulation of the terms of peace.
Great Britain cannot exist after the war without the dominions. She needs them, as they need her. She has been the good Samaritan during this war to all the nations. Unless we remain closely allied with her she will become only a second class power after the war, and we shall have little or nothing to say about the terms of peace.
In this war we are fighting as an empire on the side of humanity, liberty, freedom and civilization. We will remember that the British Prime Minister said that he had not become prime minister to preside at the liquidation of the empire, or to let the empire go by default, H that were to happen, the mother country would become a second class power, at the edge of Europe.
I rejoice that this message of hope is to be sent to our troops at the front, and it pleases me that those of us who are working in the House of Commons have taken this opportunity to pay tribute to the glorious record of the mother country down through the ages, and to the part the dominions have played.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I suggest this would be the appropriate time and occasion for hon. members to join in the singing of O Canada.
Whereupon the members of the house rose and sang 0 Canada.
Questions



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Gertrude Mantha Hore.-Mr. Fulford.
Bill No. 112, for the relief of Claire Mac-Laren Hunter Barlow.-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's).
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Mary Constance Helena Keys Bates.-Mr. Glaxton.

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

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: 1.	What amount of sugar for canning purposes has been allotted per individual in each rural and urban ration centre in Canada?
2.	What was the average amount of sugar used per housewife for canning purposes in each of the years 1939, 1940, 1941 and 1942?
3.	Upon whose advice was the amount set in rationing of sugar for canning purposes in rural and urban districts this year?
4.	What experience has such person or persons in practical canning?
5.	Were women's organizations consulted? If so, which of them?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	Sugar for canning purposes was allotted to the various local ration 'boards on the basis of 11-34 pounds per applicant.
2.	The average amount of sugar used per housewife for canning purposes in 1939, 1940 and 1941 is not available. According to statistics prepared by the ration administration,
106,179.000	pounds were used) for home canning purposes during 1942.
3.	The home canning programme was decided upon after discussions between the sugar administration, the foods administration, the consumer branch, the ration administration of the wartime prices and trade board and the Department of Agriculture.
4.	The questions to be decided related to sugar distribution and the mechanics of rationing, rather than the method of canning.
5.	The foods administration, the ration administration, the consumer branch of the wartime prices and trade board and the consumer branch of the Department of Agriculture each had a woman representative attending these discussions.


YOUNGSTOWN, ALTA., DEFENCE PROJECT
Mr. QUELCH:: J. What is the purpose of the proposed defence project immediately north of Youngstown in Alberta?
2.	How much land does it embrace?
3.	How many farmers were situated in this area?

4.	Have any farmers been moved out?
5.	Has it been decided to abandon this project?


Mr. MACMILLAN:: 1.	An explosives depot.
2.	It would have embraced 11,840 acres.
3.	No resident farmers situated at site selected.
4.	No. Farmers only held leases and grazing permits. Other owners not resident on land.
5.	Yes.


R.C.A.F.-ENLISTMENTS-NURSING SISTERS
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: 1.	What is the distribution of Royal Canadian Air Force enlistments and appointments by provinces from October 1, 1939, to May 31, 1943?
2.	How many of said enlistments and appointments are nursing sisters, and how many nursing sisters are there in each province?
3.	Do the figures include the overseas enlistments ?
4.	What is the basis of transformation of enlistments?


Mr. MACMILLAN:: 1.	Distribution of R.C.A.F. enlistments and appointments by provinces as at 31st May, 1943:-
Province	Number
Prince Edward Island ...	.... 1,407
Nova Scotia 		.... 6,216
New Brunswick 		.... 5,468
Quebec 		.... 22,554
Ontario 		.... 76,209
Manitoba 		.... 17,642
Saskatchewan 		.... 18,289
Alberta 		.... 16,691
British Columbia 		.... 18,806
Total 	'...	.... 183,282
!. 286 nursing sisters distributed by provinces	
follows:-	
Province	Number
Prince Edward Island ..		 3
Nova Scotia 				 12
New Brunswick 			 11
Quebec 				 23
Ontario				 104
Manitoba _			 42
Saskatchewan 			 29
Alberta 				 41
British Columbia 			 21
Total 			 286
3.	No.
4.	Transformation of enlistments by recruiting centres into enlistments by provinces is based on 80 per cent sample of R.C.A.F. strength as at the end of 1942. In other words, enlistments in the first five (5) months of

Questions as Orders jor Returns
1943 have been assumed to be in the same relative proportions by provinces as was revealed in an accurate count taken at the end of 1942, and which covered 80 per cent of R.C.A.F. strength at that time.


NATIONAL BREWERIES LIMITED-REPATRIATION OF SHARES
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	What is the value of the shares of National Breweries Limited formerly held by residents of Great Britain which have been repatriated to this country?
2.	What has been the total value of these shares sold to Canadian investors?
3.	What disposition has been made of the balance?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	$669,175.
2.	$669,175.
3.	Answered by Nos. 1 and 2.


RECEIVER GENERAL OF CANADA
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	Who holds the position of Receiver General of Canada, and where is his office located?
2.	What are the duties of the Receiver General of Canada, and what is his salary?
3.	Does he occupy any other government positions? If so, what remuneration does he receive for each of these positions?	.
4.	How many are on the staff of the Receiver General, and what are the classifications of these positions?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	Hon. J. L. Usley, East Block, Parliament Buildings, Ottawa.
2.	The Department of Finance and Treasury Board Act (chap. 71, revised statutes of Canada, 1927) provides that "there shall be a department of the Government of Canada, which shall be called the Department of Finance, over which the Minister of Finance and Receiver General for the time being, appointed by the Governor General by commission under the Great Seal of Canada, shall preside . . .". Salary of Minister of Finance and Receiver General is $10,000 per annum.
N.B.-For some years after confederation the office of receiver general was a separate office distinct from that of the Minister of Finance but this separate office was abolished in 1879. Section 1 of Chap. 7 of the Statutes of Canada, 42 Victoria, reads as follows:
"The following provisions of this Act shall come into and be in force on and after a day to be fixed by proclamation under an order of the governor in council.
The Department of the Receiver General shall no longer be a separate department of the civil service of Canada and the office of receiver general shall no longer be held by a separate member of the government of
Canada, but the Minister of Finance shall be also ex-officio receiver general, and shall as such, in addition to those of the Minister of Finance, have the powers and be charged with the duties which the receiver general now has or is charged with; and he shall have and be charged with such other duties generally as may be assigned to him from time to time by the governor in council; his name of office shall be "Minister of Finance and Receiver General"; and the expression "Minister of Finance" or "receiver general" in the act passed in the forty-first year of Her Majesty's reign, and intituled "An act to provide for the better auditing of the public accounts", or in any other act or document, shall hereafter be construed and have effect as meaning the "Minister of Finance and Receiver General".
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	The staff of the receiver general is the same as that of the Minister of Finance. See estimates for details of salaries and positions of the Department of Finance.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	What are the names of the members of the national film board?
2.	What is the organizational set-up of the board; how many are employed, and in what position?
3.	How many films have been released to, (a) motion picture theatres; (b) for other uses?
4.	How many films in the Canada Carries On
series have been released up to the 31st May, 1943?	.
5.	What remuneration has been received from motion picture theatres for use of films up to May 31, 1943?
6. What was the total cost of the national film board, and its work for each year of its operation?
SOLDIER SETTLERS-<3UIT CLAIMS AND REPOSSESSIONS


Mr. FAIR:: 1.	With respect to soldier settlers who signed quit claim deeds or who were served with thirty days' notice of repossession between April 1, 1941, and March 31, 1943, what was the date of the original purchase of the land in each case?
2.	What was the original purchase price?
3.	What amount was advanced for implements, stock, etc.?
4.	What amount was paid by each settler on account of his loan?
5.	What amount was written off in each case?
6.	How many acres of new land were brought under cultivation?
7.	What was the valuation of the land and improvements at the time of recision of the contract either by quit claim deed or thirty days' notice?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I should like to say a word to my hon. friend about this question. There
Halifax Hotel Property

will be about 330 accounts affected, and it will be necessary to go back for twenty years to get the information. There is not the slightest objection to bringing it down, but it will be some considerable time before the information can be got together. Perhaps on that basis it might stand as an order for return.



HALIFAX HOTEL PROPERTY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he is able to give the answer to the questions asked by me on Monday of this week with regard to the purchase of the Halifax hotel.
Hon. L. 8. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I have not all the details available. An order for a return in this connection was passed on June 21, with respect to which the information available in the Department of Justice has been transmitted to the Secretary of State, who is making inquiries from other departments, because the order covers all properties acquired by any department of government. However, I may say that the purchase of the Halifax hotel with furnishings was completed on June 23, at a price of $100,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
what you call salvage.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I must confess that I do not know what my hon. friend is referring to as salvage.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The public will be interested.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	This is a property
that was required for the use of the R.C.M.P.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Salvage;
over a hundred years old.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	If my hon. friend
wishes to answer the question in my stead, I am perfectly willing to take 'my seat.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not
want to be discourteous, of course. If I have been discourteous, I apologize. The interjection flashed through my mind and it was too good to let pass.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	This property was
purchased to house ninety men at present lodged and boarded by Wartime Housing Limited in Halifax. Other personnel located in various parts of the city will also be housed in the same property.
[Mr. Crerar.J


Percy Chapman Black: I wish to
thank the minister. If I remember correctly, inquiry was made as to the estimated cost of improvements and furnishings.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There are practically no alterations required. There is a very small amount-I would not venture to give the exact figure from memory, but it will be in the return which will be available within a day or two-to be paid out for minor repairs in addition to the purchase price, which purchase price included the property and the furnishings.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. It will be recalled that there was a strike in five mines on Cape Breton island over a most trivial matter but which resulted in a loss of production of 10,000 tons of coal. I am informed from Sydney that there is a threat hanging over this government or over the powers that be to the effect that if this strike is not settled there will be a two-day strike next week which will mean a loss of 20,000 tons in production. This situation ought to be dealt with. I want to know what the Department of Labour is doing to prevent a repetition of something that should never have been allowed to happen last week. It is serious, and it may be more serious if the situation is not dealt with. To my mind there was not the slightest reason for a cessation of work there.


Mr. MITCHELL:: There was a strike in a cafe-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I know the cause of it; what are you doing about it?


Humphrey Mitchell: As soon as we had information of the strike at this particular cafe, I believe in New Glasgow-


Richard Burpee Hanson: The strike I am talking about was in the mines.


Humphrey Mitchell: We immediately sent a conciliation officer and it was agreed among the parties that this came under provincial jurisdiction.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Passing the buck.


Humphrey Mitchell: There was no passing the buck; let that be clearly understood. In view of the observations made by my hon. friend I shall be glad to have one of our conciliation officers look into the matter.

Redistribution
NATIONAL ANTHEM "god save the king" and "o Canada"
On the orders of the day:


Thomas Langton Church: I have a question I should like to ask the Prime Minister. Just before the war broke out in 1939 when we were being visited by the monarchy I asked the Prime Minister what was the national anthem of Canada. He replied, quite properly, that "God Save the King" was our national anthem. I asked if there was any other, and he said there was another provincial anthem, as I understood it, "0 Canada." I contend that that was just the same as "The Maple Leaf Forever" or any other sectional anthem sung by any of the other races. Parliament has all along refused to change our flag and parliament refuses to change our anthem. Our only national anthem is "God Save the King," and why the other anthem was sung to-day I do not know. It is not the national anthem. Why was not "The Maple Leaf Forever" sung? Have we two national anthems? If so, who authorized them?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let us
sing "God Save the King" now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend does not know why "O Canada" was sung to-day, I can only say that I am very sorry for him. Perhaps my hon. friend if he wishes further information will put a question on the order paper with respect to matters pertaining to flags and anthems. There are already several on the order paper which I have not answered as yet.


Thomas Langton Church: There is only one national anthem-"God Save the King".



JEWISH REFUGEES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. DORISE W. NIELSEN (North Battle-ford) : I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister because of several inquiries which have come to my desk. Would he let us know when he intends to make a statement with regard to the aid Canada may give to Jewish refugees?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to be able to oblige the hon. member, but I cannot say how long the present discussions are going to take. When we have made progress with some matters which are on the order paper I shall be making a statement on external affairs. I hope it will be soon.



REDISTRIBUTION

[Stage Direction]
PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT-CONSIDERATION ON MONDAY NEXT	'
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. SASSEVILLE ROY (Gaspe):: I wish to direct a question to the government. There are persistent rumours, which have found their echo even in the newspapers, to the effect that the government is about to withdraw the resolution which has appeared on the order paper for the last few weeks, in the name of the Minister of Justice, for the purpose of amending the British North America Act as regards redistribution. As it is a matter of very great importance, the people of this country wonder if this rumour has any ground. Has the government considered the advisability of withdrawing this resolution, and if so, when does the government intend to proceed with the redistribution in conformity with the constitution and the 1941 census?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member's question as he has expressed it has gone beyond the point of a mere question. I shall not therefore attempt at present to answer specifically what he has asked, but I would say to hon. members that I have felt that the government should not lose further time in getting before the house the resolution on the order paper in respect to the amendment of the British North America Act. I had intended to confer this afternoon with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) opposite and ascertain if he would be willing to agree, and I hope other hon. members will be willing to agree, to have it understood that on Monday next we would take up that particular order. The house will realize that the action this parliament takes if the resolution is adopted will require further action on the part of the parliament at Westminster. It is inadvisable to delay that much longer. The discussion of the resolution should not take very long. I would hope with the consent of the house to make it the first order for Monday next.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, June 30, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to his majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Usley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.
War Appropriation-Labour

[Stage Direction]
Payments to the provinces in connection with organizing and operating day nurseries and like facilities, $120,000.
Humphrey Mitchell: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) when the house adjourned last night suggested that I should make a complete statement on this item, which I am now prepared to do.
While at all times there is undoubtedly division of opinion in Canada on the subject of mothers of young children working in industry, I think it is fair to say that the majority opinion tends to favour mothers remaining in the home rather than *working, where at all possible, and the mothers' allowance acts of the various provinces have been designed with this objective in view.
Whatever might be said of normal times, war conditions must of necessity of course temporarily change our views with regard to many peace-time practices. Because of manpower and woman power shortages it is necessary to accept the offer of services in industry made by mothers with children, and in some cases it is even necessary to encourage these women to accept industrial employment as an aid to our national effort. Nevertheless, the policy of the Department of Labour is to put emphasis on single women or married women without children accepting industrial employment in the first instance. Of course at all times some mothers must work by reason of domestic circumstances. This is apart from cases where any industrial demand may require their services.
Fully recognizing the problem 'which arises in regard to the care of children when mothers are engaged in industry, and realizing that their numbers will gradually increase as long as the war lasts, the government believes that special arrangements should be made for the care of the children of mothers working in war industries. The provincial governments were approached, and we received advice that at the moment there was no need of special arrangements except in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. Further correspondence has taken place from time to time with the other provinces.
On June 16 of last year a conference was called in Ottawa and attended by the ministers and the deputy ministers of public health and welfare in Ontario and the department of health and social welfare in the province of Quebec. With the full and sympathetic cooperation of the provincial governments, a proposed agreement was discussed.

Prior to this conference many meetings were held with experts in the field of child care. Among others we were indebted to Doctor George Davidson, executive secretary of the Canadian Welfare Council, and Doctor Karl Bernhardt, acting director of the Institute of Child Study, and to the International Labour Office for their comprehensive summary of systems of day care established throughout the world.
We decided upon a high standard for the day care centres, believing that over a period of time, the expenditures would be well worth while. Health and nutrition services, staff and equipment, were to meet an agreed upon standard.
An order in council passed on July 20 authorized the Minister of Labour to enter into an agreement with any of the provinces for the day care of children. Agreements have already been signed with Ontario and Quebec, the former on July 29 and the latter on August 3, 1942. All other provinces have had the agreement submitted to them. Surveys are being made from time to time by the provincial departments and the social agencies to study the situation and agreements will be signed when the need arises.
The agreement provides for:
(1)	Day nursery care for children two to six years old.
(2)	School supervision, outside of school hours, of children over six years old.
(3)	Foster home care for children when nurseries are impracticable.
(4)	A provincial committee with dominion representation and also local committees. All committees represent labour, community welfare, health and educational interests.
All of these plans are developed' on a fifty-fifty cost basis between the dominion and the province, less the amount contributed by the parents. We decided that the parents should pay a fee. In general the parents pay 35 cents a day for one child and an additional 15 or 20 cents for other children from the same family. In the school plan the mother contributes 25 cents a day for the first child and an additional 10 cents for other children from the same family. These rates set out in the agreement are not hard and fast and may vary somewhat, according to the unit and circumstances. Our aim is to keep them sufficiently low for the parents to afford them.
In order to keep in touch with the need, our local employment and selective service offices have been directed to cooperate with local committees and provincial authorities

War Appropriation-Labour
and, in addition, to keep the federal department informed. There is a constant exchange of information, and one of our federal officials confers frequently with the provincial authorities.
In Toronto, as well as in. Montreal, an officer, formerly a social welfare worker, devotes all her time to interviewing mothers who seek work and making arrangements for the children, to have day care if such is required.
A sample survey was made over a period of some weeks, and it was found that approximately eighty per cent of working mothers made their own arrangements for the care of their children, with the help of relatives, et cetera, and each mother must be approached before the real need is known.
When I was in Great Britain recently I made inquiries as to the system of day nurseries and child care which is in operation there, and the information I received was that it was slow in getting under way for the reason that most mothers prefer the child to be looked after either by the mother-in-law or by friends or by some member of the family. I take it that the same is true of Canada, more so in view of the fact that we have not had such long experience in these matters. I believe that accounts for the result of this study, in which it is indicated that eighty per cent of the mothers prefer to have their children looked after either by relations or by friends. This explains the fact that in many centres where the need would seem to be apparent a survey will show no actual need. Through the employment office, the provincial government or committees of social agencies, inquiries have been made in Kitchener, London, Windsor, Welland, Niagara Falls, Kingston, Ottawa, Collingwood. Guelph, Belleville, Vancouver, Victoria, Trail, Albemi, Fort Erie, Edmonton and several other places, where it is felt the situation may warrant day care centres. In cooperation with the provincial governments, . the situation will be met as it arises.
When twenty children are registered or likely to be registered, plans are drawn up by the local committee. These, with the estimate of expenditures, are submitted to the federal government and approved with the least possible delay. We are usually informed of the situation previously and the inspection has already been made.
Serious consideration was given to the clause in the agreement which defines the scope of the project. Child care is normally the responsibility of the province, in cooperation with its local groups. However, it was felt that the federal government should assist by sharing with the provinces the additional
burden caused by war conditions. This would of course relate chiefly to war industries. The interpretation of war industries covers a very wide range; for all A and B priority occupations are considered under the agreement to be war industries. By reason of the general tendency for more mothers to accept employment, owing largely to the need for man-power in other lines of work, the dominion felt that it was only fair to extend our help somewhat beyond industries which are strictly war industries. Therefore, it has been agreed with the provinces that twentydive per cent of the children cared for in any centre may be the children of working mothers who are not in industries clearly defined as war industries.
Two weeks ago a conference was held with the representatives of the provincial governments concerned, and after a careful examination of the records it was believed that the original decision was satisfactory.
The present situation is as follows:
Eighteen day nurseries are approved.
Fourteen day nurseries are operating-six in Toronto, one in Brantford, one in Oshawa, one in St. Catharines, and five in Montreal. Accommodation, 750 children.
Sixteen school units have been provided- twelve in Toronto, three in Hamilton, and one in Lake view Beach. Accommodation, 1,000 children.
Waiting approval since yesterday: one day nursery in Toronto; one school unit in Toronto.


Mrs. NIELSEN:: There are one or two observations I wish to make on the item now under consideration, but before I do so I would call the attention of the committee to the innovation that has been introduced by the Minister of Labour in bringing a woman from his department to assist him with his estimates in the house. I wish to congratulate the minister upon this, and I congratulate also the woman in question upon having entered, not as a woman member, but in the important position as an adviser to the minister. I only hope that other ministers will follow his example and that we shall see more women in this position in the chamber before long.
Listening to the statement which the minister made when he first spoke, and again the statement he has made to-day, I would say that on the surface what he has said regarding the care of children looks very good, but I have had a considerable amount of correspondence with those who are working both on the boards set up in Ontario and Quebec and with other people interested in this matter, which has
War Appropriation-Labour

brought to my attention many facts and proves conclusively that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction.
I myself am one of those who feel very strongly the need for the care of small children. We are lauding the place of women in our war effort, but unless we realize the penalty which many women have to pay for taking a job and at the same time being responsible for the care of their children, we are not really giving women an opportunity to take up to the maximum their share of responsibility.
When he was speaking on Wednesday, June 23, the minister paid a fine tribute to the women of Canada. He is reported to have said, at page 3941 of Hansard:
If I had unlimited time I would amaze this house by reciting the occupations in which women are now employed. I will simply mention that they are now employed in sawmill operations, in the delivery of ice, in surface operations at the International Nickel Company's mines, and we are to use them at surface work in our coal mines.
And again he said:
For the mother who must go out to work, the care of her children is a vital and often distressing problem. Her peace of mind requires assurance that the smallest children are in safe hands throughout the day and that the older ones have supervision after school hours. Only then can she give her mind fully to the job in hand.
The knowledge I have of children's day nurseries extends only to the two largest cities, Toronto and Montreal. The joint dominion-provincial scheme, although it may have appeared to the government to be the best, is I think the cause of some unnecessary delay in the setting up of these nurseries. There appears to be delay when the board in the city of Toronto has applied for certain buildings in connection with day nurseries, because the provincial government then has to apply to the dominion government and time elapses before anything is really done. It is an astounding thing that in a city the size of Toronto, where we have so many thousands of women workers, we are actually taking care of only roughly 280 children of pre-school age. The reason why the government has not made further progress is that the whole question of creches and day nurseries is regarded as a temporary measure, merely something to fulfil the needs of war time. In my opinion this is an incorrect premise upon which to build a scheme of this kind. The emancipation of women as wage-earners has come to stay. It is not just a temporary war measure. I feel I am speaking the views of every Canadian woman when I say that the women of Canada do not want, after the war is over, any sugges-
tion that the only place fit for them is the home. The old slogan which was trotted out before the women of Germany, that the only things that they were fit for were kirchen, kuchen, kindern, is not applicable to the women of a democracy, and women will not be content to work only within the limits of their homes. They realize that the fullest and widest extension of democracy is necessary that they shall be able to take their place in full equality with men in the whole social and economic structure of this country.
The day nurseries which have been started during the war were started, of course, as a war-time emergency, but the need for day nurseries was felt long before the war started and will continue and grow after the war is over. Among the low income groups, mothers have for a good many years been forced to work, and the need they have for care of their children has always been great. The first years of a child's life are the ones in which the child needs the best care and the most careful training. The years leading up to school age are those in which habits are formed. But in many homes, among the poorer working people, the mothers have been overburdened with housework as well as the work they have done outside their homes to earn a living, and it has been a terrible thing for the children that these mothers have not been able to devote the time they should have devoted to the care and training of the pre-school age children.
Among the higher income groups, too, I would say that there has also been a need, and still is and always will be, for nurseries to take care of children. In the higher income groups we find not so many children to a family, but I think it would be quite correct to say that some of the mothers in the higher income groups do not have any better knowledge or understanding of child training and child psychology than the mothers in the lower income groups. Sometimes the children in those homes where there is a better income are petted too much and given an exaggerated sense of their own importance. They are not trained in social habits. Children who have suffered from a lack of training in their very early years, when they grow up to adult life and take their place in society, often become known, for want of a better term, as "rugged individualists". There are too many of this type in our society to-day. They are the cause of many of our social ills. The present generation of "rugged individualists" will die off sooner or later, and we do not want to raise another generation of this type in Canada. I would say that the pre-school nursery is the answer.

War Appropriation-Labour
There may 'be some people who would say: why should the state provide pre-school nurseries for children in the higher income group so that mothers may be able to spend more time at bridge, perhaps? But my concern is not with the mothers so much as to help the children who need the benefit in their earlier years of training in social consciousness to make them better members of society. We are, I hope, near the end of the age of individualism and advancing to an age of new social relationships and new social responsibilities.
One of the chief obstacles to the government's getting further ahead with the day nursery scheme I believe is their policy with regard to the buildings for housing the children. It is the government's policy at present to rent, not to buy or build. I would suggest the use of the war-time housing plan for providing suitable buildings. At present in the city of Toronto there are five day nurseries, and the minister has just said that a high standard has been attained. But four of these day nurseries are maintained in churches and one in a rented house, so that I am just a little dubious as to the high standard prevailing. In my opinion, churches, which are usually somewhat dark and dull buildings, are poorly equipped for taking care of little children. A building of that type is far removed from the ideal of the light and airy place in which little children should be living. After all, many of these children arrive at seven in the morning and do not leave until five or six at night, so that they are in the nursery the whole day long. It is essential too that there should be a playground in connection with the nursery so that the children can get out in the fresh air. It is not a usual thing for churches to have any large open space around them. It seems to me that in choosing church buildings for day nurseries the government has chosen a very poor type of housing.
In Toronto I understand that the board of education has arranged in two schools for some space to be allocated for day nurseries, but the trouble is that in the most overcrowded parts of the city, where there is the greatest need for day nurseries, there are neither houses to rent nor churches with space around them, nor rooms in schools to be had. That is particularly true of ward 2, in the Moss Park area. Three months ago a request was made by the committee on day nurseries for the purchase of a war-time house for the care of children. The provincial government promised to take it up with selective service three months ago, but so far nothing has been done.
There is another thing which I think is wrong with this scheme, and that is that only children of mothers who work in war industries are eligible for the day nurseries. I know that the government says that their definition of war work is a broad one, but I quote from a letter sent to me recently from one of the board members in Toronto:
The government say that their definition of essential war work is very broad indeed and also the twenty-five per cent allowed from nonessential industries, but you will see how ridiculous it all is when I tell you that on the list of priority industries which selective service has here-
This is in Toronto:
-and which we have to be governed by, both for the school feeding of the school child and of the pre-school child in a day nursery, the Royal York and the King Edward come under the priorities list, so a mother working there can get care for her child, while another mother working at Muirhead's restaurant or other restaurants or, of course, Eaton's, etc., is turned down at once. Those are not essential industries, though of course the women working there are releasing men for the armed forces and for war work. Of course, it should be for all children of working mothers.
I should like to say something about the feeding of school children. There are ten schools in Toronto, so my information goes, where this feeding plan, is carried out. It is done by charity organizations. The Salvation Army and various churches are responsible for looking after the feeding of these children. In Toronto fifty per cent of the applications for the children of working mothers to receive a hot meal in the middle of the day have been turned down because the mothers were not working in priority industries, that is, direct war industries, although the school boards are all in agreement that the child of any mother who is working as a result of the war emergency should have the advantage of being given a hot meal in the middle of the day. I shall have something to say a little later about the prices for these meals.
In the city of Montreal there are no creches at all for children under two years of age. There are five day nurseries. In Montreal these day nurseries are run on strictly denominational lines. There are two English Protestant, one Jewish, one English Catholic and one French Catholic. I am very much opposed to the idea of anything of this kind on behalf of the children of this country being done on strictly denominational lines. Children are children; they are not Catholic or Protestant or Jewish or anything else. They have the right to equal treatment, to
War Appropriation-Labour

be mixed together, to learn to know each other and not to be segregated into these strict groupings. There is also this point to it. At the present time I understand that not all the children in the Jewish day nurseries of Montreal are Jewish. It so happened that there were not enough Jewish children in that area, and at present some other children are there, but as more Jewish children apply for admission to the day nurseries the others who are not Jewish will be refused admission and will not be allowed to go there.
The other point with regard to these day nurseries in the city of Montreal is that they are practically all in the eastern ipart of the city; and in the whole of Montreal at the present time we are taking care of only about 250 children. There are three day nurseries run by religious orders in that city, but they are not for mothers working in war industries. Last November it was estimated that there were some 12,000 women working in one large war plant in Montreal, and that they had approximately 3,000 small children. Here we have
3,000	small children belonging to mothers working in one plant, yet in the whole city of Montreal we are taking care of only 250 childrei The minister says that as the need arises the scheme will be expanded. I would say that the need has arisen, that it has been apparent for many months, but that we have been very lax and very slow in the whole project, which was instituted over a year ago.
I should like to say something about the salaries. paid to those in charge of the day nurseries. My information is that the director of a day nursery receives $108 a month, the first assistant $85, and the second assistant $75. In my opinion we need highly trained people to take charge of day nurseries. I was trained as a teacher of small children, and I have a great deal of knowledge with regard to the requirements of kindergarten training. I should say there is no phase of a child's life when knowledge of child psychology is more needed by teachers and trainers than during the first few years, when they are in these pre-school nurseries. The salaries paid at the present time to those in charge of these organizations are not sufficient to attract people of the right type. Particularly is that so because in my opinion this should not be a temporary measure but should be brought gradually within the full scope of our educational system, to be a lasting and proper thing for our children henceforth.
Referring to Montreal again, the buildings are usually churches, and I was told by the minister of a Protestant church, who is on the board in that city, that the churches of Mont-

real are not very anxious to rent their buildings for this purpose. I can quite understand that. Questions such as heating, lighting, janitor service and so on are not easy to arrange, and it is only when the need becomes pressing that the churches become willing to allow their buildings to be used by these small children.
Then there is the further question of the supervision of play for children after school, before their mothers return from work. Here again we have not been successful to any great degree. The way children in the cities are running the streets after school hours is having a most detrimental effect upon their young lives. Teachers have written to tell me about children sleeping at their desks in school because of the fact that they are running the streets at night, with no one at home to open up the house so that they might be cared for and looked after. There is great need for the establishment of supervised play centres for the children of our big cities whose mothers are working.
The Minister of Labour also mentioned the cost of the meals given these children. The charge for the noon meal of school children whose mothers are working is 25 cents for one child and 35 cents for two children. In Great Britain the cost of the noon meal is only 7 pence, of which the government is responsible for the payment of 3 pence. Our price of 35 cents for two children may not be too bad, but the charge of 25 cents for one child in my opinion is far too much to ask any mother to pay. A good, nourishing meal can be provided for much less than that if the thing is properly run and looked after.
I should like to quote another statement from this letter which I have received from a member of the board in the city of Montreal:
What is not yet clear and -what needs to be made clear immediately is how the whole cost of this programme is shared as between the dominion government, provincial government and parents of children. The general public balks when they cannot discover what it is going to cost them until a project actually is running. To ordinary working people deductions for meals or for care in a nursery for one or more children is too often just another deduction to the many already made from the pay cheque.
In my opinion the government should definitely take over part of the cost of these meals.
I should like to make it perfectly clear to the minister that I regard absenteeism as one of the worst problems we have to face in industrial production; yet I could never blame a woman for taking time off if she was nervous or worried about a small child. Being a mother myself I understand the anxiety which

H'or Appropriation-Labour
a mother feels when she believes her children are not being adequately cared for. We are in urgent need of proper provision for all the children of mothers employed in industry, and when that is provided I believe we shall eliminate one of the causes of the absenteeism which is so rife among our people.
I suggest to the minister that certain things be done immediately. First, I think a survey should be made at once by the boards in the various cities where women are employed in industry, to ascertain exactly the number of women who would be anxious to place their children in day nurseries if adequate facilities were provided; that is, if proper war-time housing were provided and the mothers knew their children would be looked after in properly equipped buildings. That is a very different thing from asking women, as I imagine they are being asked to-day, whether or not they want their children to go into some old building or some church during the time the mother is at work. Second, the government should start at once upon a programme of erecting prefabricated houses in the parks and open spaces, where supervised outdoor play can be provided for the children. Third, the children of all working mothers should be made eligible for these benefits. Fourth, we should greatly extend the training of the principals and assistants who work in these day nurseries, and should pay such salaries as will attract women of the right type and make it possible for us to carry on day nurseries with efficient staffs. Fifth, further provision should be made for organized play centres for school children after school hours, to keep them off the streets. Further, the government should accept responsibility for helping to pay the cost of feeding school children, and the children of all working mothers should be eligible for meals.
I look forward to the time when day nurseries and creches shall become a regular part of our educational system in Canada, under dominion control. I believe that is a necessary part of our social structure. I have listened to many of the post-war plans now being discussed. But I think I am something of a pragmatist; I like to know how things will work. To me a bird in hand is much better than two in the bush. Right now I am not so much concerned about post-war plans as about something which can be done immediately to remedy the situation which exists in our great cities, so as to provide really adequate accommodation by way of free school nurseries and creches, school meals and after-school play and recreation. I would urge the minister to go much further than he has gone, so that this scheme might be made possible.


Humphrey Mitchell: May I first of all thank the hon. member for the tribute she has paid to Mrs. Eaton, the director of this particular phase of the activities of my department. I am not going to argue with my hon. friend as to where a woman should be-whether she should be in the home or in industry, at the conclusion of the war. I have fixed ideas on the point, but anything I would say would be only an expression of opinion, and would not be of interest to the committee.
But if I may be excused for making a personal reference, I was one of a family of nine children. My father died when I was ten years old, and I believe I know something of what a mother is up against when she has to work and, at the same time, maintain her children. In Canada this idea has to be sold to the women of this country. Our people are a little wary about giving their children to what some might consider institutional care. I came from an industrial city, and I believe I could say that was the feeling there. About twenty years ago I played some part in the establishment of widows' pensions in Ontario. I was quite active in the movement that brought that improvement about, one which I believe was adopted by the Ferguson government, if I remember well.


Mr. MacNICOL:: And so was I.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think the hon. member will find that this idea has to be sold to the working women of Canada. I believe the great majority of mothers, particularly in Montreal, would rather have their children looked after either by friends or relations. Whether that is right or wrong is not for me or any other person to decide. It is a decision which must be made by each mother.
At least we can be given this credit, that while this is purely a provincial matter, the subject of child care was instituted by the federal government in cooperation with the provinces. This is the first time in the history of Canada that anything of this nature has been set up. There has been some criticism in connection with our using churches. I believe we obtained the best possible person for the establishment of this scheme in Toronto. I refer to Miss Millichamp, a member of the Institute of Child Welfare in Toronto. Not long ago she was invited by the British government to go to England and advise them on their problem over there. She came back with the definite opinion that in Great Britain they had to take the same steps as we have taken here. We must get the best we can, in the present circumstances.
I believe if my hon. friend went to Toronto and saw the places in question first-hand she

War Appropriation-Labour

would not be so ready to criticize. Before they were selected they were approved both by provincial and local committees. On each committee were representatives of the various organizations I mentioned this afternoon.
Something has been said about cost. It is not anticipated at the present time, on the basis of cost as at present calculated, that the mother will pay more than a third of the total cost of the undertaking. With respect to the suggestion that fifty per cent of the mothers were turned down, I would ask the hon. member to give me the details, so that I may make an investigation.
Mention was made of Montreal. In that city we have I believe one of the most eminent men in this work charged with the duty of supervising and assisting in the planning of these nurseries. I refer to Doctor Lalonde, who is not only a medical doctor but is also a specialist in this type of welfare work. I do not believe that in these initial stages we can be accused of not at least trying to lay a good foundation for this form of governmental activity.
In respect of education along, this line, may [DOT]I point out that I have visited other countries where this type of service has been in operation. I well remember being in Russia a few years ago. What I have to say is not said in any spirit of criticism. From some of the pictures I had seen before going there I thought only a few of the children of the working classes would be found outside of institutional care in the day time. There can be no doubt of the vast range of occupations in which Russian women engage. Their work is somewhat different and covers a greater range than that in which women on the north American continent engage. We may call the state of women on this continent one of emancipation, if we wish, but I am afraid that the vocations in which some Russian women are engaged would startle some of our Canadian women, and also those in the United States. It was clear over there that they were moving, perhaps in a small way at first, toward care of the children of women engaged in industry. I thought children in Russia would be dressed somewhat in the same fashion as those in North America are dressed in the summer months. I noticed however that many of the peasant women-and I do not say this disrespectfully-had their children clothed just the same as they had been clothed many years before.
I think the hon. member has not been altogether fair in her criticism in the steps we are taking to establish at least some degree of responsibility on the part of the state in connection with women employed

in industry, or women who find it necessary to get others to care for their children during hours of employment.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended taking part in this discussion, but as chairman of a local board of health, and as one who brought Doctor Hastings into a modern health department in Toronto, I must say that this policy of handing money to the provinces is a bad one. That seems to be a very popular procedure in connection with many matters which have been brought before the house in war-time. There seems to be a general tendency to give everything to the provinces. You, Mr. Chairman, come from a district in which a famous physician in child welfare has practised. I refer to the late Doctor Dafoe, whose younger brother was only recently promoted to the head of the obstetrics and diseases of women branch of the university of Toronto. I should hope the Minister of Pensions and National Health, who is in his seat, might see that some national recognition is given to the late Doctor Dafoe for what he has done for the people of Canada and the medical world, and particularly the mothers and children.
This problem is rural, suburban and urban. Why should we adopt something like this and turn the money over to the provinces to administer? We are being asked to vote only
S120,000	as payments to the provinces in connection with organizing and operating day nurseries and like facilities. But that is only $120,000 out of $21,000,000, and the result will be that some places will get help and others will not-rural, suburban and urban. This money should be turned over to the municipalities instead of to the provinces.
I should like to refer to what has been done in Toronto and Hamilton. The minister will be more conversant with the latter district, but in both these centres the school boards and boards of health have done a considerable amount of work along these lines. At considerable cost to the city the boards of education and of health have established nurseries and have staffed them with the proper nurses and doctors. This has proved a blessing to the community.
If this were to be started over again, I would not go to the universities for assistance. I would investigate what has been done in the matter of day nurseries in Toronto since 1907. This work was started then and it has spread across the country. I brought this matter to the attention of the house in 1940 when I quoted the British Hansard. Reference was made there to the midland counties where they were transporting people from one

War Appropriation-Labour
industry to another, a distance of about thirty miles, about the same as that from Toronto to Hamilton. This is where the industrial revolution occurred nearly a hundred years ago. The money was given to the districts concerned in order that they might be able to organize and operate these nurseries near war plants.
The city of Toronto has provided buses because there has been such an overcrowding of the street cars that they cannot transport the civilian population. In addition, some of the cars ordered by the transportation commission have been sent to other cities. Toronto needs some help from the federal government, and instead of voting only 8120,000 we should be voting much more. This work has not been looked after as it should be. I do not wish to delay the minister any further with his estimates because I have taken up very little time except to fill in when some of the hon. members were out at the country club the other night.
What is going to be done after the war when these large industries are closed up? I asked the Minister of Munitions and Supply about that the other day. We are going to have a serious situation when the war is ended. These workers will have the same trouble as the workers had after the last war. Many of them have not got settled up with the government even though twenty years have passed. If we are going to adopt this policy we will have to enlarge the scope of the activities. There is bound to be duplication in this work. I had a return brought down in the house the other day which showed that the Department of National War Services had made grants to seven organizations during the last year of the war totalling $6,000,000.
In some cities the school boards are doing this work, and in others the boards of health attend to these matters. This work should be decentralized and handed over to the municipalities. Some industrial plants are carrying on this work now. I have seen a few of them, and I repeat that this grant should be much larger. While you have been doing good work as far as I see it, I think it would be far better if you worked through the boards of health or school boards of the municipalities.
I have been talking to some health officers about this. In 1940 and 1941 some of them wrote to me and I sent them copies of the debates in the British House of Commons on this nurseries question. Near the new general hospital on University avenue a number of trailers are used to house some soldier families. There are hundreds of mothers who are out working and in some cases their
children are roaming the streets. We all know what that means in delinquency. This is going to be a serious problem before this war is over, and it certainly will be serious after the war. It is one of the most important problems with which this parliament has to-deal.
I do hope the Minister of Pensions and National Health will hearken to what I said about the Dafoe family. You should consult doctors like that and the different health departments and the different nurseries; a conference should be held to coordinate, save duplication and waste, and discover what should be done about day nurseries. That would be better than just handing over the money to the provinces. I have seen something of the administration of some of these things by the provinces. Some places get help and some do not get any; instead of their being equality of treatment, there is no equality of treatment. There is bound to be duplication of the work. This is confirmed by some of the health department officials I have spoken to. I hope the minister will remedy this, if not immediately at least during the recess.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: Mr. Chairman, I was surprised to leam, from a return which was brought down on May 20, of the comparatively few children who are in day nurseries across the country. Despite what the minister has said, this matter of day nurseries is not a new one. As the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) has said, there have been day nurseries in Toronto for many years. The minister attempted to explain the small number of children in the day nurseries by saying that the mothers of Canada have not been educated to placing their children in such institutions. I want to say to the minister that if he and his department in this fourth year of war have not been able to sell the idea of sending children to day nurseries except to the mothers of one thousand children, then they are not very good salesmen. I suggest to the minister that instead of trying to defend his department, as he did this afternoon, he give serious consideration to the suggestions offered by the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen). From what I know of suburban Toronto I am convinced that if an adequate system of day nurseries was set up you could find more than one thousand children of war workers in the riding of York South alone who would be placed in such nurseries. If the minister's survey shows that only a few mothers are willing to entrust their children to these schools, then I submit he should find out what is wrong with the system. From my knowledge of those who
War Appropriation-Labour

have been in charge of day nursery work in Toronto for many years I suggest that the fault could not possibly lie with the personnel or the staff employed. It is true that England requested the services of a group of workers or teachers who have been engaged in this work in Canada, in order to assist in the instruction in England of personnel for this work. We are not a particularly backward country as far as the personnel of day nursery schools go. I understand a comprehensive report was made to the minister or to his predecessor more than two years ago with regard to the establishment of day nursery schools. I am quite satisfied that if the direction of the personnel in charge of day nursery schools in Toronto were accepted in full there would be many more than 1,000 children in these schools across Canada.
I am interested in this item because it provides $120,000 for "day nurseries and like facilities". I should like to know what the "like facilities" are and what portion of that $120,000 is set aside for these "like facilities". I assume that at least one of these facilities [DOT]will be provision of recreation for war workers. A conference was held in Ottawa nearly three months ago and a very successful conference held in Toronto a few days later. Would the minister give us a statement as to just what progress has been made in the matter of this recreation for war workers? I feel that it is vitally important in view of the enormous amount of juvenile delinquency in this country. Only a few days ago I went into a city in western Ontario and found the newspaper editor there, the mayor of the city, much perturbed about the amount of child delinquency. A conference of those interested in the problem was being held on the evening of my visit. I should like the minister to inform us, while he is making that statement, what money will be available for this recreational work, particularly in Toronto, the city with which I am most associated; and second, what provision is being made to secure trained personnel for this work. I understand that in England and other parts of Great Britain this is deemed: so important in its contribution to the building of the morale of the civilian population that trained men have been recalled from the armed forces to take charge of this work. If they can do that in England, I think our government should be prepared to see that trained men and women are made available in Canada for this work, even though postponements have to be granted for that special purpose. I should like the minister to take those two points into consideration in reporting on recreation for war workers.


Humphrey Mitchell: In reply to the questions put forward by the hon. member, let me say first that I am not one of those who think the state should do everything. I wish that to be clearly understood, whatever may be the opinion of other hon. members. I believe that it is all to the good to have recreation organized on a voluntary basis, in some cases probably with some direction from the state. In many industries and some municipalities that is being done. In my own city of Hamilton we pride ourselves-I say this with some diffidence-on having probably the best playgrounds organization in Canada.


Mr. MARTIN:: You should see Windsor.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend says, "You should see Windsor". There passes through my mind the work which is being done in my hon. friend's own city, and in Vancouver, Winnipeg, and elsewhere. Some communities have expanded tremendously since the outbreak of war. I do not think it is the duty of the federal government to undertake the direction of all recreational activities in Canada; that would be going a pretty long way. But in my judgment some communities are in urgent need of some direction, and I have them in mind at the present time, though I shall not enumerate them at the present time because I might get into trouble.
My hon. friend spoke of the conference. That conference was held, I think, a few weeks ago.	.


John Horne Blackmore: April 9.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have a vivid recollection of the conference, although I did not attend it. There was a thorough discussion of the entire question, and conversations are now going on between Ontario and Quebec with respect to the matter and looking forward to the possible signing of an agreement between these two provinces. An initial sum amounting to $40,000 has been voted by order in council. I say that that is an initial sum. I do not know what the total cost will be before we are through with it.
I wish to be perfectly frank with my hon. friend, so, I must tell him that if he thinks we are going to employ an army of directors across this country in connection with this plan he is likely to be disappointed. We shall endeavour in the terms of this agreement to give some direction to recreation. I know many trade unions are deeply interested in the subject of recreation. My own trade union used to have its own recreational activities. But the hon. member can rest assured that when the agreements are consummated they

War Appropriation-Labour
will be tabled. If they are not, and my hon. friend will give me a reminder, I will send him a copy if the house should not be in session.


John Horne Blackmore: May I tell the minister that I do not find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) with respect to turning the money over to the provinces. I think that for the minister to turn the money over to the provinces to be administered by them is the right course. If the provinces cannot assume the responsibility for the dominion government with respect to the care of the children of the dominion, it is time they took a course of training; they will take that if they have the responsibility thrust upon them.
What I should like to know is, why this is a $120,000 estimate. What determines the amount which the minister is going to spend? Do the provinces apply for a certain amount? Do the municipalities apply? Do the mothers apply? Just how does the machinery work?


Humphrey Mitchell: You get the recommendation, of course, from the committees. I pointed out to my hon. friend about the local committees, and then the provincial committees, the provincial governments, and the national selective service. Then it is funnelled into my office. That may appear on the surface to be rather a slow procedure. It is not so slow as it appears to be. But I am sure my hon. friend will appreciate that first of all we have to be sure that the accommodation is the best obtainable and the conditions surrounding the nurseries are of a kind and character that would be approved by the public in general. I would rather go slowly myself and see that we did a good job thoroughly than be rushed into it hurriedly and probably receive far more criticism, and properly so, for doing it without having given due consideration to those interested organizations that I have mentioned.
With regard to the amount, $120,000, that is merely an estimate; that is all. In war time, if the need shows itself, that amount can easily be increased and matched by the provinces.


John Horne Blackmore: What constitutes the local committee? How is it organized, and who determines the personnel? Is it chosen by the people or selected by the minister?


Humphrey Mitchell: We get nominations or
suggestions of names from organizations interested-labour organizations or it may be farm organizations; I do not know. It depends on the nature of the locality. The provincial government picks out the provincial committee. That is the way you choose people. I have endeavoured to get the best people I possibly could, people who understand and more particularly people who have some interest in whatever phase of policy it is on which I desire advice.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: First, may I
pay a tribute to the nursery services in the eastern part of Toronto and to those public-spirited citizens who have assisted so much in the direction of the actual work and made it possible for the nursery services to have the premises in which the work can be carried on. This is not a new venture at all. To my own knowledge, for thirty years we have been giving this service to the people of Toronto. I speak for that part of the city with which I am best acquainted, and I can say that public-spirited citizens have headed the board of trustees and have seen to it that premises in which children are housed have been of a kind suitable for the purpose. I join with the hon. member for York South in paying a tribute to the personnel. My criticism is with reference to the women's voluntary services. Since the outbreak of the war they have been anxious to do something to assist in the work connected with these day nurseries; but, as the minister knows, the government in its wisdom saw fit more or less to disband this voluntary unit and to substitute a paid unit, thus dampening the enthusiasm and the ardour of these volunteers. More than that, the government has even suggested what work they might do.
I know the minister is of my own opinion, that the state should not do everything. I recognize the responsibility so far as the dominion and the provinces are concerned, and I think the provinces should be charged with the responsibility for this class of work. But for the extra day nursing facilities necessitated by the war, the responsibility is definitely on the shoulders of the dominion government. There has been no expansion to take care of that extra work occasioned by the extra number of mothers who find it necessary to participate in war industry. No direction of any consequence has been given, largely for the reason that the directors and trustees of the day nurseries were men who knew nothing of how to direct or guide war workers' children. They did not regard that as their particular job. They felt that their only job was to see to it that the assets were being used properly, that the premises were well taken care of and that the facilities were there. The personnel in the day nurseries did not feel that it was their responsibility to
War Appropriation-Labour

give advice or to instruct women workers. They just carried on in the day nursery such work as came to their door.
There is a gap in the direction of women working in war industry. There is not proper information with regard to facilities that are available, and there is also a lack of coordination among the trustees and municipalities and the war working women. Something constructive might even at this late date emerge from this discussion, and I suggest that the minister might confer with his colleague, the Minister of National War Services, and with the women's voluntary organization under his direction to see if they cannot coordinate their efforts so that the maximum use may be made of the facilities and the personnel available.
I am amazed at the statistics. There is room for far more of this work to be done, even with the present facilities, without more capital expenditure, if there could be some coordination among the many bodies affected- the municipality, the province, the dominion, the women war workers. The women war workers themselves lack information, and the personnel are perhaps too timid even to approach those charged with authority with regard to the conduct of these institutions. There does not seem to be coordination in that particular set of circumstances. In the last few years, even since the war, the trustees of these institutions and those who took an interest in them were men who were able to provide facilities, but they seem to have faded out and to have lost interest. It has not been emphasized that they are doing a real community service in looking after this capital asset.
I make these few observations in order to help the minister generally, because I am convinced that expansion is essential at this particular time and this is a move in the right direction. But what we have done so far really amounts to a failure. I am anxious that the department should give some direction to the set-up, so that women war workers will know that their children will be well taken care of. For this purpose I think some leadership should be put into the hands of those who are carrying on the day nurseries, so that they in turn can make their institutions something which is so necessary during this time of war.


Mr. ADAMSON:: As one of those members of the house who have seen the nursery schools in England in operation, I would say that this is a step, a short and halting step, but nevertheless a step iin the right direction. I congratulate the hon. member for North Battleford, iwho has obviously made quite a study of this [DOT]problem. I agree with what she has said.
IMr. J. H. Harris.]
Under the English system new nursery schools were built not only where there was an absolute necessity for it, but in areas where there was no necessity. First of all, it was done for the bombed-out victims for whom new schools had to be found, and it was done for children of all ages. I see no reason why we could not have done the same thing instead of putting up with basements of churches and other improvised accommodation. Under the English system, just as under our proposed system, there is cooperation with the local authorities, which I think is essential.
It is essential that these services should not be considered on the basis of a free handi-out by the state. That is not so in England, except where the parents of the children have been either killed or crippled by enemy action.
The immediate effect of these nurseries in England has been a tremendous improvement in the whole standards of the children, and not only of the children but of the adult population as well. It seems extraordinary that even with the terrific bombing and the terrible devastation that was caused in 1941 and part of 1942, the health of the English people has actually improved over pre-war days. The number of cases of illness and sickness has gone down, and the nursery schools and the public nurseries have been one of the contributing factors to that improvement.
It is quite true that the nurseries in England charge sevenpence, threepence of which is paid by the state. We ask for thirty-five cents. While I do not quarrel with the sum of thirty-five cents, I think we could get a good deal more service for that sum, especially when one considers that the cost of feeding a soldier in Canada with the excellent food he now gets is thirty-eight cents a day.
It was impressed upon me in talking to a number of social workers in England that these nursery schools and supervised schools have had a great effect in improving family morale. One of the great problems with which we are faced in Canada is the demoralization of the family. It may sound paradoxical for me to advocate nursery schools and institutional care for practically all the children in the state. But I believe that it is one of the surest ways to restore the high morale of the Canadian family, which, according to most authorities, has suffered a serious decline in the past few years. It is infinitely better to have all children properly looked after and properly supervised during the working hours of the day than to allow them to play on the streets. They have discovered in England that taking the children off the streets has

War Appropriation-Labour
strengthened tremendously the family tie. That is a surprising and important discovery.
I see every reason in- favour of even the mothers of small children working in time of war. The civilization of any country is in direct ratio with the emancipation of its women, and* I just mention as an example of this what has happened in Turkey since Mustapha Kemal Ataturk took power. In every way he was an absolute dictator, just as much a dictator as the dictators of Germany and Italy. But he had a different idea from them about the emancipation of women. He insisted that women should take part in government and in the life of the state. He did not believe that woman's part was kirchen, kuchen, kindem, as Hitler did, and to-day we find as a consequence that Turkey is an advancing, go-ahead country that is capable of living at peace with its neighbours.
Before I conclude I would ask the minister one or two questions. There have been built up in Canada what are known as Well Baby clinics. I think they have been one of the greatest assets in the life of the community where they have been established. My first question is this: Is there any cooperation or coordination between these nurseries and Well Baby clinics? My second question is: What are the minimum and maximum age limits for children attending these nurseries? My third question is this: Has any provision been made, or is it likely to be made for the government assisting to get these children out of the city into the green spaces in the hot summer months?
Just one word in conclusion. This whole question of nurseries emphasizes strongly the absolute necessity for adequate town planning in the future of Canada.


Humphrey Mitchell: The answer to the last question is, no; to the second question, two to six years of age are the limits. The answer to the first question is, yes; there is cooperation. I used to be a member of the board of health in Hamilton, where we must have had about twenty baby clinics. I think they have them also in Toronto under the health department of the city. There are also clinics in the schools to which the mothers take their children.


Agar Rodney Adamson: There is a very effective Well Baby clinic in the southern part of my riding.


Humphrey Mitchell: I was a member of the board of health in Hamilton for a number of years, and when these clinics were established we had to educate the mothers to bring their children to them. It took some time. I have
been through these things; I went through the campaign in Hamilton in connection with inoculation for diphtheria, and I know something about the resistance that was shown to that innovation by a good many people in our community. It was a question of education. I can remember the time when there were many deaths from diphtheria in Hamilton, but I lived to see the day when during a whole year there was not a single death from diphtheria in that community.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I agree with the minister that a very great deal of missionary work has to be done.


John Horne Blackmore: As I see it, there are two main aspects to the problem which confronts us. First, there is the woman who needs some assistance in connection with her children, who knows she needs that assistance and wants to provide it, but finds herself unable to do so either because she cannot afford it or because she does not know how to go about getting it. To whom should a given woman in a given community apply if she needs assistance in taking care of two children, let us say, in order that she may undertake some war work? The second main aspect is that of women who have children in need of care, but who either do not realize that their children need care or who are too indifferent to bestir themselves to see that the care is provided. By what means are the needs of such children brought to the attention of the proper authorities; through the police, or welfare workers, or what other mechanism?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am afraid I cannot answer the latter part of my hon. friend's question. I can say something about my own community, but I am not sufficiently well versed in the situation that exists in the province of Alberta or the city of Lethbridge to say what might be done there. In Hamilton there is, first, the police department, which would come in contact with extreme cases. Then there are various other agencies such as the big brother movement and other organizations which take care of delinquent girls. This scheme does not provide, at the moment, for investigations of that kind. My hon. friend's first question was how these mothers might find out about these day nurseries. Well, they do that through selective service, when they go to the employment offices. The natural thing for a mother to say would be, "I have a baby at home that will have to be looked after," or something like that, and the people in that office will give the necessary information.
War Appropriation-Labour


John Horne Blackmore: What would be the cost to the mother for children of various ages? I gather that children are admitted to these nurseries between the ages of two and six. What would be the cost to a mother engaged in war work if she had two children, aged two and four, whom she wished to put in a nursery?	.	.


Humphrey Mitchell: It would be 35 cents for the first child and 15 or 20 cents for the second child.


John Horne Blackmore: That is for the whole day?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, for the whole day, with all meals. For school children it is 25 cents for the first child and 10 cents for the second. That is where they get their meals, and milk after school, and supervision.


John Horne Blackmore: For how many hours would they be kept in the nursery for those amounts?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is a rather difficult question to answer, for it would vary in each individual case. It would depend upon local conditions, how long the mother took to go back and forth to work and so on. They would be there for ten or twelve hours I should think.


Mr. McIVOR:: I believe this vote is necessary now, but I do not think we should consider continuing these nurseries indefinitely. The care of children in this way is not new; I can remember thirty-five years ago when these clinics were established in Toronto. I would warn the Minister of Labour, however, that no one can take care of a child like that child's mother, and I hope the day may come when mothers may be provided with sufficient of this world's goods that they may be able to remain at home and take care of their children. Those who understand something of the causes of divorce realize that children are an extremely fine tie in the home, and when we delegate the care of children to a nurse, no matter how fine and Christian a woman she may be, she cannot take the place of the mother. When children have to be cared for outside the home, whatever the reason, to me it is a sign of the breakdown of the home. After all, the home is the bulwark of the nation, and I hope the Minister of Labour will keep this in mind so that, when the war is over, mothers may not be required to work in order to earn a living. It is a case of necessity, of course, in connection with war work, and I know some mothers are quite willing to go out and work so that 
they may not have to live in straitened circumstances. I just give this warning, and I am sure the Minister of Pensions and National Health also will keep this in mind.


Angus MacInnis: I should like to say a word in reply to the remarks of the hon. member for Fort William. First, I think this amount is rather small in view of the need that must exist, and I believe it should be increased. I have been associated with public affairs in one way or another for a good many years. For some twenty to twenty-five years in the city of Vancouver we have had day nurseries, though we called them creches, to look after the children of women who had to go out and work. The provision made was very inadequate, but they did fulfil a great need; and I am quite satisfied that when this war is over, unless we improve conditions much quicker than I expect them to be improved, we shall have to continue these day nurseries. Whether or not the home is the best place for the child and the mother is the best person to look after the child depends altogether upon the home and the mother. I have seen mothers who were not fit to look after their children; and until all mothers are educated to look properly after their children and then are provided with sufficient means to do so, other ways will have to be found in order that the children may be saved and that the community may be spared the expense that inevitably it will be put to unless we provide for the proper bringing up of the children while there is yet time.


Mr. REID:: I should like to say a word in support of the remarks of the hon. member for Fort William. I listened to the speech of the hon. member for North Battleford, and I rather thought she was advancing an idea which was new to this country but which has been tried in other countries, namely, the idea of collectivism in the bringing up of our children. I hope the minister was not too much impressed with that idea because, after all, as the hon. member for Fort William has pointed out, the home is the bulwark of the nation. There may be homes in which children would be better cared for, but by and large our people have always depended upon the home. I want to point this out to the committee. The department may look after young children, as pointed out by the hon. member for North Battleford. This more than takes care of the very young children. But I am told that in many cities the juvenile delinquency, pertaining to children of mothers who have gone out to work, is alarming. I should hope that aspect has not been lost sight of in any scheme of this kind. I am one who hopes that this vote may not be necessary after the war, and

War Appropriation-Labour
that we shall make conditions such that the women of the land will be able to stay in their homes. Generally speaking-and I say this without fear of successful contradiction-the home is the bulwark of the nation.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Canada must recognize that we have here an emergency. The government is taking the responsibility of calling men to fight in the war. The fathers have been taken from their homes. Figures presented by the minister's department show that 1,152,000 women are employed in industry, and therefore we have a responsibility to take care of about 500,000 children. There must be at least that many who must now be cared for without their mothers' supervision. It is quite evident, therefore, that $120,000 is quite inadequate to cover the whole of the emergency. I hope it is the department's intention to use at least some of this sum for adult education and the training of personnel, as well as for organizational work. Would the minister give the committee an outline of the programme he has ahead of him, and whether he considers there is sufficient money in this vote to cover the programme?


Humphrey Mitchell: I have made a lengthy statement to the committee. The programme will grow with the need.


George Hugh Castleden: There must be a
tremendous need.


Humphrey Mitchell: I admit that. At the moment there has not been any great demand for this type of care, but it will develop according to the need. If the need increases we shall have to have more money; that is all there is to it. It is a war estimate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Assistance to the provinces in recruiting, transporting and placing labourers upon farms, $250,000.
Gordon Graydon: How many workers from farms in Saskatchewan, or in other parts of western Canada, have now been brought east in connection with the arrangement the minister announced some weeks ago?


Humphrey Mitchell: The figure to-day is 367.


Gordon Graydon: What was the estimated
amount?


Humphrey Mitchell: It was 500. We are
shooting at a thousand.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I wonder if this covers a case brought to my attention? In this instance high school children are being picked up at certain points in Toronto and taken out to market gardens, either in trucks owned by the
market gardeners, or in their cars. This is done at their own expense. Is there anything in the item making provision for this condition? This is definitely a case of bringing workers to farms.


Humphrey Mitchell: If it is done by a farmer as a farmer, it is shared fifty-fifty between the province'and the dominion.


Thomas Reid: Are all the provinces participating? Have they all schemes?


Humphrey Mitchell: Every province has a scheme.


Gordon Graydon: Does the minister expect more from western Canada?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Mr. TUSTIN:: I have had several communications lately with respect to men who wish to go to the country to help on farms, but who have found some difficulty in securing transportation. Would the minister lend some assistance to those men, either by securing a greater gasoline allowance, or in some other way? I realize this does not come under the minister's department, but any assistance given would be helpful in getting the harvesting done this year.


John Horne Blackmore: Does the amount going to any province depend upon the request of the province? For instance, how is the amount determined for a province like Manitoba?


Humphrey Mitchell: It is determined after discussion between provincial and federal officials. There is a sort of joint cooperative agreement. I had my officials go through the various provinces last January or February, and the basis of the agreement was negotiated at that time. The agreements of the provinces differ very little. For instance, Alberta considered that some instruction should be given to people who were going out to the farms. We made provision for that. However, I can report that there has been harmony in our relations with the provinces, and I appreciate the cooperation shown by the provinces in facing up to this problem.


John Horne Blackmore: May I commend the minister very highly for his attitude in this connection. If all the ministers in the cabinet will take exactly the same attitude toward the provinces, and if the Prime Minister will do the same thing, we shall have an end of trouble arising out of the British North America Act.


George Hugh Castleden: I wish to draw attention to a case which I believe comes under this item. I refer to a man in my own province

War Appropriation-Labour

who was engaged in lumbering. He states that between October 1, 1942, and April 12, 1943, he and his brother out and shipped 300 cords of peeled pulp from their lands, and that they have twenty cords of pulp still on hand. He says that in 1942 they had cut and sawed
100.000	board feet of lumber, that they own their own sawmill, tractor and logging outfit, and that they are prepared to log and saw
200.000	board feet of lumber and to cut and ship 200 cords of pulp in the coming season.
The man in question presented his case to the selective service, pointing out that he was occupied in an essential industry. The board at Regina advised him that his application for postponement could not be granted. This is a copy of the letter received from the supervisor of farm labour requirements, Veteran block, Regina:
I have been advised by the mobilization board that your application for postponement from military service has been granted on condition that you accept employment on another farm, where your services are essential to agriculture.
In view of the fact there is no labour shortage in your immediate district, to comply with the order of the board it will be necessary for you to report to the employment office at Yorkton, where you will be supplied with a list of farm vacancies in that area.
I would be glad to have advice from you as soon as possible as to the name of the farmer with whom you have accepted employment, so that I may pass the information on the mobilization board.
This is a man engaged in lumbering. I would point out to the minister in charge of selective service that in Saskatchewan there is a shortage of lumber for the making of bins. Already in western Canada nearly a billion bushels of grain is being stored. The wheat board will not be able to take more than about 280,000,000 bushels of wheat, and there is a great shortage of lumber. This man will be compelled to leave his lumbering business, travel about 130 miles and take a job on a farm. It seems to me the officials in charge ought to realize that lumbering is an essential industry, that there is a great shortage of it in Saskatchewan, and that if we are to take care of any kind of a crop in the west this year, that lumber will be needed. The moving of a man in this fashion is, to say the least, short-sighted.
Since men are being moved to act as labourers on farms, has any definition been given or any standard set from which one may estimate a man's necessity on a farm? How does the department describe a key man in the farming industry? Is there any acreage basis, or any basis of production requirements upon which the department estimates whether or not a man is a key man? That would vary

with the different districts and with the different types of production throughout the dominion. In my own province it requires at least one able-bodied man to carry on the production from one hundred acres, particularly if there is anything in the way of milking cows or raising hogs. Have any standards of production been set in order to measure whether a man is essential in agriculture?


Humphrey Mitchell: I think my hon. friend will agree that it would be difficult to establish a yardstick. One farm may be different from the one next door. The real yardstick that we are using is common sense and reason. There are agricultural experts who are advising the different boards, and we also have reports from the various municipal committees scattered' around the province of my hon. friend. I wish my hon. friend would give me the particulars of the case he mentions, because it would seem to be establishing a precedent.


George Hugh Castleden: They have established a point production system in the United States, and if a man comes up to a certain standard the recommendation is made accordingly. Much of the inequalities which have arisen in selective service with regard to agriculture is caused by the fact that on one farm there will be three or four men left with an able-bodied father, while on another farm the last son is taken when the father may not be in the best of health to carry on the work.


Humphrey Mitchell: My United States friends come in to see me. Sometimes I think I have a lot of grief on my doorstep, but from what they tell me they seem to have a great deal more.


George Hugh Castleden: Standards help.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Is there not some basis established as a direction for all the mobilization boards? I am told that in one province not far from here a man and a son will be left on a twenty-five acre farm, whereas in my province or in the other prairie provinces there might be only one man for a section of land. Is there any basis set up which would provide some equality in the decisions by the mobilization boards across Canada?


Humphrey Mitchell: I will answer my hon. friend's question, but I think it should be understood that we discussed this matter for two days. The last speaker and the one before him are really out of order. Giving my own personal opinion, I do not think it is possible to do it on that basis. I would rather rely on the common sense of my Manitoba or Saskatchewan friends. I do not know whether

War Appropriation-Labour
I have said this before in the House of Commons, but there are some people who believe that if they make a thing so complicated that they cannot understand it themselves, other people should be able to make it work.


Gordon Graydon: Is that the job you are working on?


Humphrey Mitchell: With all due respects to some of the people who have resigned from selective service, I would rather have good common sense such as we are using at the moment.


James Arthur Ross: I think the boards in Manitoba are doing their job reasonably well, but there are inequalities in the way in which this thing is handled in other parts of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Wartime bureau of technical personnel, $220,500.
Gordon Graydon: Could the minister explain the work of this bureau?


Humphrey Mitchell: I think I pointed it
out quite clearly in the exposition I gave when these estimates were first introduced. The war-time Bureau of technical personnel is to all intents and purposes a selective service for the professions. It was established prior to selective service itself. At that time I was the secretary of the labour coordination committee or the man-power committee of the government, and it was decided to try a modified form of selective service on the professional classes after representations had been made by various engineering societies. I think this is as efficient an organization along selective service lines that we have in the Department of Labour. It has rendered distinguished service to industry and the army.


Gordon Graydon: The minister thinks it is a little better than the others?


Humphrey Mitchell: It has been in operation longer.


Agar Rodney Adamson: To what extent has this
bureau been used? I happen to be a member of two professional societies, and some time ago considerable criticism was offered about the limited use which had been made of this bureau.


Humphrey Mitchell: I believe the total registration is 30,000, and the number of placements last year-I speak from memory-was between 1,500 and 2,000.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Fifteen hundred out of
30,000?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Mr. STIRLING:: That is last year.
72537-269J


Agar Rodney Adamson: Has the minister any
idea of the total placements?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am talking about
last year only.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Gordon Graydon: Does this finish the
Department of Labour, including sundry services?


The CHAIRMAN:: I believe it was
understood that the three items would be taken together.
Sundry services, $86,022.


Joseph Henry Harris: This item of
sundry services would seem to offer me an opportunity to make a few general observations with regard to a rather critical condition which exists at the present time in the larger cities. We all admit that there is a shortage of man-power for special work which is sometimes needed to be done by the transportation systems and those engaged in providing storage facilities. For example, a cargo of sugar may land in Toronto and there is no help to unload the ship, which is held up. National selective service may not have a priority rating for sugar. These priorities are confidential and no one seems to know just what they are. The local organizations do the best they can, but quite often they do not have very much success.
I can cite another case. Eighteen cars of wool were landed in Toronto on June 4, and some of them are still on the track under demurrage. Wool is a war necessity, and some direction should be given to national selective service so that they can deal with emergencies of this kind and avoid the tie-up of railroad facilities and boxcars. Thirty cars of coca beans were sent to a manufacturer whose resultant product is sent to the troops, but they found themselves unable to move this commodity.	.
The fault lies in not having taken hold of this problem at the outset. As I said some two years ago in this chamber, there should be some way of knowing where a man of a certain vocation is in this country, so that he can be located to do the work for which he is best fitted. For instance, here is a firm in Toronto manufacturing glycerine. They lose a man and there is no way of knowing where he is. By accident he is found to be working in a factory making pop. Is it more essential that we should be manufacturing glycerine or manufacturing pop? The man who manufactures the glycerine had no means of knowing where the man was.
War Appropriation-Labour

Another case I could refer to was that where forty men who had been previously employed in what might be termed an essential industry were found to be working at the ball park peddling peanuts during the summer months. Some hon. members smile at that, but the fact is that during the winter months these men were working in an essential war industry, and peddling peanuts should not have priority over a war industry.
Some machinery is needed to keep track of where these men go. We should be able to trace them and bring them back into essential industry. It would1 help considerably if their former employer knew where they could be found or that they could be traced. But at present they cannot be traced. At the present time when a worker in essential war industry leaves his employment he does not have to say where he is going. The employer does not know exactly where these men are going. He generally finds out that they are going to some work somewhere where they will get a few cents more an hour. The next step is that the employer appeals to the regional war labour board1 for permission to increase the rate of pay. Very often this entails a long delay. I have in mind a case where it took from January until May before the employer got an answer. In the meanwhile twrenty men out of the hundred had found themselves other employment, and when the regional war labour board made the allowance which was decided upon these men could not be found, because there is no system whereby the national selective service crganization can trace these men through. I do not say that you should compulsorily take them and haul them back into the industry they have left, but you might talk to them and point out that war industry needs them rather than some industry which is a nonessential industry, and if you are in a position to pay the wages they want they would probably come back to their previous job. I make these few observations in the hope that they will be to some extent constructive.


Gordon Graydon: One thing before this item passes. I propounded a number of questions to the Minister of Labour, but I am quite prepared to allow the item to pass upon the understanding that after eight o'clock the minister will answer me in full.


Humphrey Mitchell: I believe there is only one question the hon. member wanted; it was a list of the people who had resigned?


Gordon Graydon: I wanted a list of people who resigned; also a question came up in

connection with enforcement of the regulations of national selective service. I wanted to know what prosecutions had taken place and the steps which had been taken to undertake them. I believe that in my original address on this particular debate I raised a question as to the extent of the records kept by the local offices of national selective service.


Humphrey Mitchell: I should like to get away this evening. I have had a pretty tough time. May I do as was done by the Minister of National Defence for Air? I will get all the questions and give the answers to-morrow, if that is acceptable to my hon. friend.


Gordon Graydon: I have no objection to that. I do not want to have these questions stand over indefinitely, but if the minister desires to give this information to-morrow I shall have no objection. If, however, when he makes his answers, any supplementary information may be called for, I do not want to be debarred from making some observations.


Mr. HAZEN:: Has the minister a bureau of public relations or a publicity department in his department?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know what the hon. member means by a "publicity department". There has always been an information bureau in the Department of Labour.


Douglas King Hazen: Will the minister let us know when it was established; what it has cost to date; how many people it employs; how many receive salaries of over $5,000, over $4,000, over $3,000, and over $2,000?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is all covered by the general estimates.


Mr. GREEN:: The hon. member is entitled to get that information.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, we will give it to him.


Douglas King Hazen: May that information be placed on record?


Humphrey Mitchell: Absolutely. But why not put a question on the order paper?


Douglas King Hazen: Well, if we do that we will get an order for return.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will promise my hon. friend that I will answer him immediately, if he would rather have it that way.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Wartime prices and trade board-administration, $14,300,000.
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about this item.


Grote Stirling: Is the minister going to give a schedule of the items which he will deal with, as the other ministers have done?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I can do that readily. I have nothing printed for distribution, but in Hansard of March 3, at page 922, there appears a break-down of the finance items. They are very short. I have been out of the house so much that I was not aware of the practice, of which I am now advised, that ministers have been having items mimeographed and circulated.


Grote Stirling: Since the minister proposes to follow that schedule, that will do to work on.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is what I propose to do.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Could we have it by to-morrow afternoon?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. There are only four items in the wartime prices and trade board estimates: administration, $14,300,000; commodity prices stabilization corporation, subsidies due to application of order placing a ceiling over all prices, $120,000,000; Wartime Salvage, Limited, administration and losses, $1,000,000; and Canadian wool board, administration, $500,000. Virtually there are only four parts to any discussion that will take place: first, the administration of the board itself; second, the commodity prices stabilization corporation; third, Wartime Salvage, Limited; and fourth, the Canadian wool board, administration. Those are the only items. In addition to those items, there are other finance items:	comptroller of the
treasury, $7,950,000, and sundries, $102,000. What I think the committee would like to have would be a comparable statement for the fiscal year 1942-43. I believe other ministers have put similar statements on Hansard and, if it would be more convenient for me to have prepared a mimeographed statement showing these items and circulating them among the members to-morrow afternoon, I will do that.
The items are so few, however, and the division so simple that I do not think anyone would be hampered much to-night in discussing the matter.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We shall have to do the best we can to-night, but may I suggest that with respect to the second and third items, the wartime prices and trade board, $14,300,000, and the commodity prices stabilization corporation, $120,000,000, we ought to have a substantial amount of detail as to the proposed expenditures, with a comparable statement for last year. With respect to the commodity prices stabilization item, we ought to have the amounts for the various commodities; and may I venture to ask for the amounts paid to various organizations. , I suppose that latter point raises a question of some difficulty for the minister. I understood the minister refused to give that information some time ago. Perhaps my memory is defective, but I believe he refused to name the firms in relation to these subsidies. Is that correct?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. The position I took in that speech in the spring of 1942-April

was that I did not think I could give currently the subsidies that were being paid to particular firms or individuals or companies, but that later these would be given in the form of a report, and as a matter of fact they have been given for the fiscal year which ended March 31, 1942, in the report which has been tabled in the house. The question came up again more recently, earlier in this session, and by that time the number of recipients of subsidies had become so great that it would be nearly impossible physically to give the names of all of those. It certainly could not be done without months and months of work and at very great expense, so that I left open the question as to what should be done about giving the names of recipients of subsidies for the fiscal year that has just closed. I want to make a general statement on the wartime prices and trade board first, and if the hon. member does not mind he can return to this question.


Richard Burpee Hanson: 
John Horne Blackmore: What is inflation?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Please pardon me; I am not going to get into an academic discussion of inflation to-night. I know what it means to myself.


John Horne Blackmore: Let us hear it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I refuse to be tempted. I certainly am not going to get into an altercation with the hon. member for Lethbridge on inflation, because I have an idea that he would win. I do not know anything about the theories of economics; I just think I have a little common sense. I am not saying that he has not, but I know that if it comes to a battle on textbook theories and information I do not stand the ghost of a show.
I am trying to get across to the minister in a very inadequate way what has developed from the government's policy in respect of one commodity only, and I am limiting my remarks to that at the moment. I have discussed this matter privately with the Minister of Munitions and Supply, who made the commitment for all Canada. I know the trade itself is struggling with the situation. I do not know what solution, if any, has been reached, because I have not been apprised. But I know there is very grave danger of the situation which I have tried to envisage for the minister becoming more and more acute, with the result that
Canadian labour will be thrown out of employment, because mills will have to lay off men for a time at least. That is a veiy real danger.
I am not raising this question for any political purpose at all. I want the minister to understand the viewpoint of those who are attempting to give some consideration to the producers of this country. This whole policy of price stabilization is in the interests of the consumer and in the interests of the government's policy against inflation, but I suggest to the minister and his advisers that no consideration, or very little, has been given to the producers of this country under this policy. That is the position. I wanted to limit my remarks to this pulp-wood situation, and I hope the minister will be able to say something that will alleviate the anxiety of those who have to face and deal with this situation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Before I come to any particular matters I should like to make a general
statement.
The chief items in the war appropriation estimates for the Department of Finance relate to the wartime prices and trade board and its associated crown companies, the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation Limited, Wartime Salvage Limited and the Canadian Wool Board Limited. Hon. members have already been furnished with a copy of the report of the board and its associated companies for the period ending March 31, 1943, and I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat what is in that report by giving at this time a further detailed review of the activities of these organizations. I may say that one of the chief reasons for having the report prepared was to facilitate discussion in the committee by providing members with a much more complete account of the administration of price control and related matters than could possibly be given in a verbal statement. The few remarks I intend to make will, therefore, have to do with the general results achieved rather than with particular aspects of administration.
Nineteen months ago, in December, 1941, the overall price ceiling was established. As the Prime Minister said in his announcement of policy, the overall price ceiling represented an experiment "hitherto untried by the will and consent of any free people anywhere." Many said it could not succeed; and I am free to admit that even in the government there was no one who could be entirely confident that a general price ceiling was the right answer. But we did recognize the terrible consequences that inflation would have
4254	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
for the Canadian economy both during and after the war and we were determined to prevent it, if at all possible.
As the months pass and the war affects more and more intimately the economic life of the nation, it becomes increasingly apparent that the right decision was made at the right time. If there had been compromise, if there had been delay, if the problem had been attacked in piecemeal fashion rather than by a bold stroke, we in Canada would to-day be faced with an extremely confused and) well-nigh uncontrollable situation. In saying this, I am not drawing any parallels with events outside Canada. The best evidence as to what would have happened is to be found here in Canada. We have only to observe the eagerness with which scarce goods are purchased when they appear on the store shelves; we have only to follow the action of prices of the few commodities which for various reasons it was necessary to take out from under the ceiling; we have only to watch the scramble for housing accommodation in congested areas; we have only to experience the difficulties of securing transportation by rail or bus, to realize how quickly prices and rents would have soared if at the time when shortages began to be felt we had not taken steps to control virtually all prices at levels then prevailing.
Our action in introducing a ceiling when we did has been a tremendous advantage in the fight against inflation. Reinforced by a rigorous programme of taxation and borrowing, we have had a large measure of success. I would not want to create the impression, however, that the government is over-confident a3 to the future. A crucial and difficult testing time lies ahead. Nevertheless, the experience gained and the very fact that the price level has been held until now will stand us in good stead whatever difficulties may be encountered.
The primary purpose of the controls established in December, 1941, was to stabilize the cost of living. It is the outstanding achievement of the wartime prices and trade board, as the agency responsible for the administration of the price ceiling, that this purpose has been accomplished. It cannot be claimed that there has been no increase whatever since the base period in the prices of every one of the thousands of individual items purchased by Canadians in their day to day living. This is an ideal towards which the board is constantly striving, but for various technical reasons it has not been possible to maintain a rigid ceiling everywhere. A full account of the exemptions and adjustments that have had to be made will be found in
TMr. Usley.]
the report of the board. Nevertheless, after nineteen months the price ceiling holds in the main, and partly as the result of reductions in the price of certain common foodstuffs as an offset to increases in other items, the average cost of living of the average Canadian has been stabilized. This fact is reflected in the movement of the official cost-of-living index prepared by the dominion bureau of statistics, which from November 1, 1941, to May 1, 1943, rose by only 1-5 per cent.
When it is considered that in the United States the cost of living during approximately the same period rose by 12 per cent according to their official index, and that during the corresponding period of the last war the Canadian cost-of-living index rose by 22-5 per cent, I think the accomplishments of price control in Canada speak for themselves. While I would not want to suggest that conditions in these other countries are fully comparable with Canadian conditions, it may interest the house to know that in Australia the cost of living from December, 1941, to March, 1943, rose !by about ten per cent; in South Africa from December, 1941, to February, 1943, by more than ten per cent; and in Mexico from December, 1941, to April, 1943. by nearly thirty per cent. I would have liked to give figures for some other countries where the rise in cost of living has been even greater, but owing to war conditions, up-to-date and accurate statistics are not always available.
As a measure of the effectiveness of the price ceiling, I thought the committee might be interested in the results of certain calculations which have been prepared indicating how much it might have cost the Canadian consumer if prices had not been under control. In the first twenty-seven months of this war, prior to the establishment of the ceiling in December, 1941, the official cost-of-living index rose fifteen per cent as compared with an increase of sixteen per cent during the corresponding period a generation earlier. This similarity of price movements in the two wars stopped abruptly, however, after the establishment of the ceiling. During the eighteen months following November, 1916, the cost of living rose 22-5 per cent, in striking contrast to an advance of only 1-5 per cent in the first eighteen months under the ceiling. Prices in the last war continued to rise rapidly, with only minor interruptions, to July, 1920. when the cost of living was 198 per cent of what it had been in July, 1914.
Now it has been calculated that for each increase of one point in the cost-of-living index, the consuming public pays out something like an additional $34 million per year.

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
On this basis, therefore, had prices been allowed to rise in 1942 as in 1917, the public might have paid out an additional $350 million during 1942.
Should prices remain stabilized through 1943, instead of continuing upward as they did through 1918, an additional saving of $850 million might accrue to consumers this year.
There are, of course, enormous indirect benefits from the ceiling, including savings to the government. These are difficult to measure, but I am satisfied that without effective price control, government expenditures would be much higher than they are now and it would be practically impossible to finance them on a sound basis.
It is true that the earnings and incomes of some persons increase during a period of inflation-enabling them to obtain a larger proportion of the limited supply of goods and services available for consumption. But it is equally true that the incomes of other persons do not rise proportionately to the increase in prices, and as living costs rise they are forced to do without more and more. I think it is fair to say, therefore, that the vast sums saved by the consuming public and by the government by reason of the price ceiling are a significant measure of the dislocation which has been avoided.
Control of prices is only one side of the work of the wartime prices and trade board. Equally important is the responsibility of the board for supply and distribution of civilian goods. Quite naturally, public attention is focused on the more obvious aspects of the board's work in these fields such as consumer rationing. A great deal of constructive work goes on, however, of which the public is hardly aware, and I would direct the attention of hon. members in particular to those sections of the report of the board that deal with the programmes of rationalization and simplification and with distribution, allocation and rationing. It is not just by chance that the housewife is able to continue shopping as usual in her neighbourhood store or that the corner grocery shop is able to get a fair share of supplies in competition with the powerful chain or departmental stores. These are the results of careful methods of distribution and allocation, arranged by the board in cooperation with the trade.
Before leaving this subject, may I say a few words regarding the general civilian supply situation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the minister leaves this matter dealing with the retail stores, do I understand him to say that
the retail store, the small retailer, vis-a-vis the big departmental stores, is getting a fair share of consumer goods for sale?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, I do not believe it. I will tell the minister frankly that is not the evidence I get. That is a statement made by the wartime prices and trade board, and I should like to have it supported with evidence.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member has made a fairly broad statement, too. Perhaps he should support it with evidence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have made it my business to find out.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Before leaving this subject may I say a few words regarding the general supply situation?
So preoccupied have we become by the problems of distributing scarce goods that there is a tendency, I am afraid, to overlook the fact that levels of consumption in Canada have so far been well maintained on the average, and that the consumption of many common items is actually considerably larger than in pre-war years. The record of retail sales reveals that the volume of civilian consumption, generally speaking, rose steadily from the outbreak of war until the latter part of 1942. Towards the end of 1942 the rate of buying tended to fall off, indicating that the expansion is over and contraction has begun, but I think it may fairly be said that consumption levels in general still compare favourably with the period before the outbreak of war or the early months of war.
The fact that consumption standards have been fairly well maintained to date is remarkable considering the enormous contributions Canada has made to the cause of the united nations in the form of men, munitions, raw materials and foods. True, some of this consumption has been possible because inventories have been depleted to some extent and will not be replaced until after the war, but credit for maintaining our average living standards can be given in large part to the magnificent way in which the people of this country, on the farms and in the factories, the forests and the mines have organized their productive efforts.
There has, of course, been an important enlargement and a desirable redistribution of consumer purchasing power, those whose previous standards of living were relatively low gaining at the expense of those whose previous standards of living were relatively high. This accounts for many of the difficulties that consumers are experiencing in obtaining supplies.
4256	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
In many cases quantities available to civilian consumers have been well maintained or even increased, but the added demands are so great that there appears to be a very short supply. A good instance of this is jams, jellies and marmalades. Before the war the production of these items was in the neighbourhood of 45 million pounds. By 1942 the output had risen to over 70 million pounds. Of this total some 15 million pounds were used by the armed forces and other priority users, but there still remained a considerably larger quantity for civilians. Yet hon. members, or at least their wives, know that jams, jellies and marmalades are very difficult to obtain in retail stores. Another example is evaporated milk. In 1939 Canada retained 95 million pounds. In 1942 the quantity of evaporated milk retained for use in Canada was 144 million pounds, of which 127 million pounds was set aside for civilian consumption, yet the board has had numerous complaints that the supply is quite inadequate.
To maintain the price ceiling policy has involved certain costs, but I think it can be said that these have been much less than anticipated and certainly well justified by the results achieved. Perhaps the committee will recall the fears expressed at the outset that business could not continue to operate under such a policy. It is true, of course, that many sacrifices and inconveniences have been imposed on business; a programme that cuts across ordinary methods of price determination was certain to have this effect. But in the result these gloomy forecasts have not been borne out. The number of commercial bankruptcies in 1942 according to Dun's "Statistical Review" was 609, while in 1941, the year prior to the imposition of the price ceiling, the number was 882. Some businesses, for example, many dependent on the automobile industries, have had to discontinue operations, but most of these difficulties are not due to price control. They are the inescapable result of changing the country's economy over to the fulfilment of the war programme.
The committee may also recall the predictions that to maintain an effective price ceiling it would be necessaiy to employ an army of officials at a cost to the country out of all proportion to the value received. The staff of the wartime prices and trade board has, of course, expanded substantially since the price ceiling was introduced, from 154 on November 30, 1941, to 5,251 on March 31, 1943, and the cost of administration from SI,436,988 for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1942, to $9,277,480 for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1943. These figures, nevertheless,

are by no means great in relation to the task in hand, which involves the regulation of virtually the entire civilian sector of the Canadian economy.
The major item of costs is, of course, subsidies and trading losses paid by the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation, which actually amounted to $68 million from the inception of the ceiling to March 31, 1943, and which are in the estimates as $120 million for the present fiscal year. The reasons for subsidies and the basis on which they are paid by the Commodities Prices Stabilization Corporation have been fully explained to the house on several previous occasions, and a complete account of the payments made will be found in the report of the board. With these records available, I do not think it is necessary for me to make any extended remarks at this time, except to say that payment of subsidies and the bulk purchase operations of the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation have played an integral and vital part in ensuring a supply of essential goods and services and of protecting the standards of living of those receiving low or moderate incomes. British experience as well as our own has convinced me that price control can only be effectively maintained by the judicious and timely use of subsidies.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Shall the item carry?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No. I
would ask the minister to give a break-down of the expenses of administration, and salaries paid.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The item is $14,300,000, and the breakdown is as follows:
Salaries	 $ 9,200,000
Travelling expenses	 920,000
Printing and stationery	 1,400,000
Telephones	 260,000
Telegrams	 100,000
Legal and audit	 100,000
Advertising	 800,000
Sundries	 640,000
Postage	 250,000
Freight and express	 30,000
Local ration boards	 600,000


Gordon Graydon: What would be the expenses of the local ration boards? I understand that a great bulk of the work done by these local boards is on a voluntary basis.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct. Generally
speaking, the work is done voluntarily, but there are 550 ration districts with 550 local ration boards. There are permanent secretaries.

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board


Gordon Graydon: Are those paid on any
regular basis?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The secretaries are usually
paid by the municipalities which we reimburse. Then there are postage and other expenses.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Secretarial help, stenographers?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: Does that mean that a
municipality can pay what it likes and the government will reimburse it?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Some municipalities pay the whole thing themselves, and others have come to the board for assistance which is given when required.


Victor Quelch: When does the minister want the general discussion to take place, on this item or when the others are called?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The general discussion on the activities of the wartime prices and trade board would take place under this item which covers administration.


Victor Quelch: I mean on the whole policy.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Could we have a break-down of the salaries item, which is quite large? I think we ought to know how many men are receiving $12,000; how many men or women are receiving $10,000, and how many men and women there are in the various categories. I should like to know what these ladies are doing who are travelling round the country putting on musical shows and revues. There was one in my city this week headed by a Mrs. Aiken, I think it is. I should like to know what she gets and what good she does. What is the object of putting on this free entertainment? I just mention her as an illustration; I do not know anything about her. Who recommends this class of propaganda, because that is all it is? What is the value of it?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am informed that Mrs. Aiken is engaged in-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not want to know about her particularly; I just quoted her as an illustration.


James Lorimer Ilsley: She is engaged in what is called conservation work, a campaign to get people to save.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that in this vote?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; her salary would be paid out of the salaries vote. It is an educational campaign to encourage the making over of old clothes and that sort of thing instead of spending money for new ones.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What salary is she
receiving?	.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I would have to get that; I have not that before me. I do not know just exactly what the hon. gentleman means by a break-down. There are over 5,200 employees.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand that a return is to be brought down. We ought to have had this return before this item was up.


Mr. ABBOTT:: There was one brought down before.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It was held up by the minister once. I understand that the information was all ready to be brought down and that the minister held it up. Then it was passed as an order for return yesterday without any objection. If that return is full and complete, I am told that it will show great inequalities in salaries, as well as a large number of very high salaries.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It will show some very high salaries and will show inequalities in salaries; that is the information I have.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Just to get this salary matter cleared up, there was a return brought down about a month ago which gave all salaries of over $5,000. This return will show the salaries between $3,000 and $5,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many are there of $5,000 and over?


Douglas Charles Abbott: If my hon. friend would look at the return; I cannot remember from memory.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You should have it in front of you.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not think you have even seen it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The officials in front of the minister must have that information.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That return has been in for a month or five weeks; it has been available to the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is one of the objections to these questions being passed as orders for returns. They are usually buried and most people never see them. The answers should be given in Hansard where we
4258	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance

Prices Board
can all see them and read them. It is not open to 245 members of this house to send down to the proper office to get the return.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If my memory serves me correctly, the complete return was published in both the morning and evening editions of the press.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not good enough; that is not official.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You do not read the press.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We do read the press, but that is not official.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is not an answer anyway.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think we ought to have it on Hansard. That is why I am interested in those making $5,000 and over. How many are there from $3,000 to $5,000?


Gordon Graydon: This return referred to by the hon. member for York-Sunbury calls for a list of salaries from $3,000 to $5,000 paid by the wartime prices and trade board. Some debate occurred yesterday or the day before in connection with this matter. Has the minister the information called for by the question which was passed as an order for return?


Douglas Charles Abbott: If my hon. friend does not mind, perhaps I can answer this, because I am familiar with the facts. I was not here on Monday when the question came up. When it first appeared on the order paper I took the matter up with the wartime prices and trade board. The question covered more than the names of the persons receiving $3,000 and up, it asked for allowances and travelling expenses. The first difficulty was in connection with travelling expenses. The board does not keep the travelling expenses separate for each individual employee. For instance, if an in-vesigator goes to Renfrew and spends $3.25, he puts in a voucher and it is charged to the regular travelling expense account. It will mean a tremendous amount of work to segregate these travelling expenses and allocate them to each individual employee. Speaking from memory, I believe there are several hundred employees.


Gordon Graydon: Surely this does not mean that the board has no record of the individual travelling expenses of its employees?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, yes; that is the practice in every large organization. You do not open a special account for each employee to show what his travelling expenses are. You have the general account in which you charge travelling expenses, and you indicate to whom the travelling expenses are paid. That is the

practice which is followed in the wartime prices and trade board, and the information is there showing the amount of expenses paid each individual employee. But it will mean going through the general account and segregating the amounts paid to each individual. As I say, in the group $3,000 to $5,000 there are several hundred employees.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That travel around?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am just speaking from memory. Perhaps I had better get the accurate figure. It is at least 200.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That travel around here and there?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know that. There are several hundred employees in the category
S3,000	to $5,000. Some may have to travel and some not. That varies according to their duty. That is the second point.
The third point in connection with that particular question was that the information with respect to $5,000 and up had been given in the return I mentioned a short time ago. Accordingly I went to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), who had asked the question, and pointed out to him the amount of work which would be involved in giving the individual travelling expenses of all these employees. I also pointed out that the information had already been given in the return with respect to those with salaries of $5,000 and up, and I indicated that among the two or three hundred in between $3,000 and $5,000 there were a number of inequalities; that is to say, one man might be getting $100 or $200 more than another man doing perhaps the same sort of work. The reason for that was that the staff was got together in a relatively short time; a good many of these employees were lent to the board by private firms; and in these instances they would be paid their salaries by the private employers, and1 the private employers reimbursed by the board. I pointed out to the hon. member for Lake Centre that the board1 felt that the publication of this complete list with names would create a difficult internal situation amongst these employees-


John Ritchie MacNicol: So it would.


Douglas Charles Abbott: -and that the board would be faced with a number of demands, not for decreases but for increases. I put that up to him. I said, "If you insist on this information being filed and the full list given, of course you will get it, but I am pointing out to you the reasons. Let me know what you think." I think I suggested to him that I would give

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
him, and I did give him, a list of the employees receiving from $3,000 to $5,000. I sent that to him. He said he would think the matter over. He did nothing about it for a week or ten days. I asked him again what he wished to do, and he said, "Well, I don't know; I didn't realize that perhaps the publication of the whole list might create these difficulties to which you refer. What do you suggest?" "Well," I said, "I don't know that I have anything to suggest. Perhaps you might reframe your question and ask for any particular group of salaries, or, if you are interested in any particular individual salaries you have the list before you." That was the position in which the matter stood when the question came up last Monday, and the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) asked why it had been standing so long.
Those are the facts. I asked yesterday that it be made an order for return, because, in the first place, the list of names will be lengthy, and in the second place, it will take some little time now to get out these travelling expenses to which I refer.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury); So far as the travelling expenses are concerned, in view of the statement made by the parliamentary assistant to the minister, knowing as I do the practice in big commercial houses, I would be perfectly willing to waive that part of the information, namely, the individual travelling expenses of individuals. I should like to know, though, if these people travel by aeroplane or if they are instructed to keep their travelling expenses down to the minimum. Great care ought to be exercised in that respect. I understood that some of them did travel by plane.
I should like to point out a case of what I consider to be useless travelling. A friend of mine operates a general store about half way between Saint John and Moncton. One day an inspector arrived by taxi from Moncton, forty-five miles away, to investigate an alleged overcharge of one cent above the price ceiling of a can of a commodity. Some person had made a complaint. The books were opened up and shown to the inspector, and it was made evident that after freight and gll other expenses were paid on this commodity the retailer had a net profit of one cent, which was one cent above the ceiling. This showed that the ceiling had not been raised to cover the increased cost. The inspector went away and nothing was ever again heard of the matter. But that inspection about a one-cent overcharge-I think there were half a dozen tins involved-must have
cost this country in salary and travelling expenses $50. I will give the minister the name of the merchant.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The amount involved would not be the consideration.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; but it shows how money is wasted. I admit regard must be had to a principle. The minister will say that a principle would be involved there. There is a principle, but to vindicate a principle often costs a man his life. A man had the right of way-you know that rhyme-but he was dead, just the same, through vindicating his position and taking the right of way. The same principle applies here. A little common sense must be exercised. There was not an office between Saint John and Moncton. The complaint came in. Instead of writing the merchant, who was a reputable merchant, and asking for the facts, they sent an inspector by taxi. Why he came by taxi I do not know, but that is the fact. That is the sort of thing that people question. An incident like that is told all over the country and brings the practice of the office into disrepute.
I am quite willing to waive the demand for individual travelling expenses, on account of the difficulty mentioned1 by the minister. I think we ought to have the names of those with salaries of $3,000 and over.
Then I have the curiosity to know how many lawyers are in the employ of the wartime prices and trade board and how much they are getting out of it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They will not get much, surely!
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury); They do. The board has an army of young lawyers, a good many of whom ought to be in uniform. How are they selected? Are they selected by the civil service commission, or is the civil service commission a rubber stamp as far as the employment of these young lawyers is concerned? There is an avenue there for investigation on the part of hon. members. I do not want to be the chief critic of this set-up, but I know a very large amount of money is spent, and I am not sure that we are getting a dollar's value for every dollar that is spent; in fact, I feel quite satisfied that we are not. I wonder if we are getting a dollar's value for every five dollars that are spent? I should like to have an expression of opinion by hon. members who know about the operations of this board.
I will give the committee another example of the ineptitude of this board. In New
1260	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
Brunswick the strawberry crop will soon be on. Our strawberries are the latest in any part of eastern Canada to come on the market. In the south half of the county of York, the county of Sunbury and the county of Queens, the big strawberry producing country, the surplus goes to the Montreal market, and they feed it in gradually so as not to disturb the price and so as to keep it, of course, as high as possible to the producer. In the upper part of the county of York and1 the county of Victoria and Carleton the practice has been for buyers from the adjacent state of Maine, where they do not raise many strawberries but specialize in one crop, namely potatoes, to bring quart baskets over and then take them across the line. Strawberries always command a good price in that market. It is a ready local market immediately adjacent to that part of New Brunswick. An order was put out by the board, I understand, that none of these strawberries were to be exported without a permit. I understand there are about 250,000 quarts of a surplus besides what is used for local consumption and home canning, and when inquiries were made as to what was to be done with these strawberries, the officials of the board replied that the strawberries were to be sent to Montreal for processing, in a market that was already supplied, so far as fresh strawberries are concerned, from the areas I have indicated. To do this would have broken that market.
I have taken the precaution, as others have done, to make representations, and I am hopeful that the decision will not be adhered to because, instead of getting twelve cents f.o.b. Montreal for these berries, the growers will get twenty cents in Woodstock, New Brunswick, for fresh berries, and they will not have to supply crates, as they would have to do if they shipped the berries to Montreal. The crates are never returned to them. Buyers across the line supply the crates, and all the growers have to do is to cultivate and pick the berries and put them into small boxes and then into the crates and away they go, and the growers get their money at an advance of eight cents over anything they could otherwise hope to get. That is an illustration of the ineptitude of this board. There is no question of keeping the ceiling down, because the first berries that came into the market at Saint John sold at fifty cents a quart. I hope the position will be retrieved before it is too late, but that is the situation as it was this morning.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Just a word im reference to what the parliamentary assistant to the minister has said about salaries. I find myself
[Mr. R. B. Hanson.1
in agreement with a portion of his remarks in reference to giving out information about the salaries of men or women lent by companies to the government. It would be most "infra dig" to give any salaries paid to anyone lent by a company to the government, without the consent of the company. I remember how important this was regarded in the case of the list of salaries paid to employees in big companies, which were known only to one or two or three of the personnel, and I recall very well that it was almost impossible to find out what any of the officials of a company received by asking, because the heads of the company would not reveal that information, and rightly so. Before the government gives out the salaries of any of the men lent by companies, the companies should be asked for consent. These men are paid by the companies themselves who are latterly reimbursed by the government, and the consent of the companies ought to be obtained before the salaries are revealed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This matter of salaries in
the wartime prices and trade board has given me a good deal of difficulty. The salaries are reasonable; I am satisfied of that. The salaries of those getting less than $5,000 have been practically all fixed by the civil service commission. The salaries of those getting more than $5,000 have been fixed by the governor in council and sometimes, though not always, on the recommendation of the civil service commission. But they are not very high salaries. The highest salaries paid are, I believe, considerably less than $10,000. It is well known that the board, in many instances, is paying men exactly what the companies paid them. They borrowed the men, as the hon. gentleman says, from some company and remunerate the company for the amount. They pay what the company paid the men, and for that reason the board has been most reluctant to make public these salaries.
Something has been said about salaries being out of line with one another. I do not know whether they are. It is always a matter of argument whether salaries are out of line with one another. But it must be remembered that this organization was got together under circumstances of terrific pressure and was built up from 150 to 5,000 in a year or two. It is harder and harder to get men. In most cases the men have been paid what the companies paid them, while in other cases they have not been so paid, having severed their connection and being taken on, on a different basis. It causes a tremendous

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
amount of trouble-I say this frankly-to have the scale of salaries published, but I do not think we can avoid publication if it is pressed for by hon. members. We did make a return of salaries over $5,000, and now we are being pressed to go down the range below $5,000 and publish those. It is a matter of great curiosity to people who are working for a private company, but people could not get that information at all if they wanted it from a private company. But the moment the information is given out, this terrific pressure starts from men who say, "I do not think I am fairly treated, because So-and-so is getting $400 or $300 more than I am," and presently the board is in hot water. It may be said that this is public money and that the public is entitled to the information, no matter how much trouble it causes or how much it costs the taxpayers. All I can say is that the committee is entitled to the information but that it would do more harm than good.	[DOT]


Gordon Graydon: This discussion is going on while the hon. member who asked the question is absent on very important public business, and so far as I am personally concerned I feel like reserving any remarks I may have to make until he returns to-morrow. In the meantime, perhaps the discussion need not take the turn it has at this particular time. Personally I am not sufficiently familiar with the hon. member's views on the subject, because he has given a great deal of study and consideration to it, and he is one member on our side who has an excellent judgment in matters of this kind. I should like to have the matter left over in the meantime.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Could the item stand?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not expect that we
shall get through the item to-night.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have now received the original of the return, 127Q, brought down on Friday, May 14. I think the public ought to understand that no member of the board gets any salary at all. This huge sum of money is outside the board altogether, and only two of the members of the board, so far as I can observe, have drawn anything for travelling expenses. The reason for that is that the members of the board themselves are, every one of them, in the public service already, and are being paid by other departments. That is correct, is it not? For instance, the chairman is an official of the Bank of Canada, and Mr. Sim is commissioner of customs. Mr. MacGregor
occupies a position in some other department, finance, I believe. The travelling expenses of the board itself are very meagre, in most cases none. This report goes on to indicate that there are forty-three officials with salaries of $5,000 or over; eighty-three with salaries of $4,001 up to $5,000; 174 with salaries of $3,001 up to $4,000; 683 with salaries of $2,001 up to $3,000; 3,723 receiving $2,000 and under. The total for salaries, honoraria and living allowances is $6,714,000, and travelling expenses in excess of ten per cent of the total for salaries and so forth. Of course, travelling expenses is a big item. Whether we should press for the names in the face of the minister's statement is something I should like to consider, but if the minister takes extreme exception to giving them for the reasons he has alleged I do not want to ask for the names just out of curiosity, because that is all it is, just to know what is being done. If it is not in the public interest to give them, this is one time I will be in agreement with t'he minister in the use of that phrase. I am not going to press it myself, but since the hon. member for Lake Centre has studied this whole situation, perhaps this might stand over until to-morrow.
I would ask the minister to tell us about the number of legal gentlemen he has on his payroll, how they are selected, and how they are paid. Are they paid a per diem allowance? Are they on the payroll six days a week or thirty-one days a month? What salaries do they get? There is certainly a raft of young lawyers being paid by this board and going round the country. I am informed, too, that in addition to all these young lawyers permanently upon the payroll, counsel are employed in various communities; I know a leading counsel in my city is employed to prosecute cases from time to time. Some explanation is due.


James Lorimer Ilsley: All the solicitors with the
exception of two have been appointed by the civil service commission. Their rates of salary have been set by the commission.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On whose recommendation?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know about that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What do these young lawyers get-$3,000 a year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There was a return brought down a year ago setting out all their salaries. I think it would be something like that. The amount varies.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So much for a king's counsel, and so on?


Gordon Graydon: They might get less.
4262	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board


James Lorimer Ilsley: .1 think the money spent on enforcement is well spent. If a substantial sum had not been spent on, enforcement, I do not think the price ceiling would have been respected, and at the present time it is fairly generally respected. There are many ways of evading it. From December 1, 1941, to Miay 31, 1943, there have been 3,335 prosecutions, and ninety-four per cent have resulted in convictions.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Most of the oases are, I suppose, not contested?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I suppose a great many are not; I do not know about that,. I was talking to a United States gentleman the other day about the price ceiling in Canada. He had come into contact with some business men here, and his experience with them was that when easy and obvious ways of evasion of the price ceiling were open, such as by changing the number of a certain grade of goods, these Canadian business men said, "We do not dare do that."


Richard Burpee Hanson: Most
people want to observe the law.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, and the ones that do not have a fairly wholesome respect, generally speaking, for the price control regulations, and that has been brought about by the faithfulness of the enforcement. That is the reason.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Through fear of prosecution?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Among a certain type of Canadians.


Richard Burpee Hanson: One further question about these young lawyers. There are a great many young lawyers on the payroll of the board who work in connection with the local offices, but is it not true that when it comes to a prosecution a requisition is made to Ottawa and the Department of Justice appoints an agent to prosecute?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a form of political patronage. What is the good of employing these young lawyers if they cann'ot do the job?


James Lorimer Ilsley: They have a great deal of legal work to do besides appearing in court.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: In regard to these dollar-a-year men who have been lent to the board by different companies, the company paying them their salaries and the board paying them one dollar a year,

what check does the Department of Finance make to see whether the whole salary or any portion of it is not deducted from the company's excess profits tax?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think it ordinarily is treated by the company as an expense of carrying on its business-not if they are reimbursed, of course.


Charles Edward Johnston: But what check has the Department of Finance on whether the company deducts the whole of that salary or any portion of it from its excess profits tax?


James Lorimer Ilsley: They do not deduct it from the tax at all. No one would deduct it from the tax. But they would likely charge it as an expense and deduct it from their income for taxation purposes.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is the way it is done?	.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think that is the situation.


Charles Edward Johnston: My information is that in some cases it is deducted from the company's excess profits tax.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman must have misunderstood what his informant told him.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am just asking for information, because I quite well recall an incident that came before the public accounts committee, where Mr. Martin got a quarter of a million dollars in connection with the cancellation of a contract, and it was definitely stated on several occasions that that quarter of a million was taken from the excess profits tax.


Mr. GIBSON:: That was a repayment of capital.


Charles Edward Johnston: The statement had been made that no portion of that had been deducted from the excess profits tax until the inspector of income tax came before the committee and said definitely that that was the situation. I bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Finance by way of caution, because I think there should be some guard against that kind of thing. I shall not name any company, but it is well known that many companies are lending men to the board and paying them their regular salaries; if they deduct that salary as an expense from their income tax, then indirectly the government is paying the man's salary, and it might just as well do it directly as ostensibly to be paying the man only a dollar a year. The government would be really paying the man for his services if the

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
company were allowed to deduct that amount from that tax. It would be better for the government to pay the man his salary direct than to have this roundabout method of doing business. If the minister has not already checked up, it might be worth while doing so.
There is one other question which probably will come under this item, which I should like to ask the minister while I am on my feet. I will say that I have not investigated the matter personally, but it has been reported to me on very good authority that a large amount of sugar was shipped to Calgary and stored at one of the R.C.A.F. stations there, just a matter of a month or so ago, and that while it was stored in that place it was spoiled. I received a letter asking about this, and I replied that I did not know anything about it but that when the time came I would ask for information in regard to it. Has the minister any information on the matter?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall make inquiries about the sugar. The hon. gentleman does not know who stored it or where it was stored?


Thomas Reid: I suppose it was stored under the wartime prices and trade board in a warehouse in Calgary which is under the control of the R.C.A.F. If the minister would answer those two questions, I would appreciate it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Which two?


Thomas Reid: The question in regard to salary and the other question in regard to sugar, if he has that information.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I thought I had said everything that could be said in regard to the first matter. When the hon. gentleman talks about deducting these salaries from the tax he is not expressing the matter correctly ; I do not think anyone would ever charge or say that. But if he says that the salary should not be allowed as a reduction from the income of the company lending the man to the government, he has an arguable point. However, if the board were confronted with the alternative of sending the man home, or not taking the man at all, or accepting his services without charge, I should think on the whole it would be in the public interest for the board to accept the loan of the man's services. Often that is done on a temporary basis, for a Short time only. I can think of men who have been in the employ of the wartime prices and trade board, who were in receipt of large salaries and who kept partly in touch with their business and whose salaries I believe, though I have no personal knowledge, were regarded as expenses of the companies employing them throughout the period when they were working for the
wartime prices and trade board, just as they were both before and after that period. In such cases the taxes of the companies were affected indirectly to the extent of the salaries paid, but the men were working for the government rather than for the companies, though the government was paying them nothing.


Charles Edward Johnston: The companies were deducting these payments as expenses?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


Charles Edward Johnston: So that in effect the government was paying to that extent.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the man had not been here [DOT] at all the government would be paying him to the same extent in the same way.


Charles Edward Johnston: I had particular reference to an individual who was permanently employed by the board. I do not like to mention any names, but I could send the information to the minister so that he could get the information in regard to the individual concerned.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What does the hon. member think we should do in a case of that kind?


Charles Edward Johnston: When the government is supposed to be getting a man on loan from a company for $1, and the company, which is really paying this man's salary, deducts from its income or from the excess profits tax, I think that is entirely the wrong way to go about it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Then tell us what we should do about it.


Charles Edward Johnston: You should hire the man and pay him a decent, reasonable salary, though not necessarily what the company is paying him.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But I do not think we could get the one of whom I am thinking. I have in mind one man whose salary was $25,000 a year. He was an excellent executive. He worked for the wartime prices and trade board for some period; it may have been six, seven or eight months, during which he gave faithful and extremely efficient service.


Charles Edward Johnston: He does not work full-time?


James Lorimer Ilsley: He was here fairly steadily for that limited period. I am just wondering what position we should have taken about him. If we had said, "You must resign your position with the company, or at least you must not take any pay from the company and you must come here," it would have been out of the question for us to pay him $25,000.
4264	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board


Charles Edward Johnston: Does the minister not think it would have been far better to have hired that man outright? I have never seen any man so indispensable that his place could not be taken by somebody else, and I would suggest to the minister that $25,000 is an extremely good salary. If the company is lending that man to the government; if the government pays only that portion of his salary applicable to the period during which he is employed by the government, in addition to a living allowance or other expenses, then I suggest to the minister that this man is not working for a dollar a year. To suggest to the public that this man is being lent to the government by this company for a dollar a year is certainly misleading the public in that regard. I say to the minister that if we need these men we should hire them outright. Let us do it fairly and openly, and let us pay them decent salaries. I am not one of those who advocate that you should underpay anyone, either a worker or a salaried man; I think there should be justice in all cases, and I believe it would be much better to give these men decent salaries and not allow any deductions by the companies. I think that would be more satisfactory to all concerned, and everyone would know what they were getting.


Thomas Reid: I think every member of the committee realizes the great task and heavy responsibility of the Minister of Finance as the responsible head of an organization such as the wartime prices and trade board, but I say in all kindness that the minister must not take it amiss if some criticisms are offered in regard to what has occurred. So far as I know, there has never before been an organization that has touched the individual lives of all citizens in Canada to the extent the wartime prices and trade board does at the present time. When the chairman of the board was in Vancouver he was challenged as being a sort of dictator, as being separate and apart from the government, but he made it quite clear to the people of British Columbia that such is not the situation. He said this was a very democratic organization; if anything went wrong, the people had their members of parliament and could complain to them, and of course their members would bring these matters to the attention of the minister.
I must say that I hardly needed that advice to bring any matters of this kind to the attention of the house. However, it has been a unique experience for a member of parliament to be called into disputes between farmers and others and the wartime prices and trade board, and to be told that members of parliament have nothing at all to do with

these matters, that we are separate and apart from the government and that if there are any complaints they should be taken up with the Minister of Finance. We all realize that the Minister of Finance is not in a position to know everything about agriculture. His field is finance, and we have a Minister of Agriculture; but I am afraid we are drifting into the position of having three ministers of agriculture in the house, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture. I am one of those who have said publicly both in the house and outside that it is an extremely good thing we have the present Minister of Agriculture, or, heaven knows, the farmers would not have got as square a deal under Donald Gordon as they have managed to get.
I should now like to bring one or two matters to the attention of the minister, and to offer one or two suggestions. The officials of the board whom we have met out in British Columbia by and large have treated the public very fairly. I have visited the office and had occasion to meet the personnel, and I have heard the same thing said by others who have had occasion to do business with them, but I wish to warn the minister that he had better take care that the prosecutions do not keep increasing, in case they might amount to persecution.
Greater cooperation might be obtained by the officials of the department were they to consult municipal and city authorities. I will give a case I have in mind. During the wood shortage on the Pacific coast a report was sent to the wartime prices and trade board in Vancouver that a poor widow woman in New Westminster had two cords of wood. Within an hour two men in a large car came all the way from Vancouver to New Westminster to investigate the matter. Of course anyone who knows anything at all about the wood situation knows that very often out there wood is taken directly from the water, and that one has to stack it and leave it for months before it can be used. This good lady was following the usual practice of buying what is known as green wood, and having it stacked. Of .course that did not save her from being prosecuted.
Then, only last week an old age pensioner seventy-six years of age had been up against it for the need of a load of sawdust. I might explain that out there some people burn sawdust; some burn wood; others bum coal, and others bum oil, when they can get it. As I say, he was stuck for fuel, and he said to a truck driver, "I will give you a little honorarium if you will just deliver a load of sawdust to my home." The truck driver did1 that.

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
I do not know how the board got word of the ease, but the result was that the poor old soul was taken to court and fined for giving an honorarium. It was claimed that he had paid a price higher than the ceiling price for sawdust.
I mention these two cases because I believe that we shall have to have a careful watch. Some men are not capable of handling authority. In case wre drift along in this country until we are met with persecution, or we have a sort of gestapo running around, it would be just as well to have these things calmed down a little, and not be so keen to take some poor old soul to court, and say to him, "You are violating the price ceiling regulations, so I will make an example of you by hauling you into court."
I do not want the minister to say that this is a question of east against west, or British Columbia against the centre. But I have claimed that these inequalities cause a great deal of friction. The wartime prices and trade board touches every person, and there is a considerable amount of feeling throughout the country to the effect that people do not like regimentation.
For instance, I have in mind the time when rent control had to be put into effect. We in British Columbia were one or two years later than Ontario and Quebec in having war industries started in our province. Where do you think rent control was put into operation first? Well, it was in those very districts where war industries had not yet started. In New Westminster, Vancouver and, I believe, Victoria, rent control was put into effect in 1940, before war industries were started out there. In the boom in Ontario and Quebec which resulted from war industries in those provinces rents went up, but nothing was done by the wartime prices and trade board to control rents in the east. That is the information I got, anyway; if it is wrong I should be pleased to be corrected. However, the information given to me by those who have studied the matter is that such was the situation. Could we have an explanation of this situation?
I do not know whether I should speak of any other matters I have in mind. However, I had intended to say a word about sugar. In my opinion some statement should be made, something in greater detail than has been given thus far, in connection with sugar. There again, inequality has caused a great deal of criticism. We hear of some fruit districts receiving twelve pounds per person and other fruit districts receiving only eleven pounds, another district receiving twelve and
a half pounds, and some districts receiving ten pounds. The public are not altogether to blame in connection with the sugar situation, as the history of what has occurred will indicate. First of all, last year, the public were told, through statements emanating from the board, that there would likely be plenty of sugar for next year's canning. Then, later, housewives were told to put down all the jams and1 jellies they could, so as to release the national output for the armed forces. Then this spring we were told there would be plenty of sugar for canning. A form was sent out asking what amounts were required. Later on, another report went out stating that probably fifteen pounds per person would be allowed in urban districts, and twenty-five pounds in rural districts. Of course, now it has been made known that the maximum is about eleven pounds. So that I say the public is not altogether to blame for making complaints. Very often regulations put out by the board lead them to believe one thing, and later on something else crops up which is not in accordance with the first piece of information given to them.
I wish to draw the minister's attention particularly to the two cases in which wood was involved. In my opinion the sugar statement should be in greater detail than has been given thus far, because the situation has caused a great deal of discontent. People in the country tell me, "there are not available the jams and jellies which are available in the cities, for the use of city people." Then again, farmers are complaining that when they have to have four or five extra help for a day or two they cannot ask their neighbours for their sugar rations, with the result that they are left short. All these matters were not thoroughly canvassed before the regulations were let out to the public.


Joseph William Noseworthy: According to a copy of sessional paper 106B brought down in answer to my question of June 21 I find that section 4 of wartime prices and trade board regulation is entitled, "Maximum price regulations exempt all sales to the Department of Munitions and Supply, or any agency thereof." I learned that the commissary division of that board has paid more than the established ceiling prices for such commodities as beef, poultry, lamb, cheese, split peas and potatoes. I learned also that in September, 1942, as the result of a conference between the officials of this department, and the department of agriculture and finance, a system of allocation was instituted whereby beef and pork supplies were guaranteed on a pro rata basis at ceiling prices, that since October no purchases of beef or
4266	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
pork have been made at more than ceiling prices and that soon a similar arrangement will be made regarding poultry, lamb and liver.
Then I have a list of the firms from which these commodities have been purchased. Would the minister explain why-and I presume there is a reason-the Department of Munitions and Supply are exempt from ceiling prices, and whether this is the entire list of commodities, or whether they have purchased above the ceiling price a number of other commodities, for how long they have been purchasing at more than the ceiling price, and why it was possible to make agreements such as the one to which I have referred of September, 1942, but was not possible to have made it earlier. In other words, I should like to know how long the Department of Munitions and Supply have been purchasing supplies at more than ceiling prices. I wish to know also whether the Department of Munitions and Supply have been paying more than the ceiling price for rented properties; that is, have they been subject to the same regulations in connection with renting as have civilians throughout the country? I think that is a matter on which we should have some information.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I may not be able to give
a very complete answer to the hon. gentleman. My recollection of this runs back to the fall of 1941. I remember distinctly that the question arose as to whether purchases by the Department of Munitions and Supply would be exempt from the provisions of the maximum prices regulations. I can remember the argument there was about it. One day we thought there should be no exception; the next day we thought there should be an exception. The reason why these purchases were exempted from the maximum prices regulations was that the Department of Munitions and Supply felt it desirable to have a free hand in connection with what they were buying, so that they could get what they had to buy. They are buying very largely for the armed forces; they are buying for war purposes. Most of the time they buy at lower than ceiling prices; in a great many instances they buy by tender; in the odd case they have paid more than the ceiling price. I do not remember just what period of the price ceiling it was in; but at a time when beef was scarce, during one of our periods of beef trouble, the Department of Munitions and Supply paid more than the ceiling price for beef in order to get a supply for the army when there was a considerable shortage in the country. This made trouble, and finally the agreement which the hon. gentleman has read was arrived at in the fall

of 1942. That is my recollection of the reasons for the exemption and the development of the matter since that time. They certainly have a free hand in regard to rents and everything else; they are not bound by the law, by the price ceiling. They have a paramount and overriding interest in supply, greater than that of the civilian population, in order that they may carry on the war effort. If it should become necessary to go through the ceiling in order to get what they have to have for the armed forces, they are free to do so, but they have not done it to any great extent.


Mr. GILLIS:: Why should the Department of Munitions and Supply have to go through the price ceiling?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Because sometimes there is a great shortage.


Clarence Gillis: That is not a good reason
for puncturing the price ceiling. Why should Canada Packers, one of the firms indicated in this return, hold up Munitions and Supply for a higher price? The answer is profitable patriotism.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think Canada
Packers-


Clarence Gillis: They are listed in this return. The minister stated definitely that when there was a shortage of beef in the country the packing houses took advantage of that to drive up the price and extract from the taxpayers of Canada-


James Lorimer Ilsley: I certainly did not state
that.


Clarence Gillis: It is not Munitions and
Supply that is paying the bill, it is the taxpayers of Canada. The minister's argument is very weak. Many times the minister has referred in the house to the seriousness of inflation, to the dangers of puncturing the price ceiling and to the necessity of having workers work at starvation levels.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My hon. friend should not
put words into my mouth. I did not say any of those things.


Clarence Gillis: That is exactly what the
minister said. He said that when there was a shortage of beef in Canada the Department of Munitions and Supply were obliged and were permitted to go through the price ceiling.


James Lorimer Ilsley: They did once.


Clarence Gillis: They did that in order to
get necessary war supplies. That is not an argument; that is an accusation against the

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
packing houses. They took advantage of a shortage, perhaps created by themselves. It is a dangerous position for this government to take, to allow people who are more interested in making money than in prosecuting the war to hold up the taxpayers of Canada through the Minister of Munitions and Supply in order to get higher prices for a commodity that is short, when the shortage has perhaps been created by themselves. That is something that should be definitely prohibited. If this government places a price ceiling on any commodity, it should prevail. Munitions and Supply have a priority; every war material has a priority, and these rules and regulations should not be tossed aside at a moment's notice. This is a weakness which should be corrected.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman says
that I said that these higher prices enabled the packers to profiteer at the expense of the government. Those are not my words at all. I do not know who got the benefit of that; it may have been the farmers who delivered the cattle.


Clarence Gillis: I think that was the effect,


James Lorimer Ilsley: There was a time when
cattle were hardly being delivered at all.


Mr. PERLEY:: We have heard a great
deal to-night about salaries, and I should like to say something in favour of the local committees that have been set up. These committees have been set up in the rural parts of Saskatchewan and, if I understood the minister aright, he said that in some cases they are paid by the municipality in which they operate. I have received some complaints that this remuneration was not sufficient to reimburse these people for their time. Other people have given their time voluntarily, and it is of those people that I want to say a word of praise. The committees were set up to assist in the operation of the price ceiling. I am not complaining about the salaries paid to inspectors or investigators, but I should like to know how many inspectors there are to cover the rural parts of Saskatchewan. Did I understand the minister to say that in some cases the rural municipality or town is paying for the services rendered by these local committees?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not the members of the
committee, but for certain of the expenses. Some municipalities, I do not know whether they are rural, pay some of the expenses of the local ration boards, and in other cases they are assisted to varied extents by the board. This does not apply to the members
of the ration board who work on a voluntary basis, it applies to secretaries, clerks and so on. This vote of $600,000 would be just over
81,000	per board because there are 550 boards.


Ernest Edward Perley: There is no voluntary work at all?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, by the members of the boards, but not by the stenographers or secretaries.


James Arthur Ross: The chairman is
usually the reeve or the mayor.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Ernest Edward Perley: Is that quite general in the west?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, that is general.
I did not reply to the hon. member for New Westminster. If I do not cover all the points which he made, he will remind me. He has brought to the attention of the committee two prosecutions under circumstances which evoke sympathy. I have not any knowledge of these prosecutions, but I will bear in mind what he has said and bring his observations to the attention of the head enforcement officer of the board.
With regard to the rental control, he suggested that control was imposed in British Columbia in January, 1940. The first order freezing rents was of October 1, 1940; it is dated September 24, 1940, but it provides that it shall become effective on and after October 1, 1940. That order applied to the following municipalities:
Nova Scotia:	Dartmouth and Woodside;
Halifax, Armdale, Buckingham Station, Dutch Settlement, Fairview Station, Falkland, Jolli-more and Melville; New Glasgow, Trenton, Stellarton and Westville; Sydney.
Quebec: Brownsburg and Thetford Mines.
Ontario: Allandale, Barrie; Kingston and Portsmouth; Ottawa, Eastview, New Edinburgh, Overlbrook, Rockcliffe, Westboro and Woodroft'e; Parry Sound and Nobel; Trenton, Windsor.
Manitoba: Brandon.
British Columbia: Vancouver, Victoria and Esquimalt.
It froze the rents as of January 2, 1940. It is possible-and perhaps this is the argument of my hon. friend-that rents rose in these other places before they rose in Vancouver, Victoria and Esquimalt. I would not know about that. I do not know whether that is the situation, but I do know that the complaint about the freezing of rents is general; it is not local at all; there are just as many from Nova Scotia and, certainly, from Ontario as from any other part of Canada. The argument is not local or territorial; it is individual. It is that certain landlords were slower than others or more merciful than others or something of that kind
4268	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
and did not put their rents up, and therefore they were caught by these freezing orders. This freezing order later became general. The first freezing order selected certain localities where rents were on the way up and something had to be done about them. I presume that a fair selection was made. At that time, in September, 1940, the board was much smaller and was not working under the terrific pressure under which it has worked since the price ceiling, and I would be surprised if the selection of places was not very carefully done. I believe that it was very carefully done, and after exhaustive investigation. I forget who the rentals administrator was at that time; it may have been Mr. Justice Martin, of Saskatchewan; it was for quite a long time. At any rate the board went into these matters very carefully and did not have anything like as many things to attend to as they have had since the price ceiling, which set in in 1941. I do not think there would be any basis for a claim of discrimination on regional grounds. There is certainly a basis for claims of discrimination on individual grounds; there always is under any freezing order; but you have just to decide whether you will freeze or not, and if you do not you never can control.


Thomas Reid: What about canning sugar?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will leave that to my
assistant.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I suppose it is not necessary for me to repeat the explanation I gave last Friday with respect to the general basis on which sugar was allotted1 for canning purposes. But perhaps I might remind members of the committee that it was decided that the available supplies of sugar would permit the allotment of approximately 100,000,000 pounds for canning purposes this year. That was about the amount used last year. The board had1 three courses open to it as far as canning sugar was concerned. It could say, you will have to provide your canning sugar out of the ordinary ration. Or, second, it could decide to allot so much sugar to everybody in Canada, and incidentally that is the procedure which is followed, so far as I know, in all other countries. Or it could ask consumers to estimate their requirements, and thereby find out how many people proposed to do canning. Beforehand the estimate was made that about thirty to forty per cent of the population did home canning. In the actual result it turned out that eighty-four per cent of the population applied for canning sugar.


Thomas Reid: Of course, they were asked to do so.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, yes, there is no objection to that. The procedure followed in the United States, I understand, is that a flat allocation is made per consumer, to each holder of a ration book, whether he is going to do any canning or not. That, I am told, is the system followed in every other country, including Germany, where sugar is rationed. It was felt here that this third alternative, of asking the public to send in applications for canning sugar and allocating the sugar to those applicants, would provide a more equitable and better way of distributing the supply of sugar which was available for canning.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Would the hon. gentleman permit an interjection? The hon. member for New Westminster referred1 to definite appeals having been sent out to home canners to can larger amounts, and I wish to say that the housewives collected every possible jar that was in their possession in order to try to do what they thought would help out the general situation.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think my hon. friend is perfectly right. The board did ask people to do as much home canning as possible. I may not be quite right on this, but I think, when that appeal was made, it was not certain what amount of sugar would be available and it was hoped there might be a larger amount. Incidentally it was desired to know how many people would do home canning. As I say, the estimate was that thirty to forty per cent of the population did home canning, and in the result it turned out that eighty-four per cent either did or claimed they were prepared to do home canning.


Grote Stirling: Does the hon. member mean eighty-four per cent of the eleven and a half millions?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Precisely. About 8.000,000 people made applications for canning sugar, or at least applications were made on behalf of that number. Those applications were called for. The country was divided into 550 local ration areas; and these areas were asked, after the applications had been sent in, to tabulate them, to reduce the quantities asked for to the nearest five pounds, and in the case of applications which were higher than twenty-five pounds for a rural resident or fifteen pounds for an urban resident, to reduce the quantities applied for to those amounts. These were the instructions sent out to the local ration boards, to tabulate their applications on that basis and to advise the ration administration in Ottawa of the result; that was in

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
order that the ration administration here would be in a position to decide how the sugar could be located.
As a result of this request for applications, 8,763,185 persons made application for canning sugar, for a total of approximately 210,000,000 pounds, which was about twice the amount of sugar available. The problem then arose as to how that quantity would be allocated. As I said last Friday the decision taken was that it would be allocated to each local ration area, 550 in all, on the basis of 11-34 pounds for each applicant from that area, and that fixed the quota for that local ration area. The method of distributing the sugar available in each area was left to the local ration board, and the instructions given to the local board, which went out on May 7-I have before me a copy of the letter that was sent to each of the local ration boards-outlined the general manner in which the distribution should be made. I quote:
In making your decisions as to the amount of sugar per person which will be granted to the consumers in your territory, we suggest you keep the following in mind.
The foods administration is of the opinion that rural residents have a legitimate claim to more sugar per person for canning than the urban population, owing to the inaccessibility of fresh fruits and certain other supplies during the winter months. It is not possible to lay down rigid instructions, but we are acquainting you with this opinion so that in allotting your sugar you may provide sugar per person at a slightly higher rate to rural residents than to urban residents. Of course, your final distribution must not exceed the total amount of sugar granted to your board. If you feel from your knowledge of local conditions that an equal amount per person would be more acceptable you may make your arrangements on that basis.
That was the general letter of instructions to ail local boards. In the result there was, of course, a variation between the amounts allowed in different local ration areas, and I think one of the greatest causes for dissatisfaction has been that in two local ration areas, one alongside the other, one applicant in area No. 1 would receive eleven pounds while her neighbour across the road in area No. 2 might receive only ten pounds.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Did the hon. gentleman say that rural areas were to get more than urban?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That was left to the discretion of the local ration board, but the general instructions sent to the local boards by the ration administration at Ottawa were as I have read.


Mr. SHAW:: May I ask whether the board insisted on the sugar being used for canning purposes?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It would be physically impossible to check every applicant to see whether the sugar was used for canning. It would be very difficult to enforce that provision.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Last year they checked up. Of course, you do not have to check everyone, but my point is that there is a fifty per cent increase in the number of those who applied for sugar for canning purposes, and if you do not insist on its being used for canning purposes, I am afraid there will be bootlegging in sugar.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised that the regulations require that coupons not used for sugar for canning purposes shall be surrendered. I am not in a position to say what steps the board proposes to take to see that that regulation is complied with.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I would urge that some type of check be made, because it is not fair if this sugar is not being used for food purposes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It would be difficult, I should think, to make any widespread check. Last year it was on an honour basis, and people were allowed to sign slips for canning sugar. There was no definite limit put on and for that reason a check-up was made, but it would be nearly impossible to make a coast to coast check under this system. The distribution has been left to the local ration boards, which are continuing in existence.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Last year was it not really householders alone who could get sugar for canning purposes? If you bought fruit last year they would give you a pound of sugar for a pound of fruit. This year the landlady in a boarding house who wants canning sugar must get all her boarders to sign the card.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right. Perhaps 1 might complete what I was saying on the general system of allocating sugar, pointing out why these differences arose in different areas. The first reason why there would be a difference between one local area and another would be the percentage of persons applying for less than the general allowance varying from area to area. As I mentioned in connection with the ration district I discussed last Friday, my own district of Westmount, there were in that area a considerable number of applications for less than ten pounds, while in another area the average might be well above ten pounds, in which case there would be no amount available for higher applications, and in those areas it would probably be more suitable to make a flat allocation per
4270	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
head from the available quota for the district. The other reason is the decision taken by the local ration boards.


Thomas Reid: The suggestion was made that perhaps, in view of the fact that country people are at a disadvantage as compared with city residents in obtaining canned fruit, and there being a large amount of fruit likely to be on hand, sugar might be taken from the soft drink industry and used for food purposes. Another criticism was this. It was stated that the supply of sugar in the United States was veiy plentiful, and the question was asked why we should allow cherries to be imported during these times if there are ample supplies of sugar in the United States. Why not import sugar instead, and take some of the sugar from the soft drink industry and put it into food?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not in a position to deal with the soft drink question, but as to sugar supplies in the United States, it is completely erroneous to say that there is a large supply of sugar there. As a matter of fact they are complaining that we are getting too much sugar. Eighty-two per cent of our supplies of sugar have to be imported, and the raw sugar has to be brought in by boat, and we are depending upon allocations of Shipping from the United States for the quantity of sugar we get. They are now complaining that our situation is better than theirs and that we are getting more sugar than they are.


Thomas Reid: What distribution has been
made to the soft drink industry?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That information was given the other day in answer to a question.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There was a thirty per cent cut from the year before. You cannot cut soft drinks too much. It is down a lot this year as compared with last year, and thirty per cent is a substantial cut. The figures were given in a return to the house a few days ago.


Mr. WRIGHT:: I recognize the difficulty in getting an even distribution of sugar, but there is considerable complaint, and I would bring to the attention of the government the position of people in the outlying districts who depend entirely on canning sugar for the preservation of fruit. They are in a position where they cannot get canned goods. They are probably from twenty to thirty miles from the nearest source of supply and have always depended on canning wild fruit. This small allotment of sugar will certainly mean that they will not be able to put in anything like their accustomed1 supply of fruit. They are not in a position to get fresh fruit during the

winter months, and many of these people have large families and depend entirely on the fruit which they can. Some additional allowance should be made in such districts. You are allowing eleven pounds in each of the 500 districts and some of them will be entirely urban.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Very fewr.


Percy Ellis Wright: Some of them will be
mostly urban; others will be almost entirely rural. If it is possible, I think the government should1 provide an additional allotment of sugar for the rural areas, especially in northern Ontario, northern Saskatchewan and Alberta, and areas such as that, as well as parts of the maritime provinces where the people are entirely dependent in the winter on canned fruit.


James Arthur Ross: I should like to support the plea of the hon. member for an increased allotment of sugar in the parts of the country he mentioned. You will see there tons of rhubarb going to seed and waste just because the people have not enough sugar allowed them to can it. These people who normally can wild fruit and rhubarb are not able to do so this year, and I would urge the minister to have a rearrangement made of the present set-up so that the people in these outlying areas can preserve this fruit. It would help in the conservation of essentia] foods for the use of these people and indirectly help the whole nation. But the people who normally can this type of fruit, rhubarb, wild fruits, and so on, are not able to can any under the present set-up. I trust the minister will see that these people get a larger allotment of sugar.


Joseph William Noseworthy: If I may go back
to meat, the return to which I have referred names only four packing companies as being paid more than the ceiling price for meat.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who were they?


Joseph William Noseworthy: The Swift Canadian company, Canada Packers, the Pacific Meat company and Bums Company Limited. I would ask the minister if these were the only firms from which the Department of Munitions and Supply bought meat at higher than the ceiling price? This return says that wherever the ceiling price was pierced the prices board was taken into consultation, so that I presume the minister's department has that information. Did any other firms receive more than the ceiling price for meat? I do not see how these firms could secure more meat, if the higher prices was paid1 for that purpose, unless by reason of that fact they went out and paid

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
the farmer or producer a higher price in order to obtain the meat. I wonder if that was done, whether these companies passed on the higher price to the producer.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What are the dates?


Joseph William Noseworthy: The date of this
return is June 21.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What are the dates of the
purchases?


Joseph William Noseworthy: The return does not give that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is a munitions and supply return. I would not know very much about it. The munitions and supply people are good buyers.
Mr. MaoINNIS: Good payers.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; it is easy to say that,
but I will support the buying authority of munitions and supply against any other organization in this country. They are hard buyers, and they have not paid any more than they have to for that meat. I am just saying that on their general record.


Percy Ellis Wright: Would the Department of Munitions and Supply not have the right to go in and acquire that meat from the packing companies without paying higher than the ceiling price if they required the meat for military purposes? It seems to me it should not be necessary for the Department of Munitions and Supply to go in on a barter basis if they require that meat for military purposes. But if the price ceiling is to be punctured, there is no limit to what the company may not insist on receiving. There should be some safeguard there.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think that could legally be done without the consent of the seller. That would be an expropriation, which would have to go to the exchequer court. I do not think any department of government has the power to expropriate property and compulsorily fix the price.


Victor Quelch: Not under the War
Measures Act?


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: If this meat question is to be disposed of in a few minutes, Mr. Chairman, I will yield the floor and wait, because I wish to speak on sugar.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I have just one statement to make in connection with this matter of puncturing the price ceiling in purchasing meat. My understanding is that under the War Measures Act the government have the complete right to expropriate property.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Right, but not to fix the price.


Frederick Davis Shaw: The exchequer court of Canada will fix the price if the owner is not satisfied.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Almost every week we find owners of property protesting against the price which the government has offered for property which it has expropriated. These cases go to the exchequer court. I cannot see why these meat packing plants should not be offered the prevailing price and go through the same channel if the price is not satisfactory to them, just as the city dweller has to do when a piece of property he owns is expropriated and the price offered him is not satisfactory. Like the other hon. gentlemen who have spoken, I feel that the minister has a pretty weak case, and I would urge him to strengthen it if he intends to satisfy a cross-section of this house. If the price to the packing plants is allowed to go up, the same thing should apply to commodities in general. I am not advocating that, but I cannot see what difference there is in principle between puncturing the price ceiling in one case and not in the other. This is the sort of thing that is causing dissatisfaction among our people.


James Arthur Ross: I have wondered for
some time why the price ceding did not apply to purchases by munitions and supply-all purchases, not simply meat. My understanding is that munitions and supply in making purchases for the armed forces do not have a price ceiling set-up at all. I have argued many times that the producer is not getting a square deal, but here is the middleman being allowed to puncture the price ceiling, and this can easily develop into a racket. I do not see why the Department of Munitions and Supply should not be compelled, just like the ordinary consumer is, to buy under the price ceiling. That would eliminate a great deal of the dissatisfaction in the country to-day. Surely the minister can give us a better reason than he has done so far why the price ceiling should not apply to purchases by the Department of Munitions and Supply. Without repeating many of the arguments that have been made in the past, I would simply say that the producers in the agricultural industry were placed in a very unsatisfactory position when the price ceiling was set up on the declaration of war. Now to have returns brought down showing that munitions and supply bought these products, after they were processed, at higher than ceiling prices, certainly creates a very unhealthy feeling throughout this country. I

4272	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
believe the minister should give us some better reason than he has advanced so far as to why that department should not be under the price ceiling if that ceiling must prevail in regard to the civilian population.


Gordon Graydon: Just before the minister answers that question I should like to ask him another one, having regard to the fact that there is no price ceiling upon the articles or commodities purchased by the Department of Munitions and Supply. I wish to ask if in his experience in administering this price ceiling policy under the wartime prices and trade board he has found that the fact that there is no price ceiling on commodities purchased by the Department of Munitions and Supply has had the effect of interfering with the operation of the general price ceiling policy and, if so, to what extent. How far do the breaches of the price ceiling which have been mentioned by hon. members during the course of this debate go toward endangering the whole price ceiling policy of the government? I just wanted to have the minister's opinion on that point, because, after all, he is administering the department, and I think his reaction would be very interesting to the committee.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Before I come to that let
me make one point clear in regard to the return quoted by the hon. member for York South. Certain meats, while not subject to the price ceiling when purchased by the Department of Munitions and Supply, in effect are subject to that ceiling now by agreement; or I believe the agreement is that they will not pay more than ceiling prices without first consulting the wartime prices and trade board. I am instructed that it goes even farther than that, that they will not pay more than ceiling prices for these meats, though the hon. member for Souris rather seemed to be under the impression that they were now paying more than ceiling prices for meat. They are not. That matter was settled by agreement last September, as I understand the situation. Naturally the wartime prices and trade board is concerned, as one of its main lines of activity, with civilian supply. It is the government body which is trying to meet the civilian needs of Canada, to see that the civilian part of the population of Canada has available what it needs.


Gordon Graydon: Of course' it is doing more than that; it is keeping down prices, too.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is doing two things. Its representatives in the various districts are prices and supply representatives. They have

two great functions to perform. One is to see to supply and the other is to control prices; and the one cannot be done without the other. That is, prices cannot be controlled without enormous trouble, unless supply is provided. That is what this large organization is concerning itself with. It is a civilian organization; and when the military purchasing body, the body that must concern itself with supplies for the forces, comes -in with its overriding and paramount powers which, as a matter of policy, it was felt it should be given, it disturbs the operations of the wartime prices and trade board, because it is likely to shorten the supply or unbalance the distribution. That may be inevitable, but for that reason it is desired to get these two bodies together, to get them to agree as far as possible. I am advised by the officials that very recently the Department of Munitions and Supply have agreed that they will not buy anything at all above the ceiling prices without first consulting the wartime prices and trade board and giving that board an opportunity to get for them what they require, or of directing them to it and arranging in some way that they may get it.


Gordon Graydon: That is really a reversal of your previous policy, under which you left the ceiling open as far as munitions and supply were concerned.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, it is not. The maximum prices regulations did not tie down the Department of Munitions and Supply, nor was it thought they could be tied down, because of the overriding importance of the function they perform.


Gordon Graydon: But now you are doing the same thing by agreement.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is provided that they shall not pay more than ceiling prices for anything without consultation with the wartime prices and trade board. That is only for civilian type goods.


James Arthur Ross: That applies to all foodstuffs purchased by munitions and supply for the armed forces?


James Lorimer Ilsley: In regard to meat it is agreed that they will not pay more than ceiling prices anyway, but on the whole range of civilian type goods it is agreed-this is a working arrangement between two agencies of the government-that they shall not pay more than ceiling prices without consultation with the wartime prices and trade board.

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board


Gordon Graydon: What happens after consultation? What chance has the wartime prices and trade board to do anything about the matter?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The wartime prices and
trade board controls, to a degree not understood by the population of Canada, the sources of supply. It controls all the imports of a great range of commodities. It has ramifications everywhere, trying to see to it that the civilian population of this country gets enough of the goods it requires. The board carries on that work in every direction, in regard to imports and everything else. It concerns itself day and night with the question of supply. In the first place, it does not want to ration if that can be avoided. Theoretically, rationing is the most equitable way of distributing goods, but you see what we get into when we start to ration. Here is this question of sugar for canning, about which my colleague has been talking to-night. If I were to ask hon. members now to say what we should do other than what we did, I do not believe anyone could tell me.


Gordon Graydon: I can tell you something you should do; now that you are asking for it I shall give you a suggestion. If you are going to do this again do not go advertising all over the country as you did in February, telling the housewives of Canada that on account of the situation existing in regard to canned goods, as a result of which there was likely to be a great shortage, they should go ahead and can their own preserves. There was no limitation suggested in the advertisement, which I brought to the attention of the minister. The housewives all over Canada took the government at their word and made arrangements to do up a tremendous amount of stuff, for the reasons advanced in the advertisement. One reason given was the shortage of tin and other materials which were so necessary for war purposes. I think the minister knows the housewives of Canada have responded nobly to almost every suggestion put forth by the government. I do not know any class of people in Canada who have been so quick to respond to suggestions and requests by the government as have the housewives. On one occasion I went so far as to say that this looked to me, as it must have looked to many people, almost like a deliberate hoax upon the housewives, the way in which the sugar rationing was carried on. After the advertisements appeared in the newspapers; after all plans had been made, then they found that limitations were placed upon the amount of sugar available. In some rural areas
the allotment was twenty-five pounds per person for canning purposes; in some urban areas it was fifteen pounds per person. The worst feature of it, however, was this; and I am going to offer a suggestion in this regard, though I am sure it is not necessary. After this do not leave it to the poor local rationing boards all over the country to be the goats for government policy; because that is, I think, what they have been, although the minister may not have intended it in that way in the first instance. Actually what happened was that a certain amount of sugar in certain sections was given, and local ration boards- most of them volunteers-found the great body of housewives wanting to know what in the world the policy of the government was. First of all, they asked housewives to preserve plenty of fruit and vegetables, and then, in the final analysis, without any previous knowledge or any previous instructions from the government, they found that the local ration boards came along and said, "You are going to get only so much." That was not fair, and I submit the minister knows it was not fair.
If he wishes to have a suggestion-and he asked for it-then let us not have that situation occur again. I say that, because I have been informed by people in various townships where, with one township adjoining another, on account of the difference in the rationing in different districts, people in some townships got considerably less than people in others, although they were actually neighbours, and there was only an imaginary dividing line between them. In n^ opinion that kind of thing should not be repeated, so far as rationing is concerned. It caused untold concern to the housewives of Canada. I am not trying to exaggerate, nor am I trying to overemphasize the point that has been raised so many times.
In addition to that,' another situation has arisen, namely, that sugar coupons were for five pounds each. In some instances they found that perhaps they were entitled to an odd amount. Instead of getting the full amount to which they were entitled, they found that the five-pound coupons gave them less than the amount to which they were entitled under the last regulations of the local boards.
If the minister wants suggestions-and he asked for them-I w'ill offer him these. I am quite sure the minister will not make the mistake again, because if he is going to tell the housewives anything, then let him tell them at the beginning that there will be some limitation. Do not send out an advertisement all over the country asking them to do certain
4274	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
things, without at the same time telling them that there will be a limitation, so far as sugar rationing is concerned. They do not mind, as long as they understand the general plan. But give them the general plan, and do not leave it to the local ration boards to carry the whole brunt of responsibility, and all the complaints that normally arise.


James Lorimer Ilsley: When I said I would welcome suggestions on how to ration sugar I meant exactly that. I asked for suggestions on how to ration sugar for canning purposes. I have not got any from the leader of the opposition, although he did start in to tell me that he was going to give me some. All he did was to tell me two things I should1 not do again. That is the extent of his suggestions.


Gordon Graydon: Exactly.


James Lorimer Ilsley: He does not touch the central problem at all, namely, that of how I should ration sugar for canning among the- population of this country. He has suggested one thing, namely, Do not decentralize; run it from Ottawa. That is what he said.


Gordon Graydon: The minister suggested a short time ago that words should not be put in his mouth. I do not want that, either.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, that is what it meant.


Gordon Graydon: Will the minister accept my word? Surely he has not followed my point.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What is it, then?


Gordon Graydon: The point I was making is this: Actually what happened was that the central authority had one policy and sent it out to the housewives of Canada, and then regulations were sent out some months afterwards to the local ration boards saying there would be no limitation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps I should not say that, because that is not quite fair. I did not mean that; after all, I do not wish to be unfair. But I think it had the same effect; that is, they put no limitation upon what the housewife was going to get.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Correct.


Gordon Graydon: They did not say a single thing in the advertisement. They just asked the housewives to plan to can vegetables and fruit during the coming season. Why, there was a lot of stuff in the newspapers, and I have no doubt there was plenty on the radio -although I did not have time to listen to it as much as I should have liked to. But

word was sen-t across this country for the housewives of Canada to can, can, can! That is the point I am trying to make to the minister.
He asks about suggestions. Well, if I can make a suggestion as to what he should not do, why should I not? In effect, by telling him not to do it -again, I am suggesting what he should do-and that is, that when he advertises next time-


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh!


Gordon Graydon: Now, then, the minister has asked for a suggestion-


James Lorimer Ilsley: All right.


Gordon Graydon: When he advertises again, let him be frank with the housewives of Canada. Let him tell the -people that when they do apply to the local ration board they may expect a definite limitation. Let him tell them that they are not likely to get more than fifteen pounds each in urban sections, and not more than twenty-five pounds each in rural sections.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We did not say anything about fifteen pounds and twenty-five pounds.


Gordon Graydon: You did say something about fifteen pounds and twenty-five pounds, because I happen to have seen the instructions to the local ration boards. You did not tell the housewives that there would be any limitation. You said there would be fifteen pounds to urban and twenty-five pounds to rural residents, and by the time they got finished there was a hodge-podge and patchwork-quilt policy all over Canada which had been worked out for the housewives of this country. All the housewives are asking is fair treatment. They do not wish to be -misled by the government. They will try to follow the instructions handed- out by the local ration boards, and they will finally end u-p with a different result altogether.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I just wish to come back to this: I have asked for suggestions as to how to ration sugar for canning purposes in Canada. I have got advice about how to advertise next year. But we have not reached the main question. We could do what they do in other countries. That is, we could give so much sugar per head of population for canning purposes. Then, if that were done, instead of being distributed on an applicant basis it would be distributed on a per capita basis over the whole population. We could do it in that way. It could be central, and it would be as rigid as it could possibly be. If that policy had been applied this year, the applicants would n-ot have got as much per

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
capita, by a considerable amount, as they actually got under the system we didi follow. But we could do what I have said.


Gordon Graydon: What does the minister mean when he says they would not have got as much?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Because only about eighty per cent of the public applied. Under this other system 100 per cent would have got sugar, whether they applied for it or not. The point I am trying to make is-


Gordon Graydon: Is the minister going
to give sugar to people who do not apply for it at all?


James Lorimer Ilsley: They do that in other
countries.


Gordon Graydon: I did not advocate that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, no, the hon. member
has not advocated anything.


Gordon Graydon: Oh, yes, I have.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, if the hon. member
has, it is purely negative. I am interested in constructive suggestions as to the best way of rationing sugar for canning purposes.


Charles Edward Johnston: Then do
not go to the Conservative party for it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not care where I go
for it. We did want as much canning to be done as could be done, and that was the reason for this joint advertising under the auspices of the wartime prices and trade board and the Department of Agriculture. We did that advertising because we wanted- to conserve as much fruit as possible. Applications came in for 210,000,000 pounds of sugar, instead of the 106,000,000 pounds which had been used in the previous year. We sold the desirability of canning fruit; in fact, we oversold its There is no doubt about that. Perhaps it would not have been necessary to encourage the people to can fruit. I do not think it would have made much difference if we had said, maybe you will not get the sugar you require.


Gordon Graydon: Will the minister do
that again next year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Perhaps we will not.


Gordon Graydon: I do not think you
should.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Perhaps we will not. You
correct your errors as you go along; everybody does that. But the main point is how to handle this rationing of sugar for canning purposes. Could we do what we did last
year? Could we allow people to go into a grocery store and make out a slip, hand it to the grocer and get what they needed- for canning purposes? That went on for two months, and we know the abuses that developed in that time were serious. It was quite obvious that that should not be repeated. Should we make a flat distribution for the whole -population? Should' we make a per capita distribution for all applicants? Should we advertise for applicants, try to get people to put in their applications in the spring, as we did this year? That was the real purpose of the advertising, to get persons to put in- their applications early in the year so that we would know who wanted sugar and would be able to make as good a distribution as possible. Should we -make each one the same as the others? I do not know about that. What we did was to give all the ration districts the same amount per capita of applicants.


Gordon Graydon: You gave each ration
district the same amount, having in mind the number of applicants?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right; the same
amount per capita of the applicants. Some were rural districts predominantly; some were urban districts predominantly, -but nearly all were both rural and urban. We said to the ration boards, "You know your local conditions; you have so much sugar; make the distribution in the most equitable way you can." Some of the ration boards went at it and made things rather difficult for themselves. They varied it as between rural districts and urban districts; they applied various rules which they thought were equitable, and went at it in that way. Others took an easier way. That was decentralization of authority. We have been told time after time that we should not try to run everything from Ottawa. We handed this over to 550 local ration boards, and that is the thing the hon. gentleman denounces us for doing.


Gordon Graydon: Just a minute; my hon. friend should not put words into my mouth again.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Exactly; he said, do not pass the buck.


Gordon Graydon: I did not suggest anything like the minister says I did, and he knows that very well. I am trying to find out from the minister why certain sections are getting more sugar than others, and I think he ought to answer that question.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I think I have given away about as much time as I should. While I cannot suggest anything that might be an
4276	COMMONS
War Appropnation-Finance-Prices Board
improvement on what has been done, I should like to point out how this has worked out in practice, and perhaps that will be considered as an indirect suggestion that will help in solving some of these difficulties. The parliamentary assistant to the minister said that a larger amount had to be given in rural areas than in urban areas.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That was the suggestion made to each local ration board.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: There is no doubt that that was conscientiously carried out. I went upstairs a short time ago and got a file containing some evidence of how this has worked out. Later on I shall give the minister a memorandum about this. I am not criticizing the board. The minister has stated that he would try to do something should the season happen to turn quite hot, the fruit ripen quickly and it be found impossible to ship it to the larger centres. He said an effort would be made to prevent the tremendous amount of waste that might occur. As an illustration of what has occurred, in a strictly rural area the people were allowed ten pounds per person, and just a few miles away the people in two urban centres were allowed twelve and a half pounds per person. In that case it worked out just the opposite.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Did everybody in the urban centre get twelve and a half pounds?


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: That is the information I have. On a rural road running out of a smaller urban municipality a family of four got forty-five pounds, while the next-door family of five got fifty pounds. Some correction is necessary in cases of this kind.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Were they in the same ration area?


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Definitely so; they were next-door neighbours. I have been making a study of this, or I would have drawn it to the minister's attention a week or so ago. These people say that they are not complaining about sugar rationing if it is necessary; but they do not want discrimination and desire to help to correct any discrimination. I think it should be realized that the people are trying to do their best. The hon. member for Westmount perhaps worked this out favourably in his own area, but-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I had nothing to do with it.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: We are in the very heart of the fruit belt.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Westmount is not in the fruit belt.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We buy a lot of Niagara fruit.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Perhaps if I give the minister or his assistant this information, something can be worked out. If there is any sugar available, I again urge the minister to give it to the fruit centres if it is needed to prevent waste when fruit cannot be shipped to the larger urban centres.


Mr. CARDIFF:: I want to congratulate the minister and the government upon trying to ration sugar and give approximately the same amount to each person. But the fact is that the farmer's wife must depend entirely on fruit that she cans herself, while the woman in the town or city, who perhaps never does any canning-at least a great many of them do not-is able to go down to the store and buy canned fruit. The woman on the farm must feed the threshing gang and the silo filling gang with what she puts up herself, and her own family must be provided for. The people on the farm have very few opportunities to go out for a meal, whereas those in the urban centres are able to do this. Just how this can be equalized is more than I can say, but it is something that should be given consideration. I do not think it would be fair to give everyone the same amount of sugar, because they would not use it; the country people should have a larger ration than the city people.


Frederick Davis Shaw: In my opinion there is no fool-proof scheme for rationing anything and I do not propose to try to advance one. It is unfortunate that the housewives of Canada were given to understand that they would have an Opportunity to can more fruit this year than they could last year. However, it did occur, and I sincerely trust that the government will endeavour to prevent a recurrence of that situation.
Has the minister contemplated the rationing of jams, jellies, marmalades and honey? I have always felt that, where scarcities occur, the fairest method1 of dealing with the distribution of the commodity is through rationing. We recognize, of course, that in war time the occurrence of shortages is inevitable; we are not complaining about that. But this is my personal experience. In my own town, a town of 1,200 people, the word "jam" or "jelly" or "honey" has become a forgotten part of our vocabulary. Yet I find that on going to other centres-we do not have to name them-we have no difficulty in procuring these articles in restaurants. We find that stores secure shipments periodically, although not all that their customers require. I should like to ask the minister if he has contemplated the rationing of these commodities, as tied right up with the sugar question.

War Appropriation-Finance-Prices Board
Before I sit down I wish to say that I concur in the remarks of the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) and others with respect to the situation which the rural housewife finds herself in at the present time. However, if there is no sugar she cannot secure it. But I suggest that if at some time in the future it is discovered that you have extra sugar, you should endeavour to provide an additional supply for rural housewives, without giving additional consideration to people living in urban centres, because, after all, it is extremely difficult for a man and his wife and, let us say, three children to get along on the present sugar rationing, even without the making of pastries, whereas if I live in a town all I have to do is go to the bakery and procure these things, which, of course, the rural housewife is not able to obtain. So that, while I am not trying to tell the minister how to do it, I suggest that if he finds he has an extra amount of sugar he should try to make it available to housewives in the more remote areas.
In conclusion, may I ask what arrangement has been made to provide canneries or processors engaged in the canning of fruits with sugar?
Mr. ILSLEY': They will be given the sugar they require for light syrup for the canning of fruits.


Frederick Davis Shaw: What quantity is expected, as compared with the volume of processing carried on last year? Do they intend to extend the volume of production?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It will be lower, because the fruit crop will be lighter. There will not be as much fruit available.


Percy Ellis Wright: I should like to say a word in agreement with the speaker who has just taken his seat. If the minister feels that a larger allowance cannot be made to rural housewives, the sooner we have rationing of jams, jellies and marmalades the better, and that distribution should be made equitably across the dominion, so that people in the rural areas will be able to obtain their share of these particular goods. I know that rural stores in outlying areas have not these things on their shelves, and the people living in those areas are not able to obtain them.


Grote Stirling: It is much the same in urban centres.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I believe the fact that the Department of Munitions and Supply has taken the jams and jellies is what has made them so scarce in the stores.


Grote Stirling: You cannot get them here.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In Ottawa I went to seven grocery stores and could not get jam or marmalade.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Of course that is in the one place. I did not mention Ottawa.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But it is the same all across the country. The shortage of jams and jellies in the stores is going to make it so much harder for the housewife, especially one who has a husband or son working in a munition plant, because she needs something with which to make sandwiches, and she cannot get meat.
The minister remarked last year that there were abuses. Last year, if you bought an eleven-quart basket of fruit you were allowed six pounds of sugar if you intended to make it into preserves, and eleven pounds if you intended to make it into jam. The government was at fault in this, because we did not need that much sugar, though in many instances the storekeepers would let you have it. Many a housewife would say, "I do not want eleven pounds; I want only five, or four." Now it is up to the government to find ways and means to have fruit made into preserves or jam with less sugar, and the sooner they get recipes out to the housewives the better for the government.


John Horne Blackmore: Would the minister tell us whether there is any sufficient reason why wholesale and systematic rationing should be more difficult in Canada than it is in Great Britain?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: We live higher.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am informed that there are several reasons.


John Horne Blackmore: I think it would be worth while to have the minister discuss those reasons.


James Lorimer Ilsley: All right, I will do so tomorrow.
Progress reported.


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