1943-02-09

RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 5, to amend the Railway Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. CHURCH:: Mr. Speaker, this bill raises the whole question of soldiers' transportation in Canada. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Railway Act to provide that members of the forces when in uniform may be carried free on railway trains within Canada. In the last war the railways voluntarily carried the members of the forces for single fare on week-ends. Now they carry them every day at half rate. The Railway Act itself does not provide for any special concessions to soldiers during the war, nor has the board of transport commissioners power to order any. In view of the fact that so many of the camps are far away from railways I think that some measure of free transportation should be provided for our troops who are training all over Canada. Furthermore, a large number of them have been killed on the highways when thumbing a ride. The fifty-mile limit on travel by bus over the highways should be suspended so far as soldiers are concerned.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



VICTORY LOANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make two state-
Victory Loans

merits, one a brief one and the other a longer one. The brief statement is with regard to the sales of victory bonds.
As wholly inaccurate statements regarding victory bond sales have been made in certain quarters, I desire to table a statistical compilation showing a classification of the source of subscriptions, at time of issue, to the first, second and third victory loans. The statement has been compiled by the national war finance committee and reveals the amount of each issue purchased by individual investors; by banking institutions for their own account; by dominion, provincial and municipal government agencies or funds; by insurance companies, pension funds, etc.; by trust and mortgage companies, etc.; by colleges, churches, hospitals and charitable organizations; and by business firms and corporations.
For the information of the house I may point out that preliminary figures for the third victory loan show total subscriptions by individuals of $401-1 millions, leaving $590-4 millions representing the total purchases of all other kinds of buyers. Government agencies or funds purchased $54-5 millions; insurance companies, pension funds, etc., $176-7 millions; trust and mortgage companies, etc., $11-3 millions; colleges, churches, hospitals and charitable organizations, $3-3 millions; mining companies, $43-6 millions; other business firms and corporations, $298 millions; and banks, $3 millions.
Of the $3 millions purchased by banks, $2-5 millions were purchased by the Quebec savings banks and the remaining $-5 millions by the chartered banks. In the first victory loan the chartered banks had purchased for cash only $6-7 millions and in the second victory loan there were no cash subscriptions by chartered banks-although, of course, in both cases there were conversion subscriptions by the banks. I stress .the insignificant volume of the purchases by the chartered banks because I fear the impression has been given in some quarters that the chartered banks have been among the largest purchasers of these securities. As the house knows, we have actively discouraged the participation by the chartered banks in the purchases of victory bonds except in those cases where a shortterm, low interest-bearing bond was offered as part of a victory loan issue for the purpose of converting a maturing issue already held by the banks.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sumbury):: Before the minister proceeds, will he say whether the statement covers dispositions and sales of victory bonds, say, by other investors such as corporations? My understanding is that a large number of corporations have sold their first and second victory loan bonds and others are still holding them for resale.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member means, does it cover the number of sales?


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


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course that is the fly in the ointment.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is not very serious.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is not? Well, I think it is.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am tabling this statement. It follows:
First, Second and Third Victory Loans
Estimated Derivation of Subscriptions at Time of Issue
The attached memorandum contains the estimated derivation of subscriptions, at time of issue, to the first, second, and third victory loans. Figures in regard to the third victory loan are preliminary, as the final results of this loan are not yet compiled.
The subscriptions to each loan are divided into two broad classes, designated Individuals and Non-individuals.
The group designated Individuals includes two sub-divisions, described as special names and all others. Special names individuals represents subscriptions received from investors believed to be capable of buying $25,000 or more par value of bonds at the time of each issue. The group shown as all others represents subscriptions received in the general and employee canvasses. This group includes subscriptions from small commercial and non-profit bodies, the aggregate subscriptions from which would be relatively small in proportion to the total.
The Non-individuals section has been subdivided to show subscriptions from banks for their own account; government accounts; insurance companies, pension funds, etc.; and miscellaneous, this latter group reflecting, for the most part, subscriptions from business firms and corporations.
These data have been compiled by the National War Finance Committee from information obtained at the time of public offering of the three loans, and from other sources. The data should be regarded as estimates, and the results of the third victory loan should be regarded as subject to revision when final results of the loan become available.


Victory Loans in 1941 and 1942-Estimated Derivation or Subscriptions at Time of Issue
(Dollar Figures in Millions)
Item	First Victory loan	Second Victory loan	(Preliminary) Third Victory loan CashCash	Conversion	Total	Cash	Conversion	Total	$	*	$	$	s	$	$All Subscriptions	730-4	106-4	836-8	843-1	153-6	996-7	991-5Individuals (1)	3160	35-3	351-3	364-6	1-0	365-6	401-1Non-individuals	414-4	71-1	485-5	478-5	152-6	631-1	590-4Individuals-	(a) Special Names	36-5	0-8	37-3	29-0	1-0	30-0	26-3279-5	34-5	314-0	335-6	335-6	374-8
Non-individuals-							
6-7	42-5	49-2	117-5	117-5	3070	7-0	1-7	1-7	6-7	35-5	42-2	115-8	115-8	0-5(iii) Quebec Savings	(2)	(2)	(2)	(2)	(2)	(2)	2-531 -6	31-6	47-1	47-1	54-59-9	9-9	19-6	19-6	22-7\ 21-7	21-7	27-5	27-5	(18-6(iii) Municipal and school	I	\13-2(c) Insurance companies, pension funds, etc	95-5	22-2	117-7	125-6	23-9	149-5	176-7(i) Life insurance companies	88-9	20-4	109-3	114-7	23-4	138-1	155-3(ii) All other insurance companies	6-6	1-8	8-4	10-9	0-5	11-4	12-4(iii) Associations, unions, pension and benevolent funds....	(2)	(2)	(2)	(2)	(2)	(2)	9-0(d) Miscellaneous	280-6	6-4	287-0	305-8	11-2	317-0	356-2(i) Mining companies	39-1	39-1	29-4	8-5	37-9	43-6(ii) Trust companies, investment trusts, mortgage and	(2)	(2)	(2)	(2)	(2)	(2)	11-3(iii) Colleges, churches, hospitals, and charitable organi-	zations	(2)	(2)	(2)	(2)	(2)	(2)	3-3(iv) All others, being practically all subscriptions from	business firms and corporations	241-5	6-4	247-9	276-4	2-7	279-1	298-0(1)	Includes small commercial and non-profit bodies, the aggregate subscriptions from which would be relatively unimportant.(2)	Not separately calculated, included under sub-section (d) (iv).
to
s

Wartime Prices and Trade Board



WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Lorimer Ilsley: The other statement I wish to make is with regard to the wartime prices and trade board.
There has in recent months been some discussion in the press on relationships between the wartime prices and trade board and the Department of Agriculture and during the past ten days the subject has been raised in the house. It seems desirable, therefore, to make a statement regarding these relationships. The occasion also presents an opportunity for announcing certain other changes in jurisdiction affecting relationships between the Department of Finance and the Department of Munitions and Supply.
The wartime prices and trade board was created by the government on September 3, 1939, with the responsiblity and the necessary powers to control prices and under wartime conditions to ensure adequate supply and equitable distribution of civilian goods and services.	*
During the earlier stages of the war the frequent exercise of its mandatory powers was not warranted foy the circumstances, and the board in respect of the commodities under its jurisdiction was able effectively to control prices and ensure adequate supply by anticipating and preventing distribution shortages with the minimum use of formal orders.
As the war progressed, as we approached the stage of total mobilization, the board's powers were further extended and it became more and more necessary to exercise its formal powers of regulations. Fifteen months ago the stage was reached when far-reaching and almost universal controls of prices and of other aspects of our economic structure became necessary, if we were to avoid inflation and secure, so far as war conditions permit, adequate supply and equitable distribution.
In the development of these controls and of other controls in other government departments, it was inevitable that some overlapping should occur and some uncertainty of jurisdiction arise. Such a situation began to develop in 1941 between the wartime prices and trade board and the Department of Munitions and Supply, and this was clarified by arrangements made and announced in August of that year.
I think quite a number of hon. members still may not realize the tremendous inflationary pressure that has been developing in Canada during the past eighteen months 
and how severe and complicated a task it is ho prevent these pressures breaking out into a violent and uncontrolled price inflation that would jeopardize our war effort. In spite of what we have felt to be very severe taxation, in spite of the tremendous and gratifying success of our loan and savings campaigns, *the pressure of free consumer purchasing *power on the necessarily limited supply of consumer goods shows few signs of diminishing.
During the complicated period of organization of these new price and supply controls in the past year, things have had to be done quickly, and one result has been a blurring of the lines of responsibility between the wartime prices and trade board and the Department of Agriculture. Let me say at once .that there have been frequent and detailed consultations between the departments concerned, but time has not always permitted either party to assess all the implications of the actions of one upon the other.
In recent weeks this matter has been fully reviewed by the Minister of Agriculture and myself with the result that a full understanding has been reached between the wartime *prices and trade board and the Department of Agriculture, overlapping has been eliminated *and clear-cut responsibilities established.
The new definition of functions presents no substantially new alignment of authority, but clarifies the basic considerations which have always applied, but which under the pressure of events have at times become confused. Such clarifications of relationships are a frequent, almost continuous, aspect of governmental administration and do not normally warrant a statement to the house. In this case, however, there has developed a good deal of speculation in the press and in some instances this speculation has given rise to greatly exaggerated ideas. of the administrative difficulties which have arisen. It, therefore, seems appropriate to advise the house as to what the relationships between the Department of Agriculture and the wartime prices and trade board are.	-
The wartime prices and trade board is responsible to the Minister of Finance and, subject to that responsibility:
1.	It is responsible for estimating and defining the over-all domestic needs for food. Such estimates will be prepared and from time to time revised in consultation with the other departments or agencies concerned.
2.	It is responsible for food imports and their distribution subject to' existing laws and regulations.
3.	It has the final responsibility in all matters of price.
4.	It is responsible for all consumer rationing of foods.

Wartime Prices and Trade Board
The Department of Agriculture, on the other hand, is responsible for the primary production of agricultural foodstuffs, and it has certain functions to perform in the distribution of agricultural products. In order to clarify relationships with the wartime prices and trade board, the following working principles have been adopted:
1.	The Department of Agriculture is responsible for seeing that the greatest possible production is forthcoming within the price ceilings established by the wartime prices and trade board.
2.	If the desired production cannot be obtained within established price ceilings, there will be consultation between the Department of Agriculture and the wartime prices and trade board. Such consultation will include consideration of subsidies, price adjustments, or a decision to regard the estimated deficiency of supply as non-essential.
3.	Recommendations to council respecting subsidies to primary producers will be made by the Minister of Agriculture. Consumer subsidies, however, that is those designed specifically to reduce costs to the consumer, will be the responsibility of the wartime prices and trade board but any such subsidies relating to agricultural products produced in Canada will be a subject of consultation with the Department of Agriculture.
4.	Export of such foods as are made available under contract to the united nations (except wheat for milling or flour, which are under Trade and Commerce) will be supervised by the Department of Agriculture.
5.	All other steps necessary and desirable for the encouragement of domestic food production by primary producers rest with the Department of Agriculture rather than the wartime prices and trade board.
In the matter of distribution the Department of Agriculture is responsible for any necessary diversion of meat products, dairy products, poultry products, and fresh or dried fruits and vegetables to the armed forces and Other priority users in accordance with approved allocations. Distribution to retailers and to ultimate civilian consumers is the responsibility of the board. To avoid duplication of services and staff there will be the closest possible cooperation between the board and the department in the inter-area wholesale movement of foodstuffs for civilian consumption. Wherever possible the use of existing machinery and mutual use of employees and offices will be arranged.
Hon. members will see from this statement that the lines of demarcation are simple and 72537-17i
clear. In essence, the Department of Agriculture is responsible for production by primary producers, for export arrangements under contract to meet the needs of Great Britain and the united nations and, where its field organization is already functioning, for interarea distribution and transfer of supplies as; required. The wartime prices and trade-board is responsible for imports, and for wholesale and retail distribution. The board' also has final responsibility in all matters of price and rationing. Wherever there are mutual: interests, there will be the fullest consultation-,, interchange of information, and cooperations -and mutual use of offices and staff.
In this statement I have dealt with the wartime prices and trade board's relationships -to the Department of Agriculture. A similar clarification of relationships with the Department of Fisheries has also been reached.
Another rearrangement in jurisdiction with a view to clarification of duties and responsibilities has been arrived at between the wartime industries control board of the Department of Munitions and Supply and the Department of Finance, and has to do with certain domestic end products of a civilian character heretofore under the jurisdiction -of the controller of supplies, and to the control over coal and- wood fuel.
In the division of jurisdiction between the Departments of Munitions and Supply and Finance, more particularly between the wartime industries control board and the wartime -prices and trade board, there is, as I have said, a certain amount of inevitable overlapping of authority, but in so far as it is possible to state a general principle, it is that jurisdiction over -basic materials or end products, the principal use of which is for war purposes, should rest with the wartime industries control board, while those which, are primarily of a civilian nature should be with the wartime prices and trade board.
Prior to the introduction of the price ceiling policy and the establishment of industry -administrators by the war-time prices and trade board, a number of end -products of a civilian -nature were declared -to be "supplies" and were brought under the jurisdiction of -the controller of supplies, mo-t because the end products themselves were direct war requirements, -but primarily because of their critical' material content. These items have now been transferred from the controller of supplies to the appropriate industry administrators of the wartime prices and trade board.
In line with the general principle the control of oil, electrical energy and gas rests with the

Wartime Prices and Trade Board
Department of Munitions and Supply through the wartime industries control board, but coal and wood fuel have been with agencies of the Department of Finance.
At one stage in the development of controls this arrangement was satisfactory, but the growing shortages of coal and wood fuel emphasize the desirability of centralized control over all forms of fuel in order to facilitate production planning. Moreover production of wood fuel is closely related to the timber control under the Department of Munitions and Supply. It is therefore proposed to transfer control over both coal and wood fuel to the Department of Munitions and Supply, which will now be responsible for ill domestic primary production other than agricultural or fisheries products.
When these rearrangements have been completed responsibility for primary production will be clearly established. The Department of Agriculture or Fisheries will be responsible for the primary production of food, and the Department of Munitions and Supply for the primary output of the mines and forests.
These rearrangements will also serve to clarify the authority of the wartime prices and trade board in the fields of civilian distribution and supply. The board is responsible for imports for civilian consumption, for manufacturing of civilian goods and for wholesale and retail distribution and has full responsibility in all matters of price and consumer rationing with the exception of gasoline rationing which remains with the Department of Munitions and Supply.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: In what material respect does that alter the relationship that has heretofore existed between the wartime prices and trade board and the Department 'of Agriculture?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is a clarification.


Gordon Graydon: It is a clarification, but is there any actual change in the relationship between the Department of Agriculture and the wartime prices and trade board?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think that I can give any further explanation than is contained in the statement.


Gordon Graydon: If it is a clarification, then there is no actual change in principle in the relationship.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This is just one instance of the application of these principles. Certain producer subsidies have been paid. They have been recommended and paid by the wartime

prices and trade board agencies and hereafter recommendations with regard to subsidies will come from the Department of Agriculture because of the clarification of their position as being charged with primary responsibility for agricultural production.


Gordon Graydon: It may be a clarification in the public mind of the relationship between the wartime prices and trade board and the Department of Agriculture, but the minister well knows that throughout Canada there has been a strong plea, particularly on the part of the agricultural interests, for the setting up of a food ministry and a food board under it to avoid the mistakes of the past which have led to the conditions that now exist. Did the minister in his statement really mean that there was to be some change in the relationship between the board and the Department of Agriculture? It seems to me that mere clarification is not sufficient to cover the situation as it exists.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On] the orders of the day:
Mr. iE. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle): I wish to direct two or three questions to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. On Tuesday last he tabled the report of the Canadian Wheat Board for the year 1941-42. I should like to know, first, how he proposes to have this report considered this year and what opportunity will be given members to get information with respect to it. May I suggest [DOT]to 'him .that the report be referred to a special committee of, say, ten or eleven, rather than to the agriculture committee, which was very unwieldy last year in dealing with the report. I wonder if he would take that suggestion into consideration.
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board is at present in the hands of the printers. I expect to have it for distribution to members by the end of this week or possibly to-morrow. It has been my intention to have the report referred to the committee on agriculture. I shall take into consideration the suggestion made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.


Mr. PERLEY:: One more question. The
minister announced last week the new policy with regard to marketing of production. Can he indicate whether there will be any special

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
bill with respect to the marketing of wheat this year, or will it be done by order in council?


James Angus MacKinnon: There is no intention of introducing any special bill.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, February 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. E. Harris (Grey-Bruce) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Graydon, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the discussion of the motion which was so ably moved by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, and seconded by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Halle). I wish to join with all those who have spoken before me, and, I am sure, with all those who will speak after me, in expressing my own appreciation, and that of the people I represent in this house, of the clear and able manner in which those hon. gentlemen presented to the house their views on matters having to do with the carrying on of the most important task of this nation at the present time, namely, the prosecution of the war.
I rise this afternoon to answer the suggestion made in the amendment -moved by the official opposition rather than to discuss the speech from the throne generally or to debate at length the amendment to the amendment moved by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group (Mr. Cold-well). My reason for stating that at this time is that a part of the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) is to all intents and purposes a motion of want of confidence in the government, and particularly in the administration of the Department of Agriculture. Since this is the first opportunity that a minister has had to reply, I wish to confine my remarks largely to the part of that amendment which has to do with agriculture.
The criticisms which have been made by speakers in different parts of the house during the discussions have had some reference to matters which were dealt with a few moments ago by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). Since a statement has been made covering those matters it is not my intention to go into them, other -than to say that the line of
demarcation of responsibility which has been indicated emphasizes -the necessity of the Department of Agriculture giving even greater consideration from now on to the matter of production than has been given in the years since the war began.
The criticisms which have been made with regard to matters of policy have had to do largely with questions of production. Running through the speeches that have been made, there has been a suggestion of shortage in production of farm products. It will have been noted that in his statement the Minister of Finance refers to distribution shortages rather than to production shortages. I should like to put in another clause what we are usually referring to when we in this house and others outside the house speak of Shortages. The clause I would rather use is this, that requirements for food increases have grown faster than production. There has not been a shortage of production in this country, nor has there been a shortage in the sense in which we speak of shortages in peace time. Whenever we have had sufficient production of any commodity in Canada to permit of exports we have always spoken of having surpluses. We have greater surpluses of farm products in Canada in that sense at the present time than we have ever had. It is scarcely correct, therefore, to say that we have food shortages in Canada.
I think a warning should be thrown out in regard to this matter for another reason. The amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition reads:
That the following words be added to the address:	.
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed:
(c) to provide adequate measures whereby Canadian agriculture can make its maximum war contribution and receive a fair share of the national income.
I have before me an important publication known as The Statist, which is widely read throughout the English-speaking world and which is considered to be an authority on matters relating to production in the different parts of the English-speaking world. I should like to throw out a warning to hon. members as well as to publishers in Canada as to the effect of the kind of discussion we sometime carry on has upon those who are thinking of our position outside of Canada. The heading of this article is: "Anti-Inflation Measures in Canada," and the writer states:
But apart from wheat there is little surplus farm production and the people of Canada have, for instance, been asked to eat less bacon so that more can be shipped to Great Britain.
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

This statement fully understood may have no bad effect, but not fully understood it may give an impression in many quarters outside of Canada that we in Canada are suffering for lack of sufficient food for our own people and for that reason are not able to do our share in the war effort. I am sure no hon. member is desirous of having that impression go abroad, partly because of the assurance it might give to our enemies, and partly because of the difficulty it might create for those who are arranging the food supplies for the nations with which we are associated in t'he war. I would emphasize again the fact that never before in the history of this country has there been such a large tonnage of foodstuffs produced in Canada as is being produced at the present time. I am not saying that never before have we received as much for the produce of our farms, but I might even make that statement, and probably will before I have concluded my remarks. But at the moment what I am emphasizing is that in actual production of food, apart altogether from the price received for it by farmers, a greater tonnage is being produced now than at any previous time in the history of our country.
The question may be asked, how have we arrived at that position? We have done so because of the efforts put forth by primary producers in agriculture to meet the requisitions made upon them from time to time by the government of this country.
Here I should like to reply to statements of those who say that no direction has been given to the farmers. It would appear that the only persons who feel that way are those who do not occupy farms. We are being told from time to time, in periodicals and otherwise, that no direction has been given to our people. But the remarkable thing is that every year since the war began our tonnage of production has increased by leaps and bounds, and in every year since the war started we have met the objectives which have been set for our people at the beginning of the production season. Farmers seemed to know what they were being asked to do; they applied the necessary energy to the task and got the results. This is my reply to those who say there has been no plan, no direction, that nothing has been made known to the farmers generally to lead them to produce the things that are needed in the war effort.
In order to make sure that this information would go out to the farmers the government set up at the beginning of the war an agricultural war supplies committee. That committee or board has functioned since the beginning of the war. Nine conferences
lMr. Gardiner.]
have been held, attended by representatives of provincial governments and of farm organizations throughout Canada. At every one of these conferences, held not later than December in each year preceding the year in which the crop was to be grown, these matters were fully discussed with provincial authorities and representatives of farm organizations. The first gathering was held in the early winter of 1939. The provincial representatives then went back and organized fully the provincial departments of agriculture, and some of them went out and organized farm groups, municipalities and counties, to assist in giving the necessary information to the farmers in the different sections of their province. Finally in December of this year we had a meeting at which we were able to take into consideration not only the requirements from agriculture in this countiy but the requirements from agriculture in the great country in the south, which joined in the war in the early winter of 1941. Having set up this board, we then entered into agreements or understandings with the countries fighting on our side The first agreements naturally were made with Great Britain. It will be recalled by hon. members that we entered the war along with Britain, in association with France. In the spring of 1940 France dropped out, and during the greater part of 1940 and 1941 Great Britain, with her dominions, stood alone in the war effort against the axis powers. During that period of time we entered into agreements with the British government, and made known the terms of those agreements to the farmers long in advance of their spring operations, emphasizing the importance of producing the amounts necessary in order that our own people and the people of Britain might be fed.
That was the second effort put forth in order to get production. We made an early announcement of policy. The other day I picked up a farm publication issued in Canada, edited by a man who visits the department perhaps more than any other publisher in Canada, and I was surprised to read therein that the farm policy for last year on acreage reduction was announced on the last day of the session. I directed attention to the fact that the legislation having to do with acreage reduction last year was introduced in this house on March 9 and was finally assented to on March 27.
I recite this only in order to indicate that the statement is made in spite of the fact that we have announced our policies in November and December of the year preceding the seeding; in spite of the fact that our legislation has been brought down early in the session, and in spite

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
of the fact that this year we brought it down so early, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) rose in his place to raise some objection based upon a statement which came from the west with regard to the announcement which was made on the first working day of this session. But I am happy to be able to say to the house to-day that the organization which met in Calgary met the . government again to-day, and indicated in their statement that they have received an explanation from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon), who made the original announcement, which is entirely satisfactory to them.
So much for the announcements. The government has not stopped at planning and at making early announcements of the programme for the succeeding year; we have also given financial assistance by way of subsidies. I am not going to discuss the question of subsidies at any length, but assistance has been given by the payment of a part of the freight upon fertilizer, in order that farms may produce more than otherwise would be the case. Assistance has been given through the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and the wheat acreage reduction scheme, in order to increase the production of grass and to bring water to land that otherwise could not produce live stock. Assistance has been given by paying part of the freight on feed grain from Fort William to eastern Canada. This freight and fertilizer assistance has cost the government from $10,000,000 to $12,000,000 and has been of great help in increasing production in various parts of this country. I should add that this assistance was not given only to the movement of grain eastward and the movement of fertilizer within the eastern section of Canada; it also has been given in the province of British Columbia. In recent months, since the United States entered the war, it has been the custom of officials of the departments of agriculture of the United States and Canada to meet from time to time and coordinate the efforts of the two countries in the production of the foodstuffs necessary to the most vigorous prosecution of the war by the allied nations.
Perhaps now for a few moments I might dwell upon the results of the efforts which have been made to obtain greater production. Someone has spoken of shortages. What is the basis of the production of all animal products in this or any other country? Is it not the feed available for the production of live stock? When one looks at it from another point of view one realizes that while wheat is the basic cereal food of the people of Canada and of those who live in Great Britain and the United States, there are many
European countries in which wheat is not the 'basic cereal food. Barley, rye-even oats, in Scotland-are very important cereal food products in other countries. What is the position in Canada? Not only are our elevators bulging with the wheat that is stored in them; the bins of the farms are running over. Much of the coarse grain of this country is piled in heaps on the prairies, and some of the bountiful crop which was produced in Canada last year is not yet harvested. Still some people talk about shortages dn Canada. We have wheat; we have oats; we have barley; we have rye; we have flax, all in surpluses so great that now the farmer is concerned as to how he can turn his grain into cash in order that he may go on and produce a crop next year.
I make that statement in order to emphasize another point. Last night the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) delivered a speech which displayed a vision of the future upon which I think he is to be congratulated. But I should like to emphasize the fact that it takes eight pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef, and five pounds of grain to produce one pound of pork. Under emergency conditions a man can live just as long on a pound of grain as on a pound of meat. If the task before this country is that which was outlined to us last night, as I am sure it is, the task of storing in this country foods which will enable us to assist those who will be joining our ranks as we advance toward victory, there is no food product that can be stored in Canada which will do more in that direction than cereal products such as barley, oats, rye and wheat. In other words under emergency conditions a man can be maintained ait least five times as long by feeding him grain than by feeding him meat products produced from the grain.
I mention this in order to indicate that we in this country are fortunate in being producers of a product which can be stored so easily. The great task before us at the moment, Mr. Speaker, is to produce food in order that we may assist in winning the war. And while I am hopeful that the war may end much earlier than I really think it will, basing my conclusions upon a survey of the world as I see it to-day, I think all will agree that we must put forth an effort in every line of activity in order to see to it that the efforts which have been made by Russia, and by United States and British troops in the northern part of Africa during the last few months, may materialize in a push in the future which will bring this war to an end earlier than we expect.
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

Having said this, Mr. Speaker, may I add that in spite of the fact that you can keep a man eight times as iong on grain as you can keep him on beef fed from the grain, and five times as long on grain as you can on pork fed from the grain, in an emergency, over a long period you cannot have a balanced ration composed entirely of cereals for a people. When we look at the activities of Britain since the war began and match them with activities in this country, we must keep that thought in mind.
Prior to the war Britain was a producer of live-stock products in great quantity. She produced cattle. She paid a bonus on cattle for years before the war started, in order that people might import them and keep them walking around in the pastures for at least three months in order that they might be available in the form of fresh meat if necessary. But since the war started Britain has been insisting upon her people ploughing up the great pasture lands upon which cattle were pastured, lands which were the basis of the production of dairy products, and has insisted upon the production of cereals. The whole reason for this action arises out of what I stated a few moments ago. If submarine warfare is successful in blockading the British isles for a month or two months, cereal products during that emergency will keep a man much longer, pound for pound, than will meat products, or even dairy products, produced from the grain. Britain having taken this action in self-defence, she has said to those of us who are her friends and who are further removed from the scenes of battle, "Produce other necessities for us." And in spite of the fact that we can store foods in grain form cheaper and more effectively than we can any other kind of food, we are asking our Canadian people to produce meat-to produce pork, beef, cheese, butter; and milk which can be powdered and sent over to the British people at once.
What have we done? We have doubled the production of hogs slaughtered in this country. Seventy per cent of all hogs marketed in Canada are consumed in the British isles. When anyone says that there is a shortage of hogs in Canada, then I point out to him that we have a surplus of seventy per cent because of the policy being followed in this country at the present time.
What about cheese? At the beginning of the war we had a production of cheese which was very low as compared with present production. We started in with an objective of some time reaching 200,000,000 pounds. This is the amount of cheese we produced in Canada about the year 1900. We reached that

200,000,000 pounds, Mr. Speaker, this year. We reached that 200,000,000 pounds - and with what result? More than seventy per cent of all we produce is surplus and goes to Britain to help feed the British people, who in turn are growing cereals in order that they may meet any emergency which may be forced upon their country.
What about cattle? The other day when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was speaking in the debate a question was asked him across the floor of the house. He stated that the reason for rationing of butter in Canada, and the reason it had been suggested it might be necessary to have rationing of beef, was that we had been attempting to fulfil our trade agreement with Great Britain. Since that time at least two hon. members, during the time I have been in my seat, have challenged that statement. One went so far as to say it was incorrect.
Anyone who understands agriculture as it is carried on in Ontario and Quebec knows that there is a close association between the price which prevails for cheese and butter, and the production of those two products. Everyone in the house knows, too, that when the price paid for cheese is 20 cents a pound, and premiums and subsidies on top of that bring the price up to 24 cents a pound, a price lower than 40 cents for a pound of butter will not bring about an increase in its production in this country.
If we go back to the year before last, what do we find? Every agent from Britain who came to this country, every person who discussed the question on this side of the Atlantic, and every agent of ours who went to the other side and brought back a message to Canada, stated that Britain required cheese and wanted it even as against butter. We have shipped no butter to Britain since the war started. But butter is made from exactly the same kind of milk as is cheese. And when we pay a price in agreement with Great Britain which induces the production of cheese at the expense of butter, of course we render necessary the control of the consumption of butter in this country. This is exactly what was implied in the remarks of the Prime Minister the other day.
When I attempted to correct a statement made in the house by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), he said: But I am talking about beef. Well, the same is true, in another way, with regard to beef. When a man sits down to his dinner table and finds on it a roast of pork, unless he is a Yorkshireman he probably does not find a roast of beef there too. If he is a Yorkshireman he may also find the beef. However as a rule when we eat pork

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
we do not eat beef, and when we eat beef we do not eat pork.
We were exporting 300,000 head of cattle- heavy cattle, light cattle, calves, and breeding stock-to the United) States at the beginning of the war. And we were exporting just as many the year before last as we exported in any previous year. Last year, down to the first of July, we exported more cattle to the United States than we had in preceding years. We exported 121,000 head of beef cattle in the year 1942 to the United States, and there have been no exports since about the month of September. I give these figures to indicate that even in the matter of beef it is not a question of a shortage in this country. It is a matter of a transition from a period when we were feeding two-year-old steers for market in this country to a period when we are feeding three-year-old steers to be marketed one year later. That we are not able to get on our tables the kind of beef we desire is not because there is a shortage of beef in Canada, but because that six-months' period is required in order to make the transition from one form of feeding to the other. While, therefore, we have found it necessary to close off exports to the United States and1 to cut down on the consumption of pork, both have been made necessary by the fact that we must ship more and more bacon and ham to Great Britain in order to assist in feeding the British people.
May I say a word or two about some of our other products? What shortages have we in Canada? Certainly we have no shortage of apples. We have been begging every country in the world to take apples, ever since the beginning of the war. We have begged every country into which we could ship our products under war conditions.
It certainly has not been beans. We have been coaxing the British and) United States governments to take more beans from this country, every year since the war started. It certainly has not been potatoes. One member who raised the question in the house cabled me when I was in Britain in 1940 to ask if I could not get an order there for potatoes, pointing out we had a surplus of potatoes in this country. But when I came back and told him that they were growing potatoes over there in every backyard and had millions of bushels of them, he realized', of course, that potatoes were a surplus in this country; and, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the remark made yesterday by one hon. member, potatoes are still a surplus in this country. Every potato grower knows that; every wholesaler knows it. Some difficulties in distribution have to be ironed out; there are always difficulties in distribution when you attempt to impose upon the people controls to which they have
72537-1*	p rifl REVISED
not been accustomed. But when those difficulties have been ironed out the distribution of potatoes in this country will meet the demands of the people of Canada.
Let me repeat; we have surpluses in all these important staple products in Canada, and these surpluses are being utilized1 to assist the allied countries in feeding their peoples. We shall have food when we have crossed the boundary lines of countries which are now enemy occupied. We shall have food produced in those countries when we have advanced far enough into them to permit of agriculture being carried on behind the lines. The food of our own people in surplus and the food of these people of Europe will be used to assist the allies in winning the war through food as well as through the use of bullets and machines of war.
But there has been one limitation upon the production of the kind of food our allies require during the years since the beginning of the war. In spite of all the effort that we could put into it there was a limit upon production, and that limit was the feed available. We had had a series of poor crops across Canada in the years immediately preceding the war. We had another poor crop in Canada in 1941. When I say to this house that on July 31, 1942, there was only one month's supply of feed in Canada, it will be realized what the limiting factor was in 194142. It was feed. Even had we had ten times as much labour as we had during that period we should not have been able to raise more live stock, we should not have been able to finish more live stock unless we did what was advised by some people, namely, to feed) our wheat. I do not know just how many farmers there are in this house, but every farmer here knows that there is a limit to the amount of wheat that you can feed to live stock. Everyone knows that if you attempted to keep horses on wheat you very soon would not have any horses. Everyone knows that if you attempted to feed cattle on nothing but wheat, unless you had an expert doing it, you probably would not have cattle very long. Perhaps this does not apply in the same measure to the feeding of hogs and chickens; nevertheless even there a proper rationed feed will do much better for the stock, for the farmer and for the country than the feeding of wheat itself.
What has happened with respect to wheat? We fed twice as much wheat in 1942 as we had fed in previous years. We gave special freight rates on wheat shipped to the east for feeding purposes. Wheat was fed from one end of the country to the other until the amount fed in that year was double the amount fed in preceding years. In spite of that fact.



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Gardiner
[Stage Direction]
on July 31, 1942, we had only one month's feed supply on hand. Members will tell me that that was not so bad because we had the best crop standing that we have ever seen grow in Canada. But we did mot know that when we bred the sows in December of the preceding year. We did not know it when we bred the cows in 1941. We did not know it when we were deciding whether to sell our milk to a cheese factory or to a creamery in the spring of 1942. We did not know until well on in July that we were going to be able to harvest that crop and make it available to the people of this country. So that the limiting factor down to the first of August, 1942, was our supply of grain.
But the government did not wait until 1942 to start to do something about that. We brought regulations into this house and we stated that we were in a hurry to get them through because of the necessity of having feed grain planted instead of wheat. What happened? The house held those regulations up day after day, and it was only by herculean efforts on the part of members, especially of the government, that we were able to get them through the house in sufficient time to let the farmers of western Canada know what was expected of them. That was in the spring of 1941. We repeated that action in the spring of 1942, and with what result? The result was that our lands in western Canada were cultivated in the manner in which they should always be cultivated, with a very considerable percentage of them under summer-fallow. When we sowed coarse grains and wheat on summer-fallowed lands in the spring of 1942, and when we had favourable weather conditions, even with a reduction of seven million acres in wheat in western Canada, we produced more wheat that year than we ever produced before.
What was our limitation in 1941-42? Our limitation was feed grain. We had twice as much feed grain when we harvested our crop of 1942 as we obtained from our crop of 1941. So that through the policies of this government-
Mr. COLD WELL:: And the rain.


James Garfield Gardiner: And the rain, yes. So that through the policies of this government- and I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the government always likes to work along with those who send the rain-we had the land ready, and one only has to read the scriptures to find out what that means: if you have your land prepared well in advance and your seed planted at the right time and the showers come and the sun beats down upon 
the land, you get a crop. And that happened in 1942.
In the spring of 1942 when those who represented the farm organizations came to Ottawa, they asked a natural question: What is the government going to do to assist eastern farmers to get feed grain? When you were putting this measure through the house in 1941, members expressed the fear that you would so glut the market with coarse grains that we would be unable to market ours in eastern Canada, or that if we fed those grains to live stock in western Canada we would have so much live stock that we would not be able to market live stock produced in eastern Canada. I must say this for those representatives, that almost without exception the men who said that in 1941 got up in 1942 and said that they were wrong in 1941 and that they were going to join with the government in its policy of 1942 of attempting to get meat supplies and oil supplies to send to our allies in this war.
Let me repeat: it was not hindsight on the part of the government that got the results in 1942; it was not lack of planning; it was not that they did not give information to the farmers across Canada. The results that were obtained in 1942 were based upon the sound policies which had had their inception at the beginning of the war and have been developed constantly from the beginning of the war down to the present time. Might I say that the announcement made to-day by the Minister of Finance is just another indication that the government is keeping abreast of the situation in connection with production across this country.
Then I think I hear someone saying, If there is no shortage, why did you need rationing of butter? Why did you need to talk about rationing of something else? I should like to tell a story which illustrates a point. When I was in Washington in January I met a man who turned out to be a newspaper reporter. Newspaper reporters are usually looking for information; and) he saidi this to me, "I notice you have rationed butter in Canada." I said, "Yes, we have." He said, "What do you mean by saying you have rationed butter?
I notice you are giving your people twenty-six pounds per head." I said, "Yes. They were eating thirty-two pounds before." "Well," he said, "that is far more butter than we eat down here. Our figures indicate that we eat only half that much." Well, I brought up a question which has been mentioned in this house from time to time-the consumption of oleomargarine; and he said, "Oh, but that makes up only about one-eighteenth of the

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
amount." We went on discussing the matter and finally agreed that there is a great deal of vegetable oils consumed all across the south country, consumed on vegetables instead of securing fats from animal production, but having the same results. After we counted all the figures we found that the individual on the other side of the line is eating about the same amount of butter plus oils as the individual in Canada eats of butter plus oils. So that when we talk about dealing with our people on this side of the line in -the same way that they are dealing with their people on the other side of the line, we must take all the facts into consideration. It is not sufficient to say that in the United States they are rationing a product down to a certain level, and that therefore it must be rationed down to the same level in this country. We must take all the substitutes into consideration, and having done so, I believe every hon. member will agree that since we are in this war together we cannot build up on this side of the line a condition in relation to the feeding of our people which differs from the condition on the other side of the line, without creating a wrong impression. There may be a necessity for rationing to make greater supplies available to our allies even if there is no shortage of food products.
Or go, as I did a few months ago, to Britain. The British said to us: We want so much of a certain product if you can give it to us; and ever since the beginning of the war this government has taken the position that if it is at all possible to give Britain or any other of our allies the food supplies necessary to the winning of the war, even if it means a regulation of the supplies to our own people, we prefer to give those supplies to the men and women who are in the front line of battle and fighting or suffering attack from day to day.
Again, Mr. Speaker, if it were not for rumours, if it were not for the publicity given to what are sometimes facts, we might not need to ration in this country. When a housewife goes to the butcher shop in war time and finds that she cannot get the cut which she desires from beef, or probably any beef at all, and the butcher says, "You might take lamb, or chicken, or turkey," somebody learns of that and writes it up as a story-usually not the housewife; usually someone else. In peace time what did we do under similar circumstances? We walked down the street a halfmile to another store and usually were able to find, if not exactly what we wanted, a reasonable substitute therefor. If we were doing that to-day in respect of food products we would not have as much agitation 72637-18i
for rationing as we have. But even if we do the very best we can, even if we kill every rumour at its inception, when it is decided to cut down the supplies to the civilian population to absolute necessities there must be some kind of regulation of distribution, otherwise some will be left with nothing and others will have too much. So that it is not necessarily shortage in production which brings about rationing; it may be a shortage occasioned by the methods or incidence of distribution. We have had rationing of tea, of sugar and of coffee. All these are products which are produced in large volume outside this country and shipped in, and we have rationing because of an interference with shipping between those countries and Canada brought about by the war. Exactly the same reason brought about rationing at the beginning of the war in Britain, and in the end will bring rationing of some products in most countries.
Someone else says that labour has been a limiting factor in the production of our farms. I have been reviewing the speeches of hon. members opposite in other sessions, and I find that in every session since the war started there have been men on the other side of the house who have said that because of a labour shortage on farms it will be impossible to reach the objectives set by the department. One of those hon. gentlemen has already spoken in this debate and has made the same statement. He made it in 1941 and 1942; he has now made it in 1943. On each of the other occasions, in spite of any shortages of labour there may have been, we did reach those objectives. When anyone asks me whether labour is a limiting factor in production on farms, I say: it has been a limiting factor on a certain type of farm ever since the war began. And what type of farm is that? It is the type of farm from which every last son joined the army or the air force or the navy in the first weeks of the war. Why did they do it? They did it because they thought it was the most necessary thing to do at that time in order to bring this war to a successful conclusion as soon as possible. I am sure that we will all agree that while they may have left difficulties upon the farm, they are entitled to the thanks of this house, of the Dominion of Canada, and of the allied nations generally for the attitude they took. There is still a labour shortage on many of those farms.
There is another type of farm on which there has been a labour shortage ever since the war started. That labour shortage did not begin with this war; it started1 on exactly the same kind of farm as that from which all' of the sons who were engaged in agriculture enlisted in the last war. At that time their
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

fathers and mothers were in their late thirties or early forties, and they were able to carry on the work of the farm. Many of those boys did not come back, and in some instances, because they did not come back, the fathers and mothers, now from sixty to seventy years of age, are still on the farms attempting to carry on. They are in a classification which was referred to this morning by a delegation that met the government, when it was suggested that these people should be encouraged to dispose of their farms and get others on the land who could produce more effectively because of their younger years. The government has gone so far as to record all the people in Canada who are in that classification, and I think I said to this house last year that there are about seventy thousand farms in Canada occupied by persons over sixty years of age.
Labour began to be a limiting factor in certain industrial areas adjacent to cities in the second year of the war. You will recall that in the first year of the war there was a great deal of uncertainty, particularly during the first six months, but in the latter part of the first year industry was organized, and in the second year of the war men rushed into plants from farms surrounding industrial centres. I would ask hon. members the question: what did this house want them to do? I reply by stating that while I was not one of those who were fully convinced before I went to England in the fall of 1940, I came back to this country convinced that every possible man and woman in Canada had to be got into a plant that might produce munitions of war, or machines or ships, at the earliest possible day, if we were to win the war. We did not as a government go out and tell the farmers not to go into plants. We did not say, you must not go. We encouraged them to go, and if any member is able to stand in this house, as a member did the other night, and point to the production of munitions and supplies in Canada as one of the greatest accomplishments of this war, it has resulted from the fact that these men and women were not prevented by any means, directive or otherwise, from going to these plants and producing in volume at the earliest possible time.
What has been the result? Not long ago I was speaking in Saskatoon to a group of farmers. I had been asked the question that I am putting here, a question that has been asked in the house on numerous occasions since this debate began:	Is there going
to be an over all farm labour shortage this year? I had to say that we had been building up our objectives year after year 
while the number of persons on the farms has been going down year by year; we have not yet reached the peak of production under these conditions, and until we have done so I cannot say with absolute assurance that lack of labour will prevent us from reaching our objectives this year. I have this to say as well-and every member of this bouse, on both sides of the house, knows it is a fact- for eight years before this war started, there were boys and girls brought up on farms who never intended to remain on the farm. They had been directed, from their childhood up, towards some other activity, but they found it impossible to get off the farm. While we counted our unemployed in Canada at one time at something in the neighbourhood of a million, if we had counted the young men and young women who were on the farms unemployed, or partly unemployed because they could not find employment elsewhere, the figure would have been increased by the 250,000 or the number who have left the farms and gone into industry and elsewhere. With regard to overall production, our farms to-day, with these 250,000 gone, are producing more than they ever produced before.
I have eulogized the old people who have been left on the farms and the boys and girls who have worked on the farms. I have spoken of their long hours, beginning at four or five in the morning and ending at ten o'clock at night, particularly for the mothers. That does not answer anything. It should not be necessary to work from four in the morning until ten at night to earn a living on a farm, and that is one of the things which we must remove in that glorious day so many talk about that we are going to have after the war. I hope we shall be able to remove the necessity for some of these long hours. But whether we eulogize them or not, the fact remains that they did the job and produced the food, and they are going out this year to attempt to do the same thing.
A delegation of men came to me and said, "We produced every bit of live stock and dairy products last year that we could produce with the labour on our farms." I said, "What are you here for?" They said, "What do you mean?" I said, "We are not asking you to produce any more. If you are producing all the live stock on your farm that you can possibly produce with the labour you have, nobody is asking you to produce more with that labour; but the fact remains that right in Saskatchewan one-fifth of the area is delivering only one hog on the average from every two farms, and I want these people to feed more hogs." These men said immediate-

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
ly, "Well, that puts a different light on the whole thing." And of course they will go back home and try to encourage their neighbours to produce more, and they will be encouraged by the provincial government.
I have listened to one or two stories in connection with the labour position, and they remind me of many letters that I receive in my office. People write to me about the difficulty they are having in increasing production, and I realize that it must be difficult. A man tells me he is sixty-nine years of age, and his last son has joined the army. I know he is having a difficult time; no one needs to argue about it. When I hear stories such as were told in this house yesterday to the effect that there are families in some of these neighbourhoods where there are three or four still on the farm, none of them having gone, I know what it means in that neighbourhood. But the stories I like to tell are of the opposite kind, taken from the neighbourhood with which I am most familiar. 1 know one Yorkshire Englishman who has seven sons. On the day he got word that one of three who had already joined the forces had been shot down over the North Sea the fourth took the train to take his place in the forces, to take that brother's place. These are the stories I like to tell. I go five miles away from that place and find another farmer, a German, who worked his way out of Germany at the age of nineteen to avoid being called up for military training. He also has seven sons. Six of them are married and three are in the army. He is alone with one daughter working the farm and making no complaints about it. He is saying, "This is my job." These are the stories I like to hear from western Canada.
Western Canada creates situations which make possible hundreds of stories of that kind. I know of districts that are largely foreignspeaking, from every family in which someone has enlisted in the armed forces. I know of districts too where the casualty list, if placed before this house, and compared with the number of non-English-speaking people that live there, would convince us as to where the recruits came from, even those who have given their lives already in this war. These are the stories I like to tell.
But I am forced by the statements that have been made in this house to deal with another situation. I am told, times without end, both by letter and by members of this house, that some of our boards that have been dealing with the question of man-power have not dealt with it in the interests of the farming population. Sometimes I am inclined to agree that there may be some truth in what they say. But again I am reminded, every
time we have a delegation to Ottawa from farm organizations, and almost every time someone gets up in this house to criticize the activities of the government, that when we are appointing boards we ought to put farm representatives on them.
All I want to say is that the board that has been most criticized in this house and the one about which the most stories have been told is the only board I know of in Canada of which the president of a farm organization is a member. I should like to add that that board was at first composed of a judge and a member of the provincial legislature who is also a returned soldier and the leader of a political group that is not Liberal. When the administration of these regulations was taken over by the Labour department he personally suggested he would prefer not to be a member of the board because his business took too much of his time; he was prepared, however, to act as an ad hoc member or remain as he was and sit whenever he found it possible. From that time up to last week I think he did not sit on the board. The judge asked for another representative, choosing him because of his association with farm organizations. In order to be fair I must say I do not think he went to the farm organization and asked for recommendations, but he did select a man and recommend him to the minister, saying he would like to have him appointed because of his associations with agriculture. I know he is quite a capable man. His name was submitted to me, and I was asked1 whether I knew him. I said I did and that he was working for a farm organization, and he was appointed.
That is the board that has been sitting on these cases, composed of a judge; a president of a farm organization, the only educational farm organization in that province; and an employee of a farm organization in Saskatchewan.


Mr. COLDWELL:: If I may interrupt to
ask a question, is Mr. Milliken still on that board?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Milliken was
not on the board. He was the representative of agriculture appointed to place cases before the board.


Major James William Coldwell: Has he resigned?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, he has resigned,
partly because of the difficulty he experienced while he was there.
These questions of course come up when I am in the west, the same questions as are brought to the attention of other hon. members who
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

come from the west. I have discussed them on a number of occasions with persons who ought to be able to rectify the situation. On coming back to Ottawa I made representations to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), and the minister had his deputy send out a letter which I am going to read to the house in order to have it on Hansard, because it states more clearly than I could otherwise the policy of the government in relation to this matter.
The letter is dated Ottawa, February 1, 1943, the beginning of this month. It happens to be addressed to Mr. Justice W. T. Henderson, chairman of the mobilization board' at Toronto, but the same letter went to the chairman of every board. I would like to recall to hon. members that this matter was turned over to the Labour department on December 1, so that after all there has not been any considerable delay in the minister's taking action upon it.
This is the letter:
Dear Mr. Justice Henderson,
All will agree that uniformity of method in dealing with various problems by each of the mobilization boards across Canada is very [DOT]desirable.
After conferring with the man-power committee of the cabinet it has been decided that interpretative letters will be sent out from time do time indicating in some detail the policy in -respect to the various phases of the national selective service mobilization regulations.
This is the first, of such letters which will be issued by the labour department.
The growing scarcity of agricultural labour makes it increasingly important that essential agricultural workers be encouraged to remain on farms.
In the following the policy in regard to agricultural farm workers is briefly outlined:
(1)	An agricultural worker is, of course, free to volunteer for active service.
(2)	It is the intention of the regulations that agricultural workers are to be retained in agricultural employment as far as practical through the national selective service (civilian) regulations. To the extent that their services can be spared from the farms during the "off-crop" season they are to be encouraged to take temporary seasonal employment in lumbering and logging, forestry, fishing, coal and base metal mining, and acceptance of seasonal work in such industries does not deprive men of their right to postponement as agricultural workers providing they return to farm work when the. season re-opens.
(3)	Agricultural workers are to be discouraged from taking employment outside agriculture except in the primary industries indicated above. If they leave agriculture without a permit from a national selective service officer contrary to the regulations they of course lose any special rights to claim deferment as agricultural workers.
(4)	Farm workers who apply for postponement of military training are to be granted postponement until further notice.

In passing I call the attention of hon. members to the fact that in the regulations the word used is "shall"-that "the board shall". It also provides that the decisions in connection with these matters are to be made by a quorum of the board. The board consists of three members, and two form a quorum.


Mr. TUSTIN:: Will these boys continue to be called?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am just coming to that:
Farm workers who apply for postponement from military training are to be granted postponement until further notice, unless it is established that the applicant is not an essentia] worker in agriculture. The regulations it should should be noted do not require the farmer to produce proof that he is an essential farm labourer. If the board doubts that a man is an essential farm worker, even though postponement until further notice is given, it can always exercise the right to deny postponement by calling such a man before the board when established facts are presented.
The statement and the inference of the statement is that if the man is given postponement he is not called again at least until the- regulations are changed or until the board is able to show that the information he gave was not correct.


Major James William Coldwell: It is up to the board to prove that he is non-essential?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.	'


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I
interject? It is a most interesting statement the minister has made. Is he able to tell us how often applicants are called before these boards? Because I have never heard of a single case in New Brunswick where an applicant actually appeared himself before the board.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think my hon. friend will agree that he has a better knowledge of legal matters than I have, but a man can appear by letter, and most of them do appear that way.


Gordon Graydon: They appear personally too.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are men who
appear before some boards personally. To continue:
If a worker who upon receipt of "order-[DOT] medical examination" claims to be an agricultural worker but is not considered by the board to be essential to the operation of a specific farm-*

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
This is just as important as the other, and I wish hon. members would listen. If he is called and not given the postponement-
[DOT]-the question then arises as to whether or not he is essential to agriculture in the district.
If agricultural labour is needed in the district, he should be given an opportunity to place himself in a position where his services would be essential to agriculture on some other farm; or in the alternative to increase the production of a specific farm. The board could give a deferment for three months instead of "granting postponement until further notice" in order to give the man an opportunity of finding essential work.
This, read along with the other, indicates that the cases in which limited time should be given are those in which an effort is being made to distribute farm labour, not merely to retain it.


Major James William Coldwell: Is that the district over which the board has control or the district in which the man resides?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no further definition given. These are the directions which have been issued, and it will be remembered that the boards have been asked to make any comments they wish, and those will be discussed. I would imagine it would be a different area in different places.
The next provision is new:
6.	A person who may not have been employed in agriculture on March 23, 1942, but who has become engaged in agriculture since that time, and is shown to be essential to agriculture, may be considered for postponement on application if the merits of the case are established.


Gordon Graydon: Since what time?


James Garfield Gardiner: This was issued on February 1.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the case where the father buys a farm for the boy and makes him a farmer. Pretty dangerous.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would rather recite the other type of case again, that it is for the boy who left the farm purposely to enter into a munitions factory, but now that food is considered more necessary in that community, he desires to come back. If he can establish these facts I think the board would be justified in taking action.
The next provision is:
7.	Conscientious objectors, including Douk-hobors, Mennonites and others, who receive postponement of military training until further notice and are agricultural workers should not be directed to report for alternative service so long as they are employed in essential work in agriculture.
8.	Application for leave should be invited from agricultural workers engaged in alternative service, and such applications should be given favourable consideration.
It is felt that if the above principles are followed by all boards the increasing difficulties in maintaining essential farm production will be greatly alleviated.
Any comments and suggestions any board may wish to offer regarding the above principles will be appreciated.
That is signed by A. MacNamara, director of national selective service, and approved by the Minister of Labour.


Gordon Graydon: I should like to ask one question with regard to the dimensions of the areas mentioned there. That has a direct bearing on the whole question of the distribution of labour, because if it is confined to only the small area where the man resides, perhaps it will not meet the requirements that are so necessary. Possibly the minister might amplify that point.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course the minister would hope that this would be administered by the boards in a reasonable way, as I am sure it will.
There is just one other matter with which I wish to deal for a few moments, namely, the question, is price a limiting factor? That question has been discussed here from time to time, and the statement is frequently made that British and1 United States prices are higher than ours. Well, the statement could be made with equal truth that Australian and Argentine prices are lower than ours. For that reason I should like to place before the house for its consideration the fact that our position is not on all fours with either the United States or the British; neither is it on all fours with the Argentine or the Australian. We occupy a position somewhere in between. The United States and British position is affected by their dense population and by the nearness of Britain to the war itself. The position of the Argentine and Australia is affected by their distance from the places where the supplies are required. On the other hand we 'have a sparse population and large agricultural areas, and are located closer to the scene of battle than any of these other countries. Therefore our position is a 'little different.
I should like to remind hon. members that many things have been done by the government to assist the price position. Last year, as was stated the other day, we made a billion dollars available to the British government; and the fact that this amount of money was provided, whether it was used directly or indirectly, made it possible for us to dispose of our food products to Britain
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

with much better results than, otherwise would have been the case. Then the government has added to those returns by moans of subsidies in certain cases, with which I am not going to deal at the moment. But now I come to the point which has been up for discussion year after year. It was brought before us to-day by the farm federation; it has been brought up in this house by a number of hon. members since the session opened, as it has been brought up continuously throughout the country. I refer to the demand for parity prices on farm products. No one has ever contended that we have parity prices on grains in Canada as compared with any other period that may be used as a basis. Those in this country who first asked for parity prices on farm products said that what they meant by parity was the same purchasing power for what was received for the product in the year in question as prevailed on the average during the period from 1926 to 1929. Recently that has been changed to some extent; some are saying that because we have taken as the basis of the wage position the highest wage in 1926-29 we ought to take the highest price in 1926-29 for farm products. But may I read the basis on which we have discussed this question year after year:
Parity definition: Parity price is the price of the commodity which will give a purchasing power with respect to articles the farmer buys equivalent to the purchasing power of such commodity in the base period.
The base period we have taken in working out the figures I am going to place upon Hansard is 1926-29, and the figure is the average figure for that period. On wheat we are down 54-5 cents; on oats we are down 9 cents; on barley we are down 12-2 cents, anid on rye we are down 38-5 cents. I come now to flax, on which we are 25-5 cents up. On butter we are -4 cents up; on cheese, 6-1 cents up; on eggs 1-3 cents down; on steers, -24 cents up, and on hogs, -67 cents up. In other words, on all animal and poultry products listed here, with the exception of eggs, we are, on the basis I have just suggested, above parity. This means that for flaxseed we are 112-8 per cent of parity; on butter, 101-2 per cent; on cheese, 133-2 per cent; on eggs, 86-6 per cent; on steers, 116-93 per cent, and on hogs, 105-92 per cent. Let me repeat that some of those coming before us now would dispute the fact that we have parity prices because they have somewhat shifted the basic position. In fact, some contend that they at no time took any other position but that we should start with the highest price during that period, and of course if you

start with the highest price it means that on all live-stock products, I think, with the exception of cheese, we shall be slightly below parity.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Has the minister the average for the entire group of commodities?'


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I have not, but it can be worked out from these figures.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that those of us who have been speaking on agriculture have been emphasizing the necessity for increased labour during the coming year. I am going to repeat that I have not been convinced by any arguments I have heard in the house, nor am I convinced by our experiences of the past, that we cannot reach the objectives which we have placed before the farmers of this country for this fourth year of war. There is a possibility, however, that we may not reach those objectives, and I wish to emphasize that if we do not do so, it will not necessarily mean that we have not done everything possible in Canada to help win the war. At some period we shall reach the time, on account of either lack of feed, lack of proper weather conditions, lack of labour, or lack of all three, when we shall be producing everything we possibly can produce, with the facilities that are available to us for the production of food products. And when we are doing that, in so far as food is concerned we are holding up our end in the war activities.
In the first year of the war-the first six months of the war-we were piling up surpluses which no one wanted for the time being. Then, when France fell, we found ourselves in the position where these surpluses were useful. We have gone on producing more and more every year. And for every ton we produced we could find some use, with the exception, of course, of some of the products I enumerated earlier in my speech. They are not the most important food products we are producing in this country. Again, of course I must make an exception of wheat.
We now hope that we are at a time when our armed forces in the field, and those of our allies, can be equipped and supplied with munitions. Probably there is some reason fo-r thinking that, with the support of all the great allied powers, and all their industry, there is reason for placing greater emphasis upon production on the farms than we have been placing during the second and third years of the war. The government has put out directions on farm labour as an indication that it believed that such a time had come when the regulations were put out in Marcln

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
Having said that, may I say this, that the greatest job to be done in connection with this war is still to be done on the battlefields. As Minister of Agriculture I am going to make an appeal to every farmer in Canada to produce this year all he can with the labour available, and I am going to make an appeal to the government-and I am sure it will be listened to-to provide as high returns as possibly can be given for the commodities that are produced, always keeping in mind the fact that funds must be found for other things, as well as for paying for food.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friends over here smile when I say that. Well, I have known many people in my lifetime who did not seem to know the value of money; and I have never known any of them to improve their position by laughing. After all, money is only the means by which we measure the real wealth, the things that are produced in the country. If we have the parity prices which have been asked, we are of course giving what has been asked by those who are most concerned. If in some other direction parity has not been given, and if that applies to those foods which are going to be surplus at the end of the war, I would suggest that we are not yet in a position to determine whether farmers will obtain parity. That cannot be fully determined if their labour has resulted in the production of grain which may be fed or required by allied countries toward the end and following the end of the war.
I think 'hon. members will agree that the government has been keeping a fairly close check on all three activities necessary to winning the war. In so far as the battle-front is concerned, only one thing will bring about the defeat of our forces. If we have not a sufficient number of men at the spots attacked most heavily by the enemy-and they may choose some of the spots at which they are going to attack-if every man is not supplied with the best equipment which can possibly be supplied, and if every bit of that equipment is not supplied with the best ammunition possible of production the allies may lose. If we do not permit any such deficiences, and if we place behind those forces the food necessary to feed them, and supply the food necessary to assist in feeding the British people, the food1 necessary to assist in feeding the people in North Africa, and the food necessary to assist in feeding the people in the countries on the continent of Europe, once they are won back to the side of the
allies, we shall have accomplished' all that is possible toward the successful conclusion of the war.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I am sure no one wished to interrupt the minister during the exposition which he made of government policy. But I would point out that the minister has had one hour and twenty-five minutes in which to speak.


James Garfield Gardiner: Within the rules.


Thomas Miller Bell: I do not think the minister was within the rules, since the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) spoke on behalf of the government, following the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon). If the privilege is going to be extended, then I think it should be extended with the consent of the house. Other hon. members have been interrupted and called to time when forty minutes has expired.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: My hon. friend, will recognize that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was replying to his amendment, as well as to the amendment which had been moved earlier. And as a minister replying to an amendment containing additions he is entitled to whatever time he wishes. As a matter of fact the minister, if anything, was considerate in being as brief as he was.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is every minister entitled to make a reply for the government?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I raised no objection at the time to the minister's speaking for more than forty minutes, because we will all agree that it was a most interesting and instructive statement; and from the standpoint of view of his party I have no dioubt it reflected great credit. However, I wondered about this question.
I rise now only for the purpose of asking for a clarification of the point. Standing order 37 was passed on March 22, 1927. I remember the committee which framed it. I should like, however to ask how many ministers can reply to an opposition amendment. By the way, may I make it clear to the Prime Minister that the Minister of Agriculture in his opening remarks made it quite clear that he was replying to the amendment of my leader, and not to the subamendment moved by the leader of the socialist party. This is what the standing order says:
No member, except the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition, or a minister moving a government order and the member speaking in reply immediately after such minister-
The Address-Point of Order

That would be, say, the financial critic in an opposition.

or a member making a motion of "no confidence" in the government and a minister replying thereto, shall speak for more than forty minutes at a time in any debate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is what he was doing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The leader of the opposition moved1 what, of course, is in effect a want of confidence motion. The Prime Minister replied thereto. He was the member of the government who replied. How many members of the government are going to reply, and be entitled to speak for more than forty minutes when we, as private members, are restricted to forty minutes? That is the issue. We might as well have it settled once and for all.
I did not raise the point of order when the minister was speaking. I felt he was wrong, but I did not want to stop him. The issue is now fairly before the house. Let us have it settled. I take the ground that this rule means that only one minister may reply to an amendment such as my leader has moved, namely, an amendment involving want of confidence in the government. That reply was made; therefore it cannot be made again.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I thank my hon. friends and also the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) for not having raised the present point while the minister was making his statement. As I heard the minister, in the opening part of his remarks I thought he said that he intended to devote a considerable part of his time to the amendment which had been moved by the leader of the opposition; but that he was also speaking to the amendment to the amendment which had been moved-


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; that is where your ears deceived you. That is exactly what he did not say.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As a matter of fact that is what he did, in effect. He made a reply to a motion of want of confidence in the administration. My hon. friend the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation would hardly say that this amendment was not a motion of want of confidence in the administration.


Major James William Coldwell: It was an amendment to an amendment which had already expressed want of confidence in the government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should point out to my hon. friend that when the rule is being interpreted it would be well to remember that while we have one government we

have four or five oppositions, and we have as a consequence amendments to amendments. In this regard the rule ought to be broadly interpreted. His Honour the Speaker will be able to give the interpretation.


Major James William Coldwell: When I moved the
amendment to the amendment I was limited to forty minutes. I saw the Speaker rising to stop me and I sat down.


Mr. SPEAKER:: If no other hon. member wishes to speak on the point of order, I think the practice has been pretty well established in the past as to the case we have before us. Standing order 37, which has been read by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), states:
No member, except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, or a minister moving a government order and the member speaking in reply immediately after such minister, or a member making a motion of "no confidence" in the government and a minister replying thereto, shall speak for more than forty minutes at a time in any debate.
Under that standing order the Prime Minister has the right to speak without being subject to the rule of forty minutes. It is true that the Prime Minister spoke after the amendment was moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Gray-don), but -there has been a subsequent -amendment to the amendment and the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), I thank, in the first statement he made was replying to a motion of no confidence and replying to it from the point of view of agriculture, and also from the point of view of man-power, both of which he dealt with in -his speech. In my judgment, therefore, the Minister of Agriculture, speaking as the first minister to this amendment is entitled to invoke standing order 37 and is not limited: in his time.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Major James William Coldwell: 
Thomas Vien: I would point out to the hon. member that there can be no debate.


Major James William Coldwell: Am I to understand, Mr. Speaker, that the mover of a sub-amendment expressing want of confidence in -the government has the right to exceed forty minutes?


Thomas Vien: That question has not been before me, and at the moment I would not wish to say anything beyond that I think he has not that right.

The Address-Mr. Homuth


Thomas Miller Bell: The rule must work both ways.
Mr, SPEAKER: The point before us at the moment is as to the right of the minister to reply, without the time limitation, and1 I have given my ruling.
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South): Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased that no one interrupted the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and raised the point of order that the minister was exceeding his time because, before proceeding with the remarks I had intended to make, I wish to deal with two or three matters to which the minister referred. Perhaps the latter part of his speech was the most important when he began to deal with the question of farm labour and referred to the letter which each member of the house received this morning from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). That letter in itself, I submit, justifies all the criticism that has been levelled against this government for taking labour off the farms of this country. The minister has said that we have produced a tremendous tonnage of foodstuffs. We have. We had to do it; it was our job to do it. But we have not produced as much foodstuffs in this country as we could have produced if we had had a proper farm labour policy applicable to this country. There are in this letter clauses which, if carefully read over will be seen to bear out the need' for many of the things for which we have asked in the past. Under this new regulation, men who are conscientious objectors, men who knew nothing but farming, had done nothing but farming all their life, are now to be allowed to stay on the farm and to produce foodstuffs, instead of being sent up the Montreal river or into the northern wilds to build roads. In my county of Waterloo I know that many of these men were taken off the farm and sent into camps to build roads which will be destroyed before they can be completed. This was a wrong policy. Had these men been allowed to remain on the farms in the county of Waterloo we would have been able to produce larger amounts of foodstuffs than we did in our county. The farmers of this country have done a tremendous job. They had a job to do, and they faced it. They faced it in spite of the many obstacles which have been put in their way by .the lack of a proper man-power policy under this government.
This letter also states that farmers will have the right in the off-season months to go into certain industries such as logging, mining and fishing. We have hundreds and hundreds of farmers who can be spared from our farms in western Ontario during the off-season. Under
this new regulation they are to be restricted to these particular industries in their search for employment in the off-season. Nevertheless to-day hundreds of them are working in the munitions industries in western Ontario and doing a splendid job. I do not know how we could have got along without them. These men are now prohibited from going into any munitions factory during the off-season to produce munitions of war. Surely that regulation in itself shows that the matter has not been properly thought out. These men are not adapted to fishing and the other industries specified in the letter, but they are capable of going into munitions factories and producing munitions. Therefore I say that the regulations dealing with man-power on the farm are still far short of what they ought to be under a proper man-power policy. These men in the province of Ontario particularly, hundreds of them, have contributed hundreds of thousands of precious man-hours in producing the munitions of war.
At the beginning it was announced by the government that the farmers could go into the munitions industries during the off-season without losing their category as farmers. Then a few weeks ago another regulation came out prohibiting them from working for more than sixty days in a munitions factory. Yet these men are engaged in every form of munitions industry in western Ontario, and many of them have worked for much longer periods than two months. Have they now to quit their jobs, go back to the farm, at present covered with three or four or five feet of snow, and. sit and twiddle their thumbs until seeding time comes around? Surely, Mr. Speaker, that in itself shows that this policy has not been well thought out and that there is still room for improvement in our man-power policy. The very fact of these regulations coming out shows beyond all peradventure that there is a shortage of man-power on the farms in this country and that the government is now beginning to realize this. The government is now trying to cure what is the result of their own ill-advised policy.
The Minister of Agriculture also lectured the members of the house for having made certain statements; for instance, a statement with regard to the shortage of bacon and that we should not buy bacon. Was it not the minister himself or one of the men in his department who made an appeal to the Canadian people not to eat bacon and other pork products so that we could ship more of them to Britain? It was not anything said by us in the house which publicized the statement referred to in that international journal; it was the Department of Agriculture itself that requested the
The Address-Mr. Homuth

people of Canada not to eat bacon and other pork products, and the people, I believe, rose to the occasion.
There is one other reference I wish to make. I am pleased that 'the minister was not interrupted. Coming from a district like Waterloo county, where agriculture is very highly developed, I greatly appreciated the speech he made this afternoon.
Last evening a member of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) made one or two little jibes at the official opposition and read a letter which had been sent out by the South York Conservative organization. It was an appeal to join the Progressive Conservative association, and for a payment of one dollar the subscriber would become a member and would assist in defeating the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, an object which I hope we shall achieve, because I think it would be a good thing for the country. But I, too, have a letter here. It was not sent out by any political association within a riding, where they went to the post office and paid their postage, where they went to the printer and had their letter printed, and to the envelope manufacturer and purchased envelopes. This is a letter from the House of Commons, Ottawa, signed by Mr. A. M. Nicholson, M.P., national treasurer of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Franked.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Franked; and with the 'House of Commons letterhead on the envelope. In this letter-and goodness knows how many thousands went out-is an appeal for funds, and the statement that they have been able to get a Rhodes scholar, Mr. Lewis, a graduate of McGill, to be secretary and organizer of their association; that he could get a position which would pay him a large salary out of which he could contribute a thousand dollars to the funds of the association, but that they wanted to keep him in their own employment.
What I want to bring to the attention of the house is a view I have always held, that no political party has any right to use the money of the taxpayers of Canada for the purpose of spreading its political propaganda or of trying to raise money for its operations.
I am definitely opposed to such action. Furthermore, there is -an old saying that people who live in glass houses ought to undress in the dark, and I think it applies to the hon. member for York South.


An hon. MEMBER:: Have you another like that?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Well, Mr. Speaker, I wish to confine myself to the remarks I had intended to make. I agree that it is a happy occasion to reconvene in Ottawa in the realization that the war situation is so much better, that after all we are now beginning to see at least the beginning of the end of this terrible conflict, with the allied troops winning victories on practically all fronts. But there is, of course, something rather saddening in the reconvening of a parliament. It has been my privilege, as a member of either the Ontario or the dominion house, to attend many new sessions, and always the occasion has not been without an element of sadness, because seldom have we met without the loss of some members. As we sit here now we begin to wonder in what direction our ranks will be depleted before another session comes, and how many more members will be lost to us by death. I wish to join with others who have paid tribute to those who have passed since the last session of this house; it is a source of great regret to us.
There was, however, another hon. member who has passed from this house, whose passing is not, I believe, so greatly regretted. He has passed to that "other place." I have never had such a high degree of satisfaction over a senate vacancy as I have as a result of that appointment-and I say that in no unkind spirit. But I should- like to make this remark to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), realizing that suggestions from our side of the house are always welcome! There is an hon. member of his party who has endeared himself to everyone here; he is a French Canadian; he happens to come from the province of Ontario; and I trust that when the appointment of deputy speaker is made it will go to one who is held in such high regard by all members of the house. I refer to the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette).
In his address the other day the Prime Minister asked us to avoid acrimonious debate, and I believe that, generally speaking, this debate has been on a very high plane. He asked us to cooperate with the government in trying to sell to the people, as it were, the various controls and restrictions which are necessary. I agree that we as members of this house have a grave responsibility. But we have another responsibility, namely that, if there are controls and restrictions which in our opinion are not in the interests of Canada, we must express our convictions in this place, the only place where it can be done. We cannot stand idly by and allow important matters to be adjudicated upon by the various boards throughout the country without saying

The Address-Mr. Homuth
what we think about them. We cannot talk to the boards; we cannot talk to the minister when the boards are set up. This is the place where these matters must be discussed. I do not believe that there was ever a government which held office in this country during a trying time which had greater cooperation from an opposition than the present government has received. True, we have been critical, but I hope that the criticism we have levelled against the government has been constructive. If we look back over the plebiscite campaign, who were prouder to carry that vote than members of the official opposition?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: You took a
long time about it.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Very well, but when the
vote was to be taken we went out and worked for it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I knew you
would.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Let me tell the Prime
Minister that there were not a great many members of his party who did the same thing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You are
right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, yes, there were.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: And when the victory loan campaigns were launched, members of this party worked hard to make them a success. Certainly it was our duty to do so, but what did the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Wood) and members for other ridings around my own do in this direction? How much time did they spend in organizing the victory loan campaigns? I followed the course of these loan drives very carefully'-*


Mr. WOOD:: I would not trade Brant for
your riding.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The hon. member would
have to give me the rest of the province to boot.
We have endeavoured in every possible way to assist the government, but there are some of these matters which I think we have to deal with on the floor of the house, and some of the things I am going to mention to-day have come to me as a result of my activity in industry, representing a farming district. As a result of our building up of control boards, they have seriously affected our output on farms and in the factories. Man-power and these control boards are directly interlocked. Some of these boards are exceptionally good and are doing a fine job. Some of them are headed by men who plan carefully and move warily, and when
they put out an order one can depend upon it that it has been so well planned that the order will work smoothly and people will fall in line. But there are other boards that do not plan, boards that do not take the precautions they ought to take, and they make rulings that disorganize industry, so that within a very short time they have to change those rulings. The whole trouble is on account of the fact that the man who was at the head of that particular board was not practical or was not a good organizer. If he had been a good organizer, even if he was not practical in that particular line, he would at least have called in practical men and have discussed these matters with them.
Take, for example, the cost of living bonus, the original order in council dealing with that question. Every industry was told that it had to pay a cost of living bonus. Most of them complied. Some, however, did not, and before any action was taken to enforce it with these particular industries, a new order came out freezing the wages. These industries then could not pay that cost of living bonus, with the result that in many municipalities and industrial centres there was a checker-board system of wages, a system which was due entirely to the effect of the orders in council which were passed by the board, one contradicting another.
Then we have industries which are 100 per cent on war work. These industries are classed as non-essential, notwithstanding that everything they turn out is war material. They are classed as non-essential for one purpose, and everyone knows it, namely, that those called for service out of those industries do not get the same consideration as those who come from what are classed as essential industries. The idea is to get these men, out of these industries and fill their places with old men or women if possible.
Orders were made freezing wages. The employees accepted that; the employer accepted it, and they went along their way satisfied as far as possible to cooperate with the government and the government's order. Then suddenly the government come along and start an industry of their own in the vicinity, or perhaps right within the municipality. As soon as they are ready to start they need help. There is no ceiling on the wages they offer. They break the wage ceiling immediately for the district. They will get men and women into that industry regardless-and they do. In these other essentia! war industries, however, wages are frozen. But this industry starts up, headed by someone appointed by the government, and breaks the wage ceiling, causing discontent in every other enterprise in the dis-
The Address-Mr. Homuth

trict. These are the things that are done by these boards through lack of planning, and they disrupt the whole industrial life of the country.
Then we have the cost-plus contracts. The Department of National Defence will take over some building. They will build a barracks or renovate some building they are taking over. They will send some contractor in with a cost-plus contract. Wages mean nothing to him; he will get help. There is no liaison between that job and the Department of Labour or the wartime prices and trade board. By reason of this contract he will pay fabulous wages, wages as high as a journeyman carpenter will get, to men who hardly know one end of a hammer from the other, and he will thus cause discontent in the district, which is a serious matter. I know of instances where high school boys were offered fifty-one cents an hour as helpers-wages higher than the whole wage structure in the district-by some contractor who came in with a job from the Department of National Defence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Or by
government engineers.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: These things are done by these various controls, and they have disrupted the whole economic fabric of the country and caused that discontent which we have in industry. We had the spectacle of the steel strike. That strike should never have occurred. I can understand a strike in some munitions factory, and other munitions factories carrying on. But here is an industry that is vital to every munitions factory in the country, an industry that is the very foundation of the munitions which we are making in the various factories in Canada. It was because of the vacillating labour policy of the government that that strike ever occurred, and it was declared illegal. Before that, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and the government should have prevented it from developing. They should never have allowed that board to rise until they had even moved to Ottawa, conferred with the government and brought down some sort of unanimous report. If they had done that there would have been no strike in that industry. But the strike occurred, and it was declared illegal. Then the government started to negotiate with those men who were carrying on an illegal strike, and finally the strike was ended. But what did the government do in making the settlement they did? They froze the cost of living bonus to the steel workers, so that as the cost of living index is reduced the bonus will remain, whereas the cost of living bonus in every other industry will be reduced. What are the 
employees in other industries going to say when, as the cost of living index diminishes, their cost of living bonus is reduced while that paid to the steel workers remains frozen? A settlement such as that cannot help stirring up trouble in other industries. Again I say it is because of the lack of force, the lack of sound reason in dealing with these matters, that a great many of the difficulties we have in industry to-day have been brought about.
One of the essentials in working out a manpower policy is that first of all we ought to know, and this house ought to know, how many men we shall require for the air forc* and how many men we shall require for the army. How many men shall we require for the navy? How many men shall we require for the auxiliary services? How much farm labour shall we require? What shortage, if any, is there of industrial labour in this country? How can this house deal with these matters; how can we discuss them intelligently unless we get information from the government as to what their plans are? Surely it is not giving information to the enemy to say, We are going to raise another fifty thousand men for the air force, or the navy, or the army. Those are things we ought to know. Not since the war started have we had a clear-cut statement to this house.
What is happening to the draftees who are now being called up? What is their position? True, the government was freed from any obligations in regard to them by the vote on the plebiscite, but what is their position to-day? Suppose the Canadian army gets into battle and more and more reinforcements are needed; what is the position of these men who to-day are being called up for service in Canada or Newfoundland or on this continent? Is their position going to be that if a very sudden need is apparent the government overnight can pass an order in council and immediately make these men available for overseas service? The men themselves ought to know what position they are in. These men who are now being called for military training, ostensibly for duty on this continent, ought to know where they stand. The government ought to tell this house what their position is with regard to these men that they are calling. Is it any wonder that at times hon. members say there is no leadership, no guidance in regard to these matters?
Often many of these regulations that do not regulate but that do'disorganize are passed simply, it would appear, because of fear of political repercussions. I say that honestly and sincerely. Too often it seems to be done with the political viewpoint in mind. We had one of the most upsetting things happen verj

The Address-Mr. Homuth
recently, the exodus of thousands of men to the United States to go into the lumbering business there,. The Minister of Labour stated that some 3,700 men had been given permits. Would he say that only 3,700 men went over there to cut timber? Let him put his immigration officers on when these men start to come back and see if he will not find that double that number went.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many went illegally?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: They went over there to
cut timber that is not required for our war purposes, whereas in Canada we have a tremendous shortage of these men.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Right in
New Brunswick we have.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Would the minister in
charge of selective service say that no requests have been- made by the lumbermen of Ontario for men to carry on the lumber business, that no request was made by the department of lands and forests, the minister or his officials? I know Mr. Hipel very well; I know something of the ability that he puts into his job; I know something of the difficulty he has in getting men into the northern woods to cut the timber we need. This afternoon the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) said1 that fuel wood is now to be controlled because there is a shortage of it; yet thousands and thousands of men are allowed to go over into the United States to cut wood there.
Over and above that a member-supposedly a member-goes to the selective service administration wanting to take five hundred men to the United States, if I am correctly informed.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Let me correct my hon. friend. There was never a member of parliament came to the Labour department for five hundred men.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Well, I say a permit was
given for five hundred, men to go over there. Who signed the permit? Who gave the right to take them over? Was it denied by Mr. Nicholson and those in charge, and did they say to the minister that that right should not be given? Those are the questions which the people of this country want answered. Those are the questions which the lumbermen of northern Ontario want answered. Those are the things that industry wants to know, because those are the things that disorganize industry and make people feel that they cannot get the cooperation of this government that they should have. It is a serious situation, a serious indictment of the whole manpower policy of this government.
These boards are set up; very often they do things that are ridiculous. If we were not engaged in a war in which our very life js at stake, some of the regulations that are made, and unmade the next day, would be a joke. I sometimes think the minister says to himself, this, that or the other should be controlled; I will hunt up someone who can do it. Accordingly he hunts him up and gives him an office, a desk, a secretary and a brief case.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And a
carpet.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Sometimes a carpet, and a pretty nice desk. He sits there and says to himself, I am here to control something; I am going to start to control. Immediately he starts to issue orders to control this or that or to do this or the other thing. In a short time the control has to be taken off or changed or the order unmade.
Is there anything more ridiculous to-day than the regulation of bus traffic in this country? The trip limit is fifty miles. A man gets on a bus wanting to go fifty-five miles. He has to get off five miles from the terminus and perhaps hire a taxi for the rest of the way, as many do, while the bus goes on with an empty seat. If you wish to go from Toronto to Bradford you take the bus for fifty miles, get off at a hay field, take a waiting taxi that takes you the rest of the way, the bus going on with an empty seat. The termini now for bus trips are not town to town but cornfield to turnip patch. The thing is so ridiculous.
Then we have control of truck traffic. Firms had special trucks built to handle their particular commodity. There are many such in my district. These trucks are of no use whatever for general cartage. They can now travel only thirty-five miles; they used to travel one hundred or one hundred and fifty miles. How do they get around this control? Some of the trucks are actually taken off the road; the tires are depreciating; the truck is depreciating; it is just so much waste machinery in the country. At least the government should have let them carry on until these specialty trucks were worn out. But if they do not lie idle they will carry the commodity thirty-five miles to where another branch has been established; the goods are unloaded from one truck to another and carried the next thirty-five miles, and so on until they reach their destination. Think of the waste of man-power. The thing is ridiculous.
As a result of this sort of thing people are beginning to lose confidence. The government ask for confidence. How can people have confidence in view of such silly controls as that?
The Address-Mr. Homuth

This story may be far-fetched, although I am not so sure that it is. They tell me that a farmer out west had a notice that he had not delivered his full quota of wheat to the board. He wrote back saying that man-power on his farm had been depleted, and that he could not deliver the wheat for another month because they were now in the lambing season. He got a letter back from the controller, "put off the lambing season for a month."
I realize that this may be far-fetched, but I do say that these things are serious. I am in the midst of it; I can see what is going on, and I do feel that to handle industry, agriculture or any other branch of our national economy, only the very best men one can find should be appointed. The other day the Prime Minister referred to the fact that we were criticizing the men who had been appointed to these positions and said, "But the members of the opposition asked us to do this." Certainly we did. At the beginning of the war, when we saw something of what was going on, when we saw the disorganized situation that existed, we urged the Prime Minister to go out and get the very best men he could find in every branch of industry to come in as advisers to the government and organize us for the war effort. But we did not ask him to have them come in and usurp the rights of parliament, as they are doing to-day.
These are just some of the things I wanted to bring before the house, realizing as I do that if we are to go out and sell this war effort, these controls and these restrictions to the people of our constituencies, the people of this country; if we are to build up confidence as we in this parliament are doing the very best we can to do, then the foolish things such as I have recited should be cleared up at once. Seriously I say that the time for any political face-saving has passed. It is up to us to build up a confidence in the minds of the people of this country. We have a tremendous effort to put forth. This may be the deciding year of the war. The extra food, extra munitions, extra equipment and so on that we can produce this year may be the deciding factor of the whole war. Let us go to work on it, and let the Prime Minister do as the other day he said he would. If it is true that some of these men do not fit into the job, let them go; clean up some of these things as they should be cleaned up. Then he will get the backing of every member of the opposition.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Hon. P. J. ARTHUR CARDIN (Richelieu-Vercheres) Mr. Speaker, being now a private member of the house I could listen with the greatest freedom of thought and mind to the speech delivered by the new leader (Mr. Graydon) of the newly baptized opposition party in the house. I do not hesitate for one moment in extending to him my heartiest congratulations, first of all upon having been given the honour of representing his party in the house as opposition leader and, second, upon his brilliant first speech in that capacity. The hon. member has many personal qualities, and I do not hesitate to say that he possesses both in mind and intellect the necessary qualifications to occupy an important place in the public life of this country. Whatever his views may be, he will always, I am sure, enjoy the respect of all hon. members, even though they do not agree with the sentiments or opinions he may express when speaking for himself and for the party to which he belongs. He has been in the house for a certain number of years, not very many compared with the time I have served here; but during those years he has made a great number of friends, and has been respected by members sitting on both sides of the house.
His presentation was good. I listened to him with careful attention, and with a somewhat more independent state of mind and spirit than I would have, had I been sitting on the treasury benches. He offered a good argument, and laid the foundations for a good conclusion, but, unfortunately, he did not arrive at a logical conclusion.
He made reference in strong, harsh terms to the fact that parliament was in need of rebuilding its reputation before the public, and of creating or developing better procedure than had been the practice for a certain number of years. I agree with him on that point. Even if we do better than others, no one can dispute that the parliament of Canada does not at present enjoy the confidence and respect it enjoyed in the past.
The hon. member referred to the changing of the rules of the house. He was quite right. Our rules of procedure are obsolete. They have been framed after the rules followed at Westminster, but here we have not developed the methods and customs prevailing at Westminster. There is an urgent necessity for a change in the rules of the house, a change in our methods of procedure.
But, even if they are obsolete, the rules of the house in many respects are not observed

The Address-Mr. Cardin
This is particularly true in connection with the reading of speeches. That is something which helps to discredit parliament. To a certain extent the chamber has become what we call in French-I do not know the English expression'-un cabinet de lecture.
It may be that under certain circumstances there is the necessity for reading a statement. However, I have lived long enough in political life to have seen great leaders of the past-Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Robert Borden, Sir George Foster, and other great cabinet ministers- who were satisfied with only a few notes, even when making in the house a statement on the most important questions.
Exceptions may be made for the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition, but this procedure of reading speeches should not prevail on every occasion and on all questions. Knowing the present Prime Minister as I do,
I can say that he is a master of the English language, a master of his own mind and of his own thoughts. He says exactly what he wants to say at any time and in all circumstances. He does not need to put down on paper five or six days or a week in advance what he wishes to say in the House of Commons. He has a great gift of learning, and to my mind he would be the last one, had the practice not been developed in the past few years, to ask to be allowed to read his speeches or statements on matters of secondary importance.
The reading of speeches has developed into a habit by all parties in this house for some years. The other day we listened to a very good speech delivered by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell). It was a very good speech indeed, but if he will allow me to say so he nearly spoiled it. Fortunately for him he is a good reader, and it was not too apparent that he was reading a text. But I would always prefer to hear the gentleman give his ideas as they occur to him while he is on his feet, his speeches are then far more effective.
There are many other aspects in which the rules should be amended. I have no time to go into them now. I shall make only a brief reference to Hansard. I do not know whether I would be in favour of abolishing Hansard. But few people read it now. In the old days it was referred to very often by the leaders of all parties with a view to discovering some contradiction of statements. Nowadays, however, we do not bother about contradictions. We have contradictions not only between what was said in past years and what is said to-day, but we have contradictions in the very same speech. The end of a speech does not agree with the beginning and very often the beginning contradicts the conclusion. Thus I
see no great need for recording what is said. Under the pretext Of new conditions and of changed times leaders contradict themselves and continue blithely their way on, not worrying at all about contradictions. They do not care whether the stand they took a month, or a week, or a day ago, agrees with their present attitude.
There are many other reasons why parliament is coming into public discredit and among then I might cite the positions which are taken by members or leaders in flagrant contradiction with their declarations to the electors. There is also the hesitancy shown on any question which might gain or lose votes to a party or group. In the end all these things come to the electors, first, causing them to doubt and finally casting discredit on parliament.
With all due deference, and with all the personal friendship I have for him, may I say to the leader of the opposition that his amendment to the main motion is an example of those hesitating moves and vacillating attitudes which help to discredit parliament in the eyes of the people. I cannot vote for the conclusion of his speech. I would have been ready to accept most of the premises that he laid down, but the conclusion of his argument as contained in the amendment that he moved to the address is not in accordance with the premises. The amendment is vague, as vague as it can be. It is obscure and lends itself to all kinds of interpretations. Any party or group in this house could find therein something that would accord with their views.
Unfortunately the same remark applies to the subamendment which has been moved by the distinguished leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. It is presented in general terms which need to be explained in detail and which for the most part are not clearly understandable for the man on the street. With all due respect to both hon. members, I will say that the amendments appear to have been drafted with the idea of gaining support from people of opposite views. It shows lack of courage to state precisely the policy proposed or suggested. The amendments which have been moved, the speeches which have been delivered and, I might add, with some hesitation, the attitude of the government remind me of a man trying to ride three horses at the same time, and trying to be Santa Claus offering something to each group in order to satisfy all shades of opinion. But that cannot be done very long without destroying the confidence of the people of Canada in our parliamentary institutions.
The Address-Mr. Cardin

Boards have been appointed, without any responsibility to parliament, to deal with matters which the departments could very well have taken care of. We have hired the services of outsiders who know nothing of politics and have had experience only in the limited field of their personal business activities. These boards are deciding public matters according to their whims. In their inexperience they are destroying established practices and customs which have been in existence in our country for over fifty years. The civil laws are being disregarded. The privileges and rights of the provinces are being interfered with by men who have no responsibility except the one of preparing a report to their minister. That is their only responsibility. Members of parliament have no importance and have no authority with these boards, these extraordinary men, these supermen who are directing the affairs of the country at the present time. In due time, all this comes to the ears [DOT]of the people and helps to discredit our administration. We are fighting for liberty, we are fighting for democracy and parliamentary institutions. Yet most of our activities are in the hands of little potentates, men of no experience, dictators in the field that has been given to them for administration. These new appointees are nominally dollar-a-year men, but they receive salaries from the organizations to which they belong. I do not suggest that they are doing anything wrong, but certainly they are not likely to do anything prejudicial to the firms with which they are connected. There were in the public service numbers of men who could have been brought together and could1 have administered and directed efficiently many of our war activities.
Propaganda is also a source of discredit to parliament. Propaganda such as is carried on to-day under such high-sounding titles as "winning the war" and "war service" is some kind of blackout of the intelligence of the population of Canada. The people are not getting the truth. Most of the time they are listening to appeals based on imagination, *sentiment, feelings and half-truths, all this calculated to arouse unfairly the emotions *of our people.
Something which happened not long ago is a flagrant breach of a promise solemnly made in this house and of record. We were handed a few days ago a document, "Canadian War *Orders and Regulations. Extra" dated February 1, 1943. It will be recalled that under the mobilization act of 1940, section 5, it is required that orders and regulations passed under the authority of that act, -when parliament is not in session, "shall forthwith be

published in the Canada Gazette'' and distributed to the members of the House of Commons. Well, that little document dated February' 1 carries on the first page an order in council dated January 19. It informs us that orders in council have already been passed on September 4, September 14, November 3, and December 8-orders in council based on the disposition of the mobilization act to send recruits outside Canada. The first order in council of September 4 andi the others were not printed or published in the Canada Gazette at that time. They lay dormant in the desk of the privy council from September 4 until January 19, or February 1. Is that observing the law and causing the printing of the order in council and its distribution "forthwith"? No; it is taking advantage, as I predicted would be done, of the last sentence of section 5, which provides for special circumstances.
The government took the power, when the amendment was passed, when Bill No. SO was adopted, to order that publicity should not be given to decisions of the government W'hen they felt it would not be in the public interest to 'do so. This is a breach of a promise. I remember very well the answer which I received on that point last session from' a member of the government, "Oh, do not fear that this clause is going to be taken advantage of; if the power is used it will be only under the most extraordinary circumstances. "We propose," said that gentleman, "to publish the orders in council and make all our actions public." That pledge has been broken. What danger was there to the national interest in making public on September 4 that we had sent recruits to Newfoundland? In what way could our war effort have been prejudiced by letting the public know that we had decided to use the recruits as regular volunteers and members of the militia of Canada? In no way could this have prejudiced our war effort or caused any difficulties, or have brought information of any real advantage to the enemy.
To-day we find that in orders in council the names of the regiments are omitted', because it is not in "the national interest" to say that regiment number three or regiment number five has been sent here or there. How can the disclosure of such a fact be destructive to our war effort? How can it give to the enemy encouragement or support or useful information to state that we have sent a certain regiment to replace another in Newfoundland? This gives the people an indication of what is going to happen if some day the government decides under the authority of the

The Address-Mr. Cardin
mobilization act to send our sons and recruits overseas. These methods do not help to maintain the prestige of parliament.
The speech from the throne contains many words, but is rather poor in substance. As my time is running short I will be brief in the observations I shall make on the speech from the throne. There is the question of redistribution. That is nothing new. It has to be done in accordance with the constitution. But there are rumours that we shall not proceed with the bill. Newspapers have already stated that owing to certain difficulties, and to the fact that certain provinces will lose some seats in the house, the bill may be postponed until after an election. At any rate that is what I have read in the newspapers.
Parliamentary secretaries are to be appointed. That is not new either. I do not think this is necessary. My remarks are not to be taken as a reflection on the personality of those who have been chosen already and, as I am told, have already started their work. They may all be good men, deserving recognition and deserving to be trained in the business of the house. It is quite all right from that point of view, but to my mind it is the fifth wheel of the wagon.
Our position is not the same as in England where the government has to direct national and imperial affairs, together with what correspond to our provincial and municipal organizations. We are a small country and a small parliament, from the point of view of responsibilities, in comparison with the parliament of Great Britain, and this is an expenditure which we could easily avoid when our taxes are already high.
After all, what are the parliamentary secretaries going to do in the house? When they are asked a question about something that has been dealt with in the privy council they will be unable to answer, not being members of the cabinet. When they are asked a question on a matter of policy of the government they will not be in a position to- answer because they are not members of the government. In fact, they will be only glorified private secretaries or deputy ministers; that is all. On all questions of policy they will have to promise information for the next day, and the next day they will read a statement which will have been prepared by the minister or by somebody in the department. Well, such a statement could be read by any minister present in the house. It seems to me that our administration, with its numerous departments, its exceedingly large numbers of boards, commissions and controllers, is cumbersome enough without that additional machinery.
We have been told in the speech from the throne that national health will be taken care of and that social security will be looked after. But, as already mentioned by some other hon. members, these questions are largely provincial matters, and I hope we are not going to take advantage of the situation created by the war to deprive the provinces of the privileges and exclusive rights guaranteed them by the pact of confederation, without adopting some other satisfactory method which would protect minorities and guard the provinces against a central organization in Ottawa. With that limitation, what can we do? Very little. That is probably why the Prime Minister told us in his speech that these matters would be looked into, and probably that is all that will be done.
I question the merit of the study that we can make of the situation that will exist after the war. Where is the man bright enough and with vision enough, the man capable of prophecy, who is able to tell us what are to be the foundations upon which we shall build the welfare of Canada after the war? We shall find ourselves in a situation which none of us at the present time can properly envisage and determine. We may do a certain amount of work here and there, but it may very well be that when we are faced with the real situation after the war all the plans now prepared will be of no avail.
What is the use of building a house when we do not know upon what foundation it is to rest? Why lose our time in dealing with such uncertainties?
The speech from the throne also reviews our war effort. It has been a magnificent effort, I admit, and I am glad of it. All Canadians are proud of it, and we have the profound satisfaction of having it recognized that our war effort surpasses that of any other country of our size. As far as man-power and finance are concerned, our war effort is superior to that of the great republic to the south, the United States. Our war effort is really a great thing. It is abused, though, by a large number of people and is taken advantage of by many. Our war effort should be regulated by reason. There are certain problems which we must face courageously and one of the most important of these is agriculture.
I listened with great attention to the wonderful speech delivered by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) this afternoon, who always makes great speeches. He is a convincing speaker. Nevertheless the fact remains that there is a great man-power problem in the agricultural field in Canada. Whatever explanations may be given, even coloured with sentiment, they do not improve the situation.
The Address-Mr. Cardin

There is a shortage of farm hands in Canada. This is admitted everywhere, in all sections of the country, and this ought to be taken care of. The very letter from Mr. MacNamara, which was read by the minister this very afternoon, admits that there is a very serious shortage. It refers to the difficult situation in which the farmers find themselves at the present time. The terms of the letter are very clear on that point. This is the substance of one of the priliminary paragraphs:
In view of the increasing shortage of farm labour it becomes more and more important to encourage essential farm labourers to remain on the land.
This is an official document which has just been signed by the director of selective service and approved by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). I need not go any further. I have also the word of the Minister of Agriculture himself in his statement published in the Montreal Standard of February 6:
Can the farmers of Canada attain the 1943 objectives? Certainly they are going to make a valiant effort to do so, and if given some help both in man-power and farm machinery and equipment it is most likely they may perhaps surpass some of them.
Therefore there is a shortage of farm labour in Canada and we ought to cope with that situation. Such letters, circulars, promises and instructions given to judges, telling them how to read the law, are not satisfactory. That is not enough. It only means perpetuating the vague and nebulous system that exists at present and under which farmers never know definitely whether or not they are going to have the help of their sons to cultivate the land. In many instances they do not get deferment unless the military authorities give their approval. Such a hit-or-miss system that has prevailed up to the present time must cease. One might say that is an election promise if there were an election in sight!


Thomas Vien: I have to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Mr. CARDIN:: Five minutes.
Is agriculture essential or not? It is essential. We ought to take every means to help this industry at the present time, because without it, without food products, however well-trained our men, however great our armament, the war would soon end. A man with an empty stomach is incapable of carrying the most perfect gun. Agriculture is the most important thing in the world at the present time. Canada, instead of trying to be first as far as man-power is concerned should strive to be first as far as agriculture is concerned, first in supplying food and armaments for the fighting

forces. There are countries capable of supplying more man-power than Canada. Russia and China have inexhaustible resources of manpower; there, men can be found in as great numbers as may be desired. They need the armaments and also the food we can produce.
Let us base our participation in the war upon reason; let us see that what we can do best is done first and not second, even if it is a source of pride for us that certain of our men are fighting gallantly at one point or another. We must sustain them, and we must, help to sustain Russia, China, and Britain and other parts of the British empire.
Munitions also are necessary, they are most important. The United States are thinking of fixing and limiting their man-power to 7,500,000 men. It is about time that we ourselves think of placing a limit-as high as possible, I admit-on our man-power overseas, and try to feed those who are in need of being fed. In north Africa people, are dying, and the political and military heads there to-day say that what has been provided up to the present in the form of arms and food is only a drop in the bucket and that unless something more is done in regard to food and armaments we shall not succeed and thousands upon thousands of the population will perish. The same situation prevails in China. China is threatened with famine, and she has not the armaments she needs to carry on her fight. Good old China, whom we love so much to-day, that we praise so much to-day and proclaim to be one of the first peoples in the world! For years she was fighting the Japanese on her own territory without our help, but to-day, what a change! We have discovered that she is a great country, a country that deserves our praise and support. We have modified our views; we have become a little more courageous and ready to help China now, as well as Russia. Let us give them what they need most, not men but food and armaments. That is what they want to enable them to carry on the struggle. As a matter of fact they are fighting for us as much as they are fighting for themselves.
If we have some success to-day, who has achieved that success? The Russians. Without Russia where would we be? Probably we would be signing a treaty of peace, not according to our terms or our will, but according to the will of others. That would be our position.
What are we to do? I am going to be bold, not afraid t-o express my thoughts. I regret that the government at the present time has not seen fit to suspend 'the mobilization act of 1940 until at least a survey has been made of the whole situation in order to ascertain the most pressing needs of Canada as well as of the united nations. We ought to make such

The Address-Mr. Cardin
a survey, instead of trying to attain the same end by a circular letter to be sent from time to time to the boards or to the committees that decide whether or not a man essential to the farm or to an industry should be given a military postponement. I hope we do not establish in this country, for coming generations, a practice by which those in authority are going to tell the judges and those who have been sworn to interpret the law what they ought to do and how they ought to interpret that law. I trust we have not reached' that depth. If the law is not good, let us change it, but while the law is there, let us observe it in the letter and in the spirit. What this letter purports to do is to tell the boards that they should interpret the law according to what the authority thinks it is important to do at a given time. If -that is what we are fighting for on the battlefield, we had better cease. If we are fighting for principles like those; if the law is to be changed according to the will of the government, according to the will of a superior officer, according to the will of a military authority, I do not know where it is going to end.
That is my suggestion, and I am not afraid to make it. I may be accused of not being alive to the situation, of not taking cognizance of the facts as they exist in the world to-day. To those who may be inclined to attack me and to be unjust I wish to say only this. To-day Irishmen are proud of Ireland even though their country is neutral. The Australian people are also proud of their country, though they have limited the extent of the field in which they are going to fight. They are still part of the British empire and of the British commonwealth. South Africa is still a member of the commonwealth and its people are still proud to be citizens of that country, although they have also limited the field of their activities in this war. The United States are looking after themselves and their interests first. They are helping to defend what we call liberty, democracy, etcetera; but I have not seen anything in the press nor have I heard a speech by any politician in that country stating that they were ready to give second place to their rights, principles, advantages and interests. Russia is fighting for herself, too. No public man to-day would deny that statement. Why can we not be Canadians, though participating in the war? Why do we not see our war effort through our Canadianism? In doing all we reasonably can to help win the war, we should not try to surpass, for vainglory or vain pride, the efforts of other countries who are more vitally and directly interested in the conflict than Canada?
One further word and I shall conclude. I have lived long enough to remember that one man, at one time very powerful in the United Kingdom and who was a close personal friend of our Prime Minister-I refer to the late Mr. Ramsay MacDonald-was not in full accord with the government of. his country in 1914-18. He was not in favour of England going into the war as deeply as she did in those years. Who would say that Ramsay MacDonald was not a good British citizen and a great man? A few years later he became Prime Minister of Great Britain, and we acclaimed him here in Canada when he paid us the honour of a visit. Perhaps that might answer those who may be inclined to criticize me too severely.
Something was mentioned about Casablanca. Either the leader of the official opposition or my good friend the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation asked the Prime Minister to make a statement with regard to the conference which took place between Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt in that city. Before six o'clock, that day, the Prime Minister began to give his explanation, brilliantly as always, with a fine choice of words and a careful weighing of his sentences and expressions. He presented a very good argument. After six o'clock he continued by reading a document he had prepared on the same subject. As the Ottawa Journal put it the next day, the statement before six o'clock was much better than the one after six o'clock.
The Prime Minister gave many reasons why Canada was not represented at that conference. The first was, "Well, I was not invited." That reminded me of a little story regarding a visit which Emperor Napoleon paid to a little town in France. He was received by the mayor of the locality who explained to him that for various reasons they could not fire a gun in his honour on his arrival. In fact the mayor said that he had fifteen reasons for not having fired a gun, and he proceeded to enumerate them: "First, we have no gun." Napoleon interrupted him and said, "Well, I do not want to hear about the other reasons; that suffices me." The moment the Prime Minister told us he had not been invited to the Casablanca conference I thought that was good enough, and that no other explanations were needed to indicate that while not invited he was there not in person, but in thought, and also through knowledge, because General McNaughton who is in close touch with the military authorities must have, in all probability, been aware of the questions discussed
The Address-Mr. Cardin

at the Casablanca conference. All these excuses and arguments were not as good as the first reason the Prime Minister gave before six o'clock, namely, that he was not invited.
1 am not humiliated because we were not invited. We had no reason to be there. We had no place there, because we are not one of the main powers conducting the war. Our authority is secondary; our role is second to that of many others, and we must accept the decisions of the powers mainly responsible for carrying this war to a successful conclusion. We had no reason to be there, and we have no reason to complain because we were not invited.
Let us adjust ourselves to our role, to our position. We are a dominion. We are a member of the British commonwealth of nations. But we are not as powerful as England; we are not as powerful as the United States; we are not as powerful as Russia. We are a small nation trying to do our best to help the sovereign nations and the great cause. We cannot hope to impose our will or our wishes when decisions as important as those which no doubt were made at Casablanca are to be reached. Let us avoid all unjustified pride of ourselves. We are in this war, it is true. We are in it to do the best we can. but as far as I am concerned, Canada comes first.
I am more interested in the welfare, wellbeing and maintenance of Canada than in anything else. It is all very well to coin phrases and to express opinions about this and that, opinions and coined phrases which in reality mean only one thing, that the end justifies the means. That is a nazi and fascist principle, and one to which I cannot subscribe.
We must be reasonable; we must keep our feet on the ground and not lose our heads in the clouds of excitement and exaggerated pride. Let us not exaggerate the importance and the extent of the contribution we can make in this struggle.
Let us be Canadians; let us think as Canadians and let us act as Canadians.


Mr. F. D. SHAW (Red, Deer):: Mr. Speaker, in coming to the conclusion that I should participate in this debate I was motivated by a very strong desire to give expression to my feelings regarding matters of current concern, and matters of future concern referred to in the speech from the throne. May I say at the outset that I cannot subscribe to the theory frequently advanced in the house that, through agreement or through some type of understanding, we should bring about a hasty conclusion to the debate on the address in

reply to the speech from the throne. After all, this is the occasion upon which the private member has an opportunity of dealing with those many matters which affect not only his constituency, 'but all of Canada.
Upon entering the new year Canadians were greatly encouraged by the improved military position of the united nations. I fancy that it is not an exaggeration to say that we have been inspired by the offensive action in North Africa-offensive on our side,, because we showed aggressiveness; and offensive so far as our enemies were concerned, because of the effect it had upon them. Furthermore, we have unbounded admiration for the people in the British isles who continue-to carry on not only the defence of their shores against a threatened invasion but also-the production of vast supplies of the tools of war and of the foodstuffs necessary to carry them through during the prosecution of the war.
We have been impressed, too, by the significant and heroic achievements of our Russian allies. All of those to whom I have referred are indeed deserving of our deepest gratitude. It would not be appropriate for me to proceed without further -asserting that we entered the new year full of admiration for and confidence in the men of our own fighting forces who have gone into theatres of war on our behalf.
There is one danger, however, with which we are confronted at the present time. I fancy that as a result of the fact that at least for the most part the battles are now extremely favourable to us, we may relax our vigilance and endeavour to -hide behind a cloak of optimism. We have among us too many volatile analysts and amateur strategists, if I may so describe them, who may endeavour to convince us that all is well, that the crisis is past, and that we may now relax. We have been told that the war will be long, that it will be bitter and bloody. I am satisfied that we should look upon the conflict in the light of the fact that it will still be longer, that it will still be much more bitter than it has been in the past, and that it will also be bloodier. We have heard it stated -that the-price of victory is blood, sweat and tears. We have not had a great deal of that yet, but let us not be unmindful of the fact that there shall be -much of it.
In the speech from the throne many words were directed to the post-war world. I do not -agree with those who assert that at this time we should not concentrate any of our efforts and o-ur energies upon consideration of and preparation for the post-war period. With regard to that part of the speech from

The Address-Mr. Shaw
the throne which refers to the post-war world, we find that the government intend to endeavour to provide freedom from fear and want. They intend, so they assert, to provide insurance against the inevitable consequences of major economic and social hazards. I may be unduly pessimistic-if I am, I am not alone-but I must say that I see in the expressions contained in the speech from the throne only pious platitudes. I cannot believe they are anything else. I fancy they were designed to be soothing; and I am indeed satisfied that much of it will prove to be meaningless.
As I have said, I do not care to be unduly pessimistic; but all we have to do is to look back over the last ten years, when there was every opportunity to do something about providing freedom from fear and want. Nevertheless in those years we did so little. I remember all the fine phrases and meaningless expressions of those days. Therefore, when I remember that the same individuals passed out for our consideration, mainly at election time, fancy phrases which once more crop up, I cannot be assured that they are not again being used for the same purpose. I trust-and I think I am expecting too much-that there shall be clarification of the expressions contained in the speech from the throne. I should hope that we may be given something concrete, so that our faith may be bolstered, so that we may be encouraged to exert ourselves to an even greater extent in our efforts to bring to fruition the promises now handed out so freely. Unfortunately, for decades politicians have been providing us with these vague phrases which, in almost every instance, have eventually proven that they could give us nothing but economic indigestion and disillusionment. Freedom from fear and want-I wonder what that means. I wonder which hon. member of this house can rise in his place to-night and tell us what he means by the expression "freedom from fear and want", and what he proposes to do in an effort to bring about that condition. We insist, Mr. Speaker, upon the government giving us something concrete and definite with regard to the post-war measures which they have in mind.
Another matter which comes to my mind is this:	Are our changes to be basic? Are we
going to get right down to business and endeavour to determine what these things are that have in the past caused the deplorable conditions which have been imposed upon us? Or are we going to devote our energies toward finding palliatives, patches, if you please, in an effort to make the old system perform functions which, deep down in our hearts, we know
it never can perform? I assert that there should be a commitment in this regard; I assert that if we are merely to have a few more schemes comparable with unemployment insurance, the government might just as well introduce their bill now and get the misery over with as soon as possible. It would be a waste not only of the time of this house but of the money of the Canadian people if the energies of the members of this house were to be centred upon the searching out and utilization of patches. We have had enough of that, Mr. Speaker.
Furthermore, when I try to determine to my own satisfaction just what faith I should have in the government when it comes to the laying down of a sound post-war economy, I reflect back upon some of the policies which have been so dear to them in the past. I shall refer to only one or two, and that only briefly.
First, the old age pension. I hesitate to mention that for fear I might incur the wrath of the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene), who, last year, when I made reference to old age pensions, chastized me because he asserted in effect that owing to my extreme youth I could not know anything about the conditions which prevailed among the old age pensioners.


Mr. DECHENE:: I think the hon. member is wrong.


Frederick Davis Shaw: That is just my hon. friend's opinion.
If the government are sincere in what they contend they are going to do or at least try to do, they could at least take a step forward and show their sincerity by immediately increasing the amount of the old age pension and lowering the age qualification. I go one step further. I say it is criminal that when the son of an old age pensioner joins the active service forces, and assigns part of his pay and secures a dependent's allowance for his parents the old age pension should be reduced accordingly. I repeat, that is criminal, and I say that without qualification.
Then, with respect to veterans' pensions. We are continually receiving letters from veterans of the first great war-yes, and my hon. friend beside me says, from veterans of the Boer war too-letters from veterans who have suffered degradation as a consequence of the reward which they received from the government of this country after they had offered their lives in its defence, and who in many instances returned to Canada maimed or otherwise impaired in health. I am not fond of quoting these cases, but I will make just a passing reference to one particular case.
The Address-Mr. Shaw

It is that of a man who went overseas in the last war and fought in the mud and hell of Flanders' fields. He lost an eye and about 88 per cent of the vision in his other eye. Let me pause to ask you, Mr. Speaker, what would you part with an eye for? Or 88 per cent of the vision of the other eye? I dare say you would place a fancy price upon it. But what do we do about the other fellow? Here is this fellow given a pension of $20 a month. Then, because he took over a rural post office that pays him about $100 a year, less a ten per cent compulsory deduction for war savings, and because he raised $78 worth of grain and had one or two pigs to eat the slop, if I may use that term, the government officials came along, surveyed the situation and declared that his pension would be reduced by $10 a month. How can we expect a government that will condone actions of that sort to do anything for the boys who return from this war? Personally I cannot 'be led to believe that much can be expected. Mind you-alii hon. members know it, I do not have to tell them-the case I have cited is only one case out of scores and scores and hundreds. As an indication of our good faith let us wipe these cases off the books and, if it takes $100 a month to provide the necessities of life, let us say to these men: "We will give you $100 a month, and we will not send a government official to peek around the corner of your barn to see whether there are ten or eight little pigs in that new litter."
How about the men who are returning from overseas now? I have a placard; I have not it with me to-night but I carry it with me very frequently, which is about the size of this sheet I hold in my hand. It is divided into two sections. In one section it sets forth all the advantages that accrue to the boys who will don his majesty's uniform. It gives the rates of pay for the various ranks. Then it gives the dollar value of the hospitalization services, the medical services and the dental services which he may expect. All that is set out in detail. Then it shows the dependents' allowance and the separation allowance, and it is a glorious thing when it is all added up in a corner of the placard. It just makes the fellow wonder why the government told him a few years ago that they could not afford to pay him more than twenty cents a day in a relief camp. Then in the other section are listed the advantages that accrue to the man upon his discharge, and they look beautiful too, especially when nailed on the telephone poles on every corner of my town. But it is not what the government promise

that I am concerned about. What I am concerned about is what they do for the boys who are coming back now every day.
There is in my town a man who spent almost two and a half years overseas in this war. While on manoeuvres he was involved in an accident in an army lorry. His chest was crushed; his collar-bone was broken, and his arm was fractured. He came back to this country after being in hospital overseas for several months. He was discharged upon reaching this country. He appeared before a medical board and they assessed the damages which he had suffered. I might digress at this moment to give expression to my thoughts with respect to some of the boards, but I will try to curb my emotions at this time and refrain. This man, who cannot to-day carry on work, is receiving the noble sum of $7.50 a month; and he had to fight for that. The government cannot fool the people of my town, even though it used to be a Liberal town, when things like that are happening all the time. That means more than what appears on these papers. Let us show these boys that our statements are more than pious platitudes, more than surges of emotion that are here to-day and gone to-morrow. Let us prove through our actions that we are sincere in what we said about the things we are going to do for these boys who are fighting that our country may be preserved. The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) tells me not to forget the girls who are in uniform too. What I say about the men applies also to the girls in the service.
What the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said this afternoon with respect to agriculture did not fool me one iota, nor did it cause me to change my notes a fraction. Black is black to me regardless of who may contend that it is otherwise. We live back in those constituencies; we know what those farmers are confronted with, and it does not take a Minister of Agriculture or anybody else to tell us what those conditions are. To-day agriculture in western Canada is in a wild state of confusion, and I find it difficult to imagine that after this war, when all available foodstuffs will be required to assist the people of the depressed countries, out of the confused agriculture of to-day there can then emerge a stabilized agriculture.
In my own constituency, of which I speak because it is the district with which I am most familiar, approximately sixty per cent of our threshing could not be done last fall. I am not minimizing the fact that we had an unusually bad fall, but at the same time I am not overlooking the fact that farmers in my constituency do not operate threshing rigs with

The Address-Mr. Shaw
two teams in place of six or eight just because they like to do so. Sixty per cent of our coarse grains and our wheat are either under the snow in the stooks or in swaths on the ground. The farmers in my constituency are mixed farmers, or, to use a more dignified expression, they carry on a diversified type of farming. They have encountered almost unbearable difficulties as a result of the acute shortage of feed for their live stock. I wish I could have the Minister of Agriculture in my constituency and take him for a drive.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take him for a ride.


Frederick Davis Shaw: "Take him for a ride," my hon. friend says. I will refrain from commenting on that.
The day before I left my home town to come to Ottawa I met a certain lady. I did not go out searching for her; I had not known her before that day; but she was introduced to me as one who had encountered great difficulty on account of the shortage of man-power. This lady is forty-six years of age; she lives with her eighty year old mother on a thousand acre farm not far from the town of Innisfail. I do not say that all of the thousand acres are under cultivation, but a large part of the farm is cultivated. They have sixteen milk cows which they milk morning and night; they have 100 hogs, they have 200 sheep. Last fall, after they had put in their own crop in the spring, they were obliged to cut and stook it. Unfortunately they did not get it threshed. Shortly before I met this lady she had purchased 2,000 bushels of coarse grain for the hogs, and she had shovelled all of it herself, both on to the wagon and off it after it was hauled to her place. That is but one case; I did not search for a glaring example of what we are up against.
The man-power shortage is attributable to these facts. A very great number of young men from my constituency have joined the active service. As I stated before, I reside in a town of approximately 1.200 people, and from that town and the immediate vicinity 430 men have enlisted. On top of that, the government exercised the authority vested in them under the National Resources Mobilization Act and drafted a number of men. Speaking with respect to the draftees, and the difficulties which we have encountered in connection with our agricultural problem as a consequence, I should like to refer to the letter which the Minister of Agriculture read this afternoon. To me that is one more headache, for two reasons. First, there is still too much of an indefinite nature about that letter; and second, there should be a 72537-19
postscript, "Please read this when you get it. ' I am satisfied that many of the officials whom we have in the selective service offices are in a mild state of confusion-or probably it is not so mild-on account of the fact that the instructions they receive can be interpreted in so many ways, and because, in many instances, that hard-boiled officialdom has cropped up again. Talk about an instruction such as this:
Applications for leave should be invited from agricultural workers engaged in alternate work service, and such applications should be given favourable consideration.
To me that is bosh, in view of the experiences we have had. We have sent men to the selective service offices; we have begged for postponements because we knew definitely that they were urgently required, and we could not get them. There should be a clear-cut. definite and immediate investigation into the operation of the selective service offices. I got just beyond the point I wanted to cover, but these are the facts which I wished to place definitely and clearly before the house.
Unless our old age pension question is settled, and settled forthwith; unless we have these necessary revisions in the veterans' allowances and so forth, applicable to men of the last war as well as to those sent home during this war, and until such time as we have a clear-cut and definite man-power policy in this country, so that our agricultural industry will not flounder and ultimately fail- until we give consideration to these matters and thus prove our sincerity, we have no business talking about promises, the glowing promises of a grand, new posb-war order.
There is another matter about which I should like to speak, because I believe that in this regard we encountered difficulties in my part of the country far more serious than those in other parts. I refer to the acute fuel shortage during this winter. I fancy that some hon. members have read in the press that in the city of Red Deer we were burning our fences and so forth. I know it is all right for someone to rise in his place and say that arrangements were made with the bank so that we could purchase fuel in advance; but do not forget-I learned this from actual experience-that if you did not need the money you could get it to buy coal, and if you did need it you could not. We were cautioned to put in our coal in advance. Many of us-and I had- the experience myself -ordered our coal early in the summer and could- never get it. We got small quantities, but we did not get enough. In view of the acute fuel shortage we should, as I have asked in a resolution which appears on the order

The Address-Mr. Shaw


Mr. BROOKE CLAXTON (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, I propose to speak on a subject that is rather novel here, namely, the working of parliament, a subject that should interest us, because nothing is more interesting than the work we do.
Last session, on two or three occasions a number of hon. members referred to the working of parliament and made suggestions that something should be done to gear up parliament so as to make it a more effective instrument for helping the country and directing its efforts in the war. On May 26 last the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) had this to say:
In my judgment parliament is more and more on trial at the bar of public opinion. There is something wrong with this House of Commons. I am not reflecting on the house, and I do not know what is the cause. But there is something wrong with it.
Since then, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) has proposed that it is time that we change the rules of the house, but the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) doubted whether this was a suitable time to do so. Meanwhile hon. members and the people are making two sets of comments about parliament. One is that parliament just talks; the other is that parliament is a rubber stamp, that its members are not independent enough. I ask hon. members how they would like to have the house full of some of our most independent members. I will not name them, but let hon. members think of them for themselves. We must have parties in order to organize opinion, or we would have a totally different system from the one in which we want to work.
Some of the criticism about the House of Commons and its working is just misinformed, and some of it probably is on account of the fact that some people are disappointed be-
72537-19i
cause some supporters of the government did not turn upon the government and turn it out. Other comment on the working of parliament results from the feeling that there is room for improvement and that we can do something about it so as to make parliament the great forum of the nation and a better expression of the national will.
I would suggest-and here I think all hon. members will agree with me-that there is no more certain way of weakening parliament than to sneer at it and its workings. We can all try to improve it, but there is no point whatever in just saying, What is the good of it?
If there is one answer to be made to the criticisms so far made about parliament it is that nobody seems to have studied and expressed why it is defective, if it is defective; what can be done to change it, what should be done, and when. So far we have not had a debate on the subject, because there is no way under the rules to have a debate relating exclusively to this subject.
It is not my suggestion that the rules should be substantially altered. My view is that the rules are all right for the most part, but that changes should be made in the way in which we work the rules and that this will effect all the reforms that anyone would want to make. As I go along I propose to compare our procedure with the procedure in the British house. I do that for this reason, that the British people have had a very long experience of the workings of parliament, including a great deal of experience with the working of parliament in crises. Quite properly we regard the parliament at Westminster as the mother of parliaments, and the working of that parliament throughout the trials of this war has been one of the reasons why the whole world admires the British people. But I do not say that we should copy it in everything.
If time permitted, I should like to examine some of the rules of the congress in the United States and the parliaments of other members of the British commonwealth. I suggest that we can learn from the experience of other parliamentary bodies, and at the same time that we have a great deal in Canada that is better than is found anywhere else. But I do hope that hon. members will agree that if there is room for improvement we should try to make the improvement.
Please do not think I am setting up as an expert in parliamentary procedure. I recognize my own inexperience and limitations in that regard. It just happens that I have been interested in the subject, as other hon. members are; I have discussed it with older
The Address-Mr. Claxton

members and members of other parliaments whom I have known, and have read something about it.
The point at which I begin is this, that the rules, the procedure of parliament here and everywhere else were primarily designed for the passage of legislation. If one studies the matter and looks through the rules, one sees that they are designed to promote the enactment of legislation. Parliament is a legislative body; that was its primary function. But when we get into a state of war or meet the developments that have occurred in the last few years we find that the functions of parliament have changed. To-day parliament does not spend much of its time in enacting legislation, considering bills and passing them; it is the executive, the cabinet, which makes most of the laws, and of necessity it must be done in large measure by the executive. To-day the main function of parliament is to support and control the executive and to conduct a kind of government by discussion, so as to keep the executive continuously responsible through parliament to the people, and also to keep the executive efficient and give it every support that we can. My submission is that the practice we have continued to follow in Canada is the practice that is adapted for the purpose of passing legislation, while in Great Britain the parliament at Westminster, under exactly the same rules, has adapted a practice which is more suitable to the changed conditions of the times.
May I illustrate that. Since this debate commenced we have had some six or seven days discussion on the address; and as everyone knows, this is a general debate. Let me take just a single day, February 4, and look through the discussion that took place on that occasion. On that day different members spoke about food control, social security, women's war work, the officials of the wartime prices and trade board making speeches, nutrition, wooden ships, the Japanese in Canada, fuel shortage in British Columbia, food control, farm labour, social security, farm income, man-power, fuel shortage, reinforcements, redistribution, national income, pensions, post-war developments, production and employment, farm prices, post-war, food, farm prices, farm labour, social insurance, farm labour and labour. Similarly we could go through any general debate that occurs in the house, either this debate or the budget debate, and see subject after subject touched upon by one speaker and then perhaps left for three or four days before being taken up by another. That also has been illustrated to-night. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) who preceded

me did not follow the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), and as yet I have not followed either of those two hon gentlemen in their remarks.
The point I make is that in a general debate of this kind there is no possibility of having consecutive discussion relating to a specific point. I suggest that there are ways and means of having that. What I have just said about general debates of this kind is perhaps even better illustrated by what happens in connection with the war appropriation bills. It will be remembered that in 1940 we had a general debate on the war appropriation bills and the conduct of the war. Throughout that entire debate the members of the cabinet, almost without exception, were continually in their seats, wasting their time-which is more valuable than the time of anyone else in this house or this country

in listening to that discussion, a great part of which did not concern them. In 1941 we spent some thirty-six days in that debate, covering about 806 pages of Hansard, and I believe I mentioned once before that the then leader of the opposition had no less than 954 separate innings. At the same time in the British house they were voting ten times as much money by a similar though not the same procedure. The debate in the British house covered forty pages of their Hansard and was completed in three days. In closing the debate the chancellor of the exchequer made a speech consisting of five sentences, of which I will quote the last three:
I think only one direct question was put to me in the course of the debate. It was directed to ascertain my estimate of the revenue we expect during the coming year. I am sorry that I cannot give that information.
On the conclusion of that sentence he sat down, completing his answer to the discussion that had gone on. That was his only contribution to the debate, apart from his opening speech. Contrast that with the ordeal through which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) had to go, sitting here day after d>ay answering thousands of questions, then stepping right from the war appropriation bills into the budget debate and doing precisely the same thing.
In 1942, the session just concluded, the practice was extended of dividing up the debate and taking the service departments one at a time. I think all hon. members will agree that was a great step forward. All that I suggest is that this practice be carried two or three steps further forward. At the end of that debate in 1942, after we had spent twenty-nine days in a general discussion of the conduct of the war, the Minister of

The Address-Mr. Claxton
Finance made available a general break-down of the expenditures of a great number of departments, and for the last six days of the debate the discussion was related to that break-down. From that time on, the discussion was closely directed to the specific points set out therein, and we made very much better progress.
My suggestion is that in view of the tremendous burden which is placed upon the government and upon parliament, in view of the changed functions of government as a result of the wide extension of the whole realm of governmental activities, there is no way in which the deliberations of parliament can be carried on effectively unless they are organized and controlled. I suggest that the time has come when this house should direct the government to assume the responsibility of allocating time to debate, day by day, and indicating precisely what subjects will be discussed and how long will be spent on them. Such a practice requires no change in the rules of the house. It requires acquiescence on the part of members of the house; it requires that they should discipline themselves and cooperate with the government in seeing how best we can do the work of this house, to make it the most effective instrument for carrying out the national will. In Great Britain, again, that is actually done to-day. It has been done for a great number of years, and it is done under precisely the same rule that we have in Canada; namely, the order providing for closure. There is no provision in the British standing orders or rules for the allocation of time by the government. It is all done because the government has the power of closure if it desires to use it. Out of that comes the power of the government, acquiesced in by the other members, to arrange the time of the house; and of course in doing so the government consults with the Speaker and with the whips of the other parties.
I suggest that we might well look to the government and ask it to begin-not too rigorously at first-to proceed in this way when we come to the war appropriation bills which will come up for discussion within the next few days. In the United Kingdom they finished in December the debate on the address, corresponding to the debate now going on here. For that debate the government had allocated eleven days. Of those eleven days six were spent in general debate; five were devoted to private members' amendments, which is a very interesting development there. The total number of British Hansard pages devoted to the general debate was 185, and of the six days allocated to that debate the greater part of two were spent in secret session. But then, having finished the general debate in six
days, they went on to discuss a number of amendments which had been suggested by private members in order to concentrate discussion on specific points that were of general interest. Those amendments were selected by Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the various parties, as being the amendments which would concentrate the discussion on specific points, one at a time. I have in my hand copies of the British Hansard for the period I have mentioned, and when I come to No. 7 of the current session, for November 25, I see the first amendment that came up. It has to do with war injuries compensation. Then on the next day the next amendment came up, and they had a discussion on colonial development, a matter of great public concern in Great Britain and elsewhere throughout the world. Then on the third occasion they had a debate on reconstruction. That debate continued for two days, and during its course the paymaster general, Sir William Jowitt, who has charge of coordinating British work on reconstruction, made an extensive report to the house and to the country through the house, as to what was being done on that very important question.
If, however, the government is to have vested in it by the acquiescence of the house, or through the use or threat of closure, if necessary, the power to allocate the time of the house, and to designate specific subjects, then of course as a corollary the government must give opportunities for the discussion of subjects of general interest, and create such opportunities from time to time as occasion arises. In that connection I suggest that now there are one or two subjects of utmost importance to all of us, and with respect to which many of us would like to hear discussions, and would like to know what is happening. I refer first to the general international situation, and then to the particular development of defence arrangements in Canada, having regard to our very close and, I am glad to say, cordial and effective arrangements for the defence of this continent, in conjunction with the United States. Those are two subjects upon which the house should concentrate its attention for at least a day. I should hope very much that at some time in the future the government may be in a position to allow that.
In England, as we know, one of the most interesting, characteristic and distinguishing features of the British parliamentary system is the question period. Every day, according to the rules, from 2.45 to 3.45 p.m. there is a full sixty minutes of questioning. Questions are placed on the order paper the day before. Those for which oral answers are desired are
The Address-Mr. Claxton

marked with an asterisk. Each day from 150 to 200 questions are asked and answered. Very few of those questions are designed to get information. They are all designed to bring to the attention of the government a point of view or a grievance; and the form of the question is quite different from the form we follow.
I have chosen a question at random, and I find that it reads:
Sir W. Smithers asked the parliamentary secretary to the ministry of food what position Mr. Calder holds in his ministry; and what were Mr. Calder's connections with bacon factories previous to his appointment. . . .
Sir W. Smithers: Will the minister take steps to dissipate the idea . . .
And so on. The under-secretary makes reply. Then, the next question:
Mr. Thorne asked the parliamentary secretary to the ministry of food whether he will have some of the bread made of flour, oats and barley put in the tea room?
Not only have they questions, but supplementary questions are also allowed, within reasonable limits. As I say, very few of these questions are submitted for the purpose of getting information. They are designed to bring forward a point of view briefly and quickly, and that point of view registers for what it is worth. Often when this is done it obviates the necessity of putting the point in a more formal way in debate in the house.
Supplementing questions is the adjournment debate. It is quite a different matter from our procedure to adjourn the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance. The parliament at Westminster has that procedure, too. However, we have not anything like the debate on the adjournment. This is a procedure whereby, any member who is dissatisfied with the reply of a minister says, "I give notice that I will raise that on the adjournment," or else he gives notice without having a question. Then, the government may occasionally raise a debate on the adjournment. The whips get together and arrange that within a day or two when the normal time for the adjournment of the house takes place, opportunity will be given for a member to state his case. Two or three members may join in, if there is time, and the minister or under-secretary will reply, the matter thereby being disposed of when it is hot, and when there is still interest in it. That is the last that is heard about it. However, it has the result of releasing the subject at once, ventilating it and securing the attention of parliament, the country, and the minister. It also supplements the very effective method of interrogating the government by way of questions.

Almost every day there are adjournment debates. Even during the period I have mentioned, at the beginning of the last session of the house when the debate on the address was in progress they had, on the second day, a debate on estate duties; on the third day a debate on the situation and status of Prince Paul and Princess Olga of Yugoslavia; on the fourth day a general debate on the business of the house; on the seventh day a debate on Royal Observer Corps centres; on the eighth day a debate on essential work order; on the ninth day' a debate on the weaving mill at Tayport; on the tenth day a debate on a Royal Air Force, airmen's application; and on the eleventh day a debate on civil service pensions.
That is in the period of the debate on the address. Almost every day opportunity is given toward the end of the sitting for about a half hour to be spent in the ventilation of some subject. Through those devices of questions and adjournment debates it is possible for private members to bring matters to the attention of the government and the people exceedingly quickly. All my conversations with members of parliament at Westminster have indicated that they regard the question period as the most important single feature in British parliamentary institutions. As we all know, we have not that kind of question period here. Our practice is to ask questions which seek information, a great deal of which is sometimes available in blue books. Such information is placed on Hansard or supplied through sessional papers as orders for returns. I think hon. members will agree with me, however, that a great part of the material asked for in our questions is of no permanent value, and might just as well be obtained by the member through direct communication with the department or the minister. With respect to these other types of questions, may I point out that a very large percentage of them are of a contentious and argumentative nature, and have the effect of stating a case.
In addition, arrangements are made in the British House of Commons for the holding of debates on special topics. During the debate on the budget, for example, it may be agreed that the second day will be spent on some specific topic, and the third day on another. In that way they break down the whole broad scope of a debate into topics which can be handled. Members may speak consecutively, and ministers or under-secretaries may reply. In those debates there is a meeting of minds and a clash of wills. At once they become much more lively and interesting, and at once there is something the people can follow. At the same time it is a debate about which the

The Address-Mr. Claxton
press gallery can write, with interest. It is something which can be handled and which has some meaning, because it is not scattered throughout a whole session. For instance, statements respecting reconstruction, and thoughts in line with that subject, will be recorded' on one occasion. Having taken place on such an occasion they are not so likely to take place at other times. I suggest that in this way the parliament at Westminster not only secures more orderly and organized discussions, but saves the time of the ministers, who know when subjects are to be considered. At times when matters outside their interest are not under consideration, they need not be present.
Then, too, there is much more satisfaction in dealing with a subject in a manner which makes one feel that he is making some contribution, progressively. One idea, of course, leads to another. There is all the great advantage of discussion in a deliberative assembly, without the disadvantage of having a series of set speeches on different subjects, such as we are making to-night, and such as we make on other occasions when we have general debates.
We are told, of course, that the kind of thing to which I have referred should take place on the estimates. That may be so, and it may not. It depends upon the year. In 1940, the business of the house was such that we dealt on a very hot August day and night with 493 items in the estimates, totalling $191,623,349.69; that was on the second last day of the session, on August 6. In 1942, on the last day of the session, we dealt with 190 items totalling $251,974,758


Mr. MacNICOL:: They were not dealt
with; they were just voted.


Brooke Claxton: They were voted, and
some of them were discussed. That was the only opportunity accorded for discussing the subject I am now discussing, the procedure in the House of Commons, because the appropriation for the House of Commons came up on that day. It is for that reason that I venture to take up the time of the house on this subject to-night, because on account of pressure of work another opportunity may not occur until very late in the session, and we know what it is to bring up a new subject in the house toward the end of the session. It would be like a little boy in class at school who does not understand a question, and who is scared to ask because he is afraid of getting the whole class kept in to hear the answer.
There are other suggestions that might be made in connection with the business of the house, but I would present for the consideration of hon. members in the government the suggestions I have made, namely, that time should be allotted to specific subjects; that they should be picked out and dealt with one at a time; that the question period should be extended and liberalized a little so that occasionally the government might commit itself on a question of future policy; that there should be adjournment debates and that debates, like the budget debate, for instance, might be divided up to provide an opportunity for the discussion of special topics. These proposals I have made could be carried out without a single change in the rules of the house. All they require is the general will of the membership of the house to put them into effect and the willingness of the government to carry them out, and I would hope that the government would be willing to do so because I can see no other way of saving the time of the government and making its work in the house easier than by means of these suggestions.
One further suggestion is in connection with committees. I think most hon. members would like to see the practice of referring matters to committees extended. I have had a very short experience in the house, only three years, but during that time I have served on some thirteen committees of which ten were active. During that time-and I know this is the experience of other hon. members-in no one of these committees was there a single vote on party lines. As soon as the members got on the committee they began to work seriously and intensely to find the best solution for the problem committed to them. If the problem was one which was suitable for study by a committee, and the committee was not too large, it invariably brought in a sensible, constructive report which was carried out by the government in every case except one.
I mention the size of a committee because it is my experience both outside the house and in, and the experience, I think, of other members, that the effectiveness of a committee decreases geometrically in proportion to the increase in its membership over fifteen. I think fifteen is the right number. It is the number fixed in the rules of the house. With a small committee of that size the members are much more conscientious; the responsibility is not diffused, and there is a much more steady attendance, a much closer discussion, and more opportunity for the members to meet in between meetings and work up material. Therefore I suggest that fifteen should be the maximum number for a committee, and I hope that this suggestion will be taken into consideration by the government when it comes to appointing a committee on social legislation.
The Address-Mr. Claxton

I think it is our experience that the chairman of a committee should preferably, not be a member of the government. I have sat on committees with chairmen who were members of the government, and I must say they presided magnificently. Nobody could have presided better or with greater objectivity, but at least on oDe occasion it led to some embarrassment that a member of the government should have been chairman of the committee. My idea in this is that once we get a matter out of the house and before a committee we lose the atmosphere of the arena and we get into the atmosphere of the workshop, where we want to do the job as quickly, effectively and efficiently as possible. That is my experience.
I suggest that some committees need expert assistance, and I sincerely hope that the committee on social legislation is not set up without a great deal of expert assistance, similar in standing, if possible, to that provided for the royal commissions in England which ultimately resulted in the Beveridge report. It is impossible for members of a committee to give the detailed work and study and have the background and special knowledge necessary to handle a topic of that kind.
Then the committee produces a report. By that time the matter has been screened through the committee, and the discussion of its report in the house provides an opportunity for a useful short dfebate on the subject, in which debate usually only the members of the committee take part. It has been my experience in the last three years that these debates have been the best in the house, and I do not think any one of them has ever taken more than a day.
We all know, too, that the mere fact that a committee may look into a matter has a salutary effect upon some government departments. I believe that in time we ought to have committees of the house on different subjects to which matters would be automatically referred, such as man-power and labour, munitions and supply, agriculture, reconstruction, international affairs and information-topics like that, and not merely matters which are to be the subject of legislation.
This brings me to my next suggestion. We have heard a great deal said about government by order in council, but the people who talk against government by order in council seldom say how government should be carried on. The fact is that we have the executive taking the responsibility of using the authority we have given to it, but the people who complain of government by order in
[Mr- Claxton.]
council would be the first to complain if the executive failed to use that authority. It is greatly to the credit of the government, parliament and the country that at no stage has our government failed to have the courage to use the authority it has been given. It alone of all democracies was the first to introduce effective measures to deal with the spectre of inflation. I see no other means whereby that could have been dealt with so effectively as by order in council. But we have had 25,000 orders in council, and now there is a kind of public clamour growing up against government by order in council which will grow as victory comes closer and people want to get rid of bureaucratic control, as they call it. To prevent this from growing to the point where it interferes with the conduct of the war and to preserve the supremacy of parliament, we must have some say at some stage in these orders in council, and in a great number of instances we cannot have it before. The practice of tabling orders in council is, for all practical purposes, an empty form. I suggest that orders in council be referred to a committee for consideration -not all the orders, 'but orders having the effect of legislation of a general nature. Even when they get to the committee, all the orders of that kind would not be discussed; but if the committee felt that one particular matter should be discussed it could take up that order, have the departmental officials there to explain it, and make its report to the house. This could be done exceedingly quickly. In this way there would be an opportunity of improving the drafting of the orders, which sometimes leaves a great deal to be desired; there would be exercise of control over tha executive, opportunity for ventilating grievances, and also observance of the important principle of the supremacy of parliament. I suggest that is one way in which it could be done without any sacrifice of the speed and decisive action which are necessary in order to carry on the war.
There is some need of an appeal from orders of 'a punitive nature. I do not see why all the boards which have orders of that kind should not act like the wartime prices and trade board; that is, use the courts exclusively. But in other cases anyone who regards himself as aggrieved by the application of an order in his individual case should have an opportunity of appealing to some authority other than the men who made, enforced, policed and executed the order. Therefore I suggest there should be an administrative tribunal of the same character as the war contracts depreciation board [DOT] or the board

The Address-Mr. Graham
appointed under the Excess Profits Act. Both of these boards have done magnificent work.
There also ought to be an appeal from all orders under the national mobilization regulations. It is the only way in whioh uniformity throughout the country can be preserved. It is the only way in which possible injustices through the board being too rushed can be corrected or further consideration given. Accordingly I suggest that there should be an appeal from all these boards to some authority.
In conclusion, I have this to say. We live at a time much more important in the history of parliament and of our country than any other. There is no one who should occupy a more important role in the life of Canada than the members of this house. Not only do people look to us for leadership and guidance; they want everything that we can give in the way of devoted service to our country. We are willing to give it, and I believe, from what I have seen of them, the members of this house of all parties would be only too anxious that their very real sacrifices of time, health, family life, and future expectations of a financial nature should be made more valuable to the country, and that I suggest, might come about through the further consideration of some of the suggestions I have made this evening.


Mr. R. T. GRAHAM (Swift Current):: A number of very fine addresses have been made in this particular debate. The speaker who just preceded me made an interesting contribution on an unusual subject, one which, of course, will have to be given great study, as he no doubt expected it would, before it can be accepted in its entirety. Nevertheless I should like to compliment the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) upon being sufficiently fresh in his viewpoint to introduce the subject and deal with it as he has done, indicating the considerable amount of study he must have given to the subject with which he dealt.
In addition, I wish to join those who have spoken before me in commending the addresses of the mover (Mr. Harris) and the seconder (Mr. Halle) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It is for me a happy thought that I have in my constituency a highly thought of citizen who is a lady cousin of the mover of the address. I have a sense of pride in the fact that there is at least some connection between the far-off constituency of Swift Current and that of my hon. friend who moved the address in reply. My remarks of commendation of course apply equally to the hon. and gallant member who seconded the motion.
May I also say, and I think the house will agree, that it would be well to note the value of the address delivered by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) this afternoon. Regardless of our political viewpoints we, as a former speaker pointed out, are the representatives of the different sections which go to make up Canada; and the concise and cogent information given to this house this afternoon by the Minister of Agriculture makes the task of every member that much easier.
May I also, in commenting upon the addresses in this debate, pay a word of compliment to at least two members of his majesty's loyal opposition. I refer to the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) and the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth). The one dealt with agriculture, and the other with the industrial war effort of Canada. While I do not find myself in agreement with many of the points which they made, it struck me that they were moved by a sincere desire to criticize fairly and constructively the policy of the government with regard to these two important phases of our war effort. Constructive criticism, as rye all know, is a valuable adjunct of any government charged with the responsibiliy of carrying on the business of a nation.
The speech from the throne dealt with many matters of importance. The most important, of course, is the successful prosecution of the war. Anyone who read that speech or heard it at the opening of this session must have been struck with the fact that not only did it specifically express a note of confidence in our present position, as regards the war situation generally, but the very fact that the speech contained matters such as post-war reconstruction and social security indicates that there is in the minds of those who advised his majesty in the drafting of that speech a certain measure of confidence which will be heartening not only to the members of this house but also to the people of this country.
It is easy, too, to realize the truth of the statement that we can take pride in the progress which has been made in the successful prosecution of this war. It is only necessary to think back to the perilous days of Dunkirk, and to the time when we sat in this house and received the news of the fall of France, and compare the situation then with what it is to-day, to realize that progress has been real and substantial, and we can take pride in the immense advance which has been made upon the road to victory.

The -Address-Mr. Graham

Canada's war effort is becoming more and more a matter of great pride to all Canadians. That war effort is not the result of accident; it is of course the result of a sustained and well planned programme of contribution to the common cause of the united nations. I believe that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the government who have led the country in that effort can be justly credited with a great deal in so far succeeding as they have done in making Canada's contribution something of which we can all be proud. Not only that, but I say to members on this side of the house that those of us who saw fit to support the Prime Minister in the rather trying days of last session and the session before can all take a great deal of pride in recognizing that his aims and objects were dictated1 by wisdom, and in giving him that loyal support which enabled him to put that programme into effect.
I agree, however, with the note of caution expressed by the Prime Minister when speaking in this debate, that the measure of success which we have realized is only a warning to us of the path we must follow in order to achieve victory. We, in a democracy, of course hate war so intensely, and it is so foreign to our whole philosophy of Life to believe that other peoples would use war as an instrument of aggrandizement, that we welcome any sign of approaching victory and the time when we can turn back to the peaceful pursuits that so suit our philosophy of life. Yet we would1 be foolish indeed if we did not recognize the immense task that lies ahead of us. I read in a National magazine recently of the forces that Japan still has at its disposal to fight the battle in which we are engaged with that country at the present time, and they are still a great menace. She occupies vast territories that have so widened her economy that she faces want in one or two items only. She is immensely strong in man-power, immensely strong in ships, immensely strong in the strategic position she succeeded in securing for herself by her treacherous attack prior to the outbreak of war between herself and the United States. We must recall, too, that Germany is still mighty in her military strength, the accumulation of many generations of that race that seems so far to have been bent on world domination. As Germany is forced back on her own central home front, she solves many of her communication problems, and this leaves her with a freedom of action in defence, which we must overcome before victory can be ours. So that never for a moment, either in our hearts or in our minds, should we permit the feeling of optimism, or of con-

fidence even that pervades Canada at the present time, to weaken us in any way in the determination to see to it that Canada's material, physical and human resources shall continue to be used for the purpose we have before us, which is to defeat those forces of evil that so violently and disgracefully attacked the democracies.
May I also point this out. I think it is something we should note, those of us who by the nature of our position take a great interest in the political life, not only of this country, but of other countries as well, that in the commencement of the fourth year of the war the great democracies, Great Britain, the United States, Canada and the other component parts of the British commonwealth of nations, can feel that democracy, with all its apparent faults, has stood the test in the hour of trial, and that democracy is the democracy we have always known-a democracy of free parliaments, a free press, freedom of worship, freedom of speech, freedom in the expression of the opinons we see fit to utter so long as they do not offend the rights of our fellow men. It is a great thing to keep that in mind when discussing the relative merits of this or that kind of governing system. In the last analysis, these free democracies are standing the test, and we are all of the profound belief at this moment that ultimately they will achieve victory over the totalitarian states.
In passing, I would call the attention of those who advocate a planned economy, or the setting up of government whose control is vested in a group of experts to deal with the lives and the welfare of our people, to the importance of always keeping in mind that, despite the fact that Hitler has had many men of brains and capacity, sometimes regarded as supermen in Germany, and having devoted all the talents of that country to the planning of success in this war venture of his for world domination, nevertheless he and all his cohorts and experts will fail in the task to which they have set themselves. The same is true of Mussolini and Italy. So that I think the nature of the progress we have made should strengthen our belief in democracy as we have known it, and we should not hastily or lightly cast aside a system that has brought us the results it has during this war period.
It is true that our democracy has certain weaknesses. It is inclined to be hesitant in coming to a decision; it is inclined to engage in controversy to too great an extent; it is inclined to an inability to gird up its loins to exert its maximum war effort. Yet these weaknesses are the corollary of free institutions, and I am not afraid to say that the expression of these weaknesses in war time will become

The Address-Mr. Graham
the very strength and bulwark of the free institutions of democracy in the times which we so much desire that lie ahead.
There were one or two matters that arose either in the speech from the throne or during the discussions in this house of peculiar interest to me as coming from Saskatchewan. One was the suggestion, in fact the declaration of intention, that a redistribution of seats in this house should occur at this particular session. I add my voice to those from western Canada who suggest to the government that it would be extremely unfair at this time in Canada's history to propose that Saskatchewan, the third largest province in the dominion in point of population, and its neighbouring province of Manitoba, should find, largely as a result of the war effort and the transfer of people from the prairies to the industrialized sections of Canada, that they are penalized for making that contribution by losing, for a period of at least ten years, the number of representatives they have heretofore had in the house of commons. I am sure hon. members will agree that no other part of Canada has the troubles which have beset western Canada, struggling to construct an economy that will support itself, or deserves more the fullest measure of sympathy in this house which can be given it. I therefore strongly urge on the government and the members of this house, who in the last analysis will have the decision in the matter, that they exercise generosity in recognizing the cause of the shifting population from Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and that in any redistribution measure which may be introduced, the effect of that legislation will be deferred until 1953, or for a considerable period after the cessation of the war, so that we can then see whether the movement from those provinces has been temporary or permanent.
There is also the other matter that is constantly raised, without any fruitful results, I am sorry to say, namely, the concentration of Canada's industrial life in the two central provinces. I for one have always recognized and forgiven, if that is the proper word, the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), having regard to the immense task with which he was presented during the early period of the war, in procuring the great amount of material that was required at once for Canada at war. I did not blame him much, that, on account of the necessity with which we were faced, in the early days of the war he seized upon plants that were already in existence and transformed them into the arsenals of munitions and supply that we so urgently required. Since then, however, there has been a great change. We have had time, and we have time at present, to consider the larger
question, the result of the great concentration of industrial activity in the central provinces and the failure of Canada as a whole to remove one of the constant points of irritation in confederation, and to see to it that decentralization takes place where it is wise and proper, and in that way balance the economy of the outlying portions of Canada to a greater extent than has been done hitherto. I believe that if we continue now on the path we have been following we shall continue on it in peace time as well. The fact that the plant, equipment, management and all the essentials are there will be used to justify the continuance of the use of those properties.
Hon. members know as well as I do that we have been seeking ways to use our surplus of wheat. I was told by one who ought to know that the United States government is spending immense sums of money and employing a large group of highly trained people to look into ways and means of using cereal crops for the manufacture of industrial products. For industrial alcohol, synthetic rubber and similar products we have in western Canada not only immense quantities of materials but immense potential capacity to produce those materials. We would thus be serving the best interests of western Canada and, indeed, of the whole of Canada if we could, to some extent at least, break up this concentration of industrial life in the two central provinces, which concentration sooner or later will cause serious trouble. We can do it wisely, and the whole of Canada will profit.
In listening to the different problems that were brought to the attention of the house during this debate, I naturally followed with great interest the speech delivered by the new leader of the official opposition (Mr. Graydon). I join with others in congratulating the Progressive Conservative party upon the choice of him as their acting house leader. I did, however, note that in putting upon Hansard most of the party's platform adopted at Winnipeg he did not include in the apparently important sections of that programme the resolution which the hon. member for-Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) succeeded in having passed at that convention and which had to do with the price of wheat. I am afraid that this was a child whose desirability was questioned at that convention.
I noticed also a suggestion that appeared in the Ottawa Journal and was mentioned by some hon. members in this debate, namely, that the selection of the new name-to which I have no objection-need cause no comment, because Sir John A. Macdonald once used the same name to describe the historic party of
72537-20}
The Address-Mr. Graham

which he was the head. But may I point out that those who use that argument rob the Winnipeg convention programme of much of its freshness and the hope that it and the Port Hope meeting inspired in the minds of the people that the addition of the word "Progressive" meant a decided change in the policy of the old Conservative party. The argument lends strength to the suggestion that this is merely a revival of the old party with a new name but with no real change in its policies. I say to the members of that party that I hope Mr. Bracken will be able to persuade the members of the party that the programme is a worth-while programme, one that he in western Canada has always supported with regard to freer trade and a freer economy in this country. I shall be happy indeed-I say this quite sincerely-if members of the Progressive Conservative party in this house will declare their intention of accepting whole-heartedly the new programme now adopted by the party as expressed in its Winnipeg platform and make vigorous speeches in this house in favour of free trade and a freer economy. I for one will welcome to my side at least and to the side of a great many hon. members on this side of the house any support that hon. members can give to that wise and beneficent policy that we have so long advocated.
Also I could not help noticing that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party, suggested that the speech from the throne was merely a series of pious platitudes. He will not mind if I say to him that I listened with considerable interest to his radio address a couple of weeks ago and noted the fine manner of its delivery to the public of Canada. Nevertheless let me say to him that his address dealt only with generalities. The comment of a friend of mine next morning who said he had listened to the hon. member's address was that he had come to the conclusion that there were not many Canadian soldiers in Libya. I asked him why. He said, "Well, because if there had been Mr. Coldwell would undoubtedly have promised them ice and air conditioning". There xs an element of truth in that statement.
I have listened to thousands of expressions of opinion as to what should be done in this country, and almost without exception what one gets is a statement of a problem, phrased in varying language but still simply a statement of the problem; seldom is there any concrete suggestion as to how a solution of the problem can be achieved. The only time in his speech in this debate that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar became specific
I Mr. Graham.]
is worthy of note. I draw this particularly to the attention of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) who suggested that in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation programme there is no suggestion whatever of state socialism or statism or concentration of power in the state as opposed to the present system of government. The specific contribution made by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation was the suggestion that we appoint a representative committee. He stressed that point, that it be truly representative. How it could be formed to the satisfaction of my hon. friend is a matter that would have to be decided. Nevertheless the suggestion was that we appoint such a committee to consider ways and means of carrying out a reconstruction or rehabilitation programme, and that this House of Commons, representative of the free people of Canada, should without question, or without discussion

I take it that was meant- immediatley undertake, without examination of the proposals, in two years to vote five billion dollars to that committee and -allow it to expend that money in the manner it suggested.


Major James William Coldwell: A representative committee instead of a non-representative one, and report to this parliament.


Roy Theodore Graham: To me that is the very
essence of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation programme, and I suggest to the hon. member for Cape Breton South that he note that the only concrete and specific recommendation, in which social security is mentioned, made by the leader of his party during this debate, is the suggestion that this parliament voluntarily give up its position as trustee for the people of Canada in connection with the expenditure of money; that not only do we turn over to someone else the task of preparing a programme, but that we undertake not to spend any time in examining into or discussing their proposal, and that we give them this amount of five billion dollars to spend in a given period of time.


Major James William Coldwell: That is absolutely
wrong.


Roy Theodore Graham: Well, I have the -hon.
member's speech before me.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Parliament does not give up its trusteeship when it votes money for the carrying on of the war.


Roy Theodore Graham: As I say, to me the suggestion to which I have referred is a denial of the democracy I took the time to praise a few moments ago. As the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Kuhl) said the other

Labour Conditions
night, it would mean the securing of social security at the cost of our individual liberty, to which I think no sane member of this house would agree. May I say, too, in all fairness to the members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party that considering the task with which this country will be faced after the war is over; considering that some eight hundred thousand men will be coming back to our shores-at least we hope so-whom we shall have to place back in civil life in a reasonably prosperous condition; considering the dislocation that will occur in our industrial life, our farming life and, in fact, every phase of Canadian life as a result of this prolonged struggle, would any sane person suggest that in addition at this moment, or between novv and the cessation of war, we should agree to revolutionize suddenly the whole system of democratic government under which we have lived and under which we shall succeed in winning this war? Would anyone suggest that in addition to the problems which we shall have to face then, we should add the further problem of the dislocation that would result from any such change, even if that change were meritorious and justified?


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Certainly we shall have dislocation if we do nothing.


Roy Theodore Graham: I suggest that democracy can undertake the task of building upon what we have learned in the past, using the wisdom we may acquire during this war, to see to it that our problems are wisely met and our difficulties minimized to the greatest possible extent during the period of dislocation, reestablishment and reconstruction through which we must pass.
I now turn to the subject that really caused me to take part in this debate, one in which I take a great interest. I refer to the question of social security. As I have already stated, most of the contributions offered so far in the editorial columns of the newspapers and in speeches from different individuals have consisted of statements of the problem itself, statements of what we must face. Seldom is there any concrete, wise suggestion offered as to how social security may be achieved. Together with a great many members of this house I was very much interested in the fact that in England a commission headed by Sir William Beveridge, an economist of whom I happen to be a great admirer, brought forth what is now known as the Beveridge report, which, of course, as he has stated is only a suggestion for a solution of a certain phase of the social security problem. At least it is a concrete contribution, and I for one have greatly appreciated the opportunity of reading the result of the work of Sir William Beveridge and those associated with him in that task. Naturally his report applies peculiarly to industrialized Great Britain. I believe it is founded upon Liberal principles, according to my understanding of Liberalism. I believe members of this house and the people of this country would be well repaid if they carefully studied that report in order to ascertain the value of any ideas therein contained which might be beneficially applied in this dominion. However, I think I should say this, in connection with the whole programme for social security, that in our desire to bring about that result we must not assume that it will come simply because we are united in that desire.
On motion of Mr. Graham the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, February 10, 1943