1943-02-02

CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 4, to amend the criminal code.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. CHURCH:: The bill will enable women to serve on juries in criminal cases. I call the attention of the house to the fact that the right of female persons to sit on juries is subject to section 921 of the code, which reads:
Every person qualified and summoned as a grand or petit juror, according to the laws in force for the time being in any province of Canada, shall be duly qualified to serve as such juror in criminal cases in that province.
The reason for that will be found in section 92, item 14, of the British North America Act, which provides that:
The administration of justice in the province, including the constitution, maintenance, and organization of provincial courts, both of civil and of criminal jurisdiction, and including procedure in civil matters in those courts . . .
-shall be a subject upon which the legislatures may exclusively make laws. For instance, the statutes of Ontario relating to the constitution of juries, and fixing qualifications, contemplate the fact that jurors are male persons. This bill will be effective only in so far as the provincial legislatures agree to amend their own acts in consequence of such a federal enactment. Women serve in the high court of parliament and there is no reason why they should not serve on juries. A similar bill was brought forward in 1927-28
and it was stated then that women were too temperamental, but they are no more temperamental than some of the men attending some of the conventions.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DEBT LEGISLATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the decision handed down by the judicial committee of the privy council regarding Alberta's debt adjustment legislation and its consequent effects upon the debt adjustment legislation of the other prairie provinces, will the Minister of Justice give the house some assurance that steps will be taken by the federal government to protect the farm debtors who will otherwise be left to the tender mercies of their creditors?


Mr. SPEAKER:: That is clearly a question that should be placed on the order paper.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Minister of Justice when he will make some statement on the farm debt situation, Which is very pressing in the west? The minister promised in the latter part of July-


Thomas Vien: As I have already said, I think that is a question that should be put on the order paper.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the minister make a statement as to when he will say something in the house?



BUSINESS OF THE.HOUSE QUESTIONS AND MOTIONS FOR PRODUCTION OF PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Not just now, if you please.\nI know that the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, or socialist party, in a radio address only a few evenings ago, said:\n. . . when peace comes there must be no return to the old way of doing business with its unplanned, unregulated competition. . . .\n1 do not agree with that statement. In my opinion, competition subject to proper safeguards as to hours of labour and living standards of wages, is the life of trade and of economic progress; and only as long as we have freedom of competition and freedom of enterprise will freedom continue to exist in this country.\nI was not inclined to believe that the government would approve any such unwise and dangerous policy, but only a few days ago I read an address given in Vancouver by Mr. Donald Gordon, the energetic and able chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, during the course of which he said:\nIn spite of uninformed critics, responsible government was nowhere more in evidence than in the administration of the board. The suggestion that the board or its chairman could wield wide powers without ministerial control or responsibility was not in accordance with the facts.\nIf the correct conclusion to be drawn from that statement is that the government approves this don\'t-give-a-damn policy, then I have no hesitation in saying that it is time it reconsidered that policy, and came to some other decision in the matter. I would say further that the time has come when these regulations, or some of them, should be reviewed, and, when necessary, altered in order to protect the middleman and the small businessman.\nThis matter was forcibly brought to my attention recently by certain regulations that were passed by the New Brunswick dairy products commission. This commission was established by act of the New Brunswick legislature in 1935. Its object was declared to be, and I quote from the act:\n\nThe enforcement of commercial ethics and marketing conditions that will enure to the common benefit of the dairy trade and the general public.\nThe dairy trade, the act states, comprises the producer-suppliers, or farmers, the vendors, the dealers or dairies and the storekeepers.\nThe vendors are the men who buy their milk from the dairies and sell it to their customers who, until these regulations came into force, were stores, restaurants, hotels, institutions and private homes.\nMost of these dealers, or dairies, in addition to selling milk to the vendors also have their own delivery wagons, and sold milk to the householders.\nThese vendors had been in business for many years in the city of Saint John. They would be up every morning, about half past two, and would reach the dairies at a very early hour. They would have their milk delivered to their customers in time for breakfast. They would not finish their work until some time in the afternoon. Their hours were long and the work was hard. But these men did not think the country owed them a living, and they did not look for government bonuses or assistance. They made their living by rendering a service to the community.\nRecently, without consultation with the dairies, without consultation with the vendors, without taking any expert advice so far as I have been able to find out-and I questioned the commission about it-the commission issued certain regulations having the force of law, which provided that in future all milk sold to stores, hotels or other institutions had to be sold by the dairies themselves, and could not be sold by the vendors. These regulations took from the vendors about fifty per cent of their business-the best part of it, because it is much easier to deliver two or three cases of milk to a store, hotel or some other institution than to climb up one or two flights of stairs to deliver one or two bottles of milk to one householder and one or two to another. Not only did it take away about half of their business, and the better half, but it cut their incomes in half. It did all this without providing them with any compensation whatsoever.\nUndoubtedly it was highly pleasing to the dairies, or most of them., to get the best part of the vendors\' business, without any expense to themselves. But it worked a great hardship and a great injustice to the vendors; for these men had families to keep, rent to pay, taxes, insurance premiums and other obligations to meet, and this drastic cut in\n\nThe Address-Mr. Hazen\ntheir income put them right on the spot. They had no redress other than to appeal to public opinion.\nIn effect the commission said to these men, "Sell your trucks to the dairies; get jobs with them as hired1 men, or else be content to get along with half of what you are earning now, or seek some other form of employment".\nThis, sir, is Hitlerism with a vengeance. It is a step toward the establishment of a totalitarian state in the place of freedom of enterprise in competitive business.\nIf three or four persons get together, break into my house and steal my property we call them gangsters and thieves, but three or four people can get together and take away half of the business of certain hard-working taxpayers in a community, and we call them a commission. It would be just as well if we called, a spade a spade. It would be well- and I think the time has come-to take steps to put a stop to such wrong-doing.\nNot all the dairies of Saint John were pleased to get this business. One of them, which had been established by a man who had a thorough knowledge of the dairy business, first as a farmer or producer, and then as a vendor, conducted its business on a different system. It did not make any of its own deliveries. All of its milk was delivered by vendors.\nMany dairies which made their own deliveries had had a difficult time of it. Some of them failed. But this particular dairy went ahead. The system had great advantages. Under it the vendors owned their own delivery wagons, and consequently took a greater interest in and greater care of them than hired employees would have done. The vendors were interested in getting additional customers, and this meant more business for the dairy. The vendors made their own collections, thereby making fewer bad debts, and the sydtem resulted in a simpler and cheaper method of accounting for this dairy.\nUnder the new regulation, if this particular dairy were to remain in business it had to buy additional\ttrucks at a\ttime when\tit wasdifficult, if not indeed impossible, to obtain them.\tIt\thad1 to hire\tadditional\tmen todeliver\tits milk at a\ttime when\tit wasdifficult, if not impossible, to hire competent men.\tIt\thad to set\tup a much more\nelaborate system of bookkeeping in its office. There was arbitrary interference with business management. It completely upset the system under which this dairy had successfully conducted its business, and the managing director of the firm had grave doubts if it would be possible for him to carry on successfully if these regulations were enforced.\nAmong other things, the regulations provided that all milk and cream had to be delivered in a conveyance owned by the dairy and operated by a full-time employee. This meant that no dairy could hire a vehicle or a man part-time to make deliveries. The effect of this regulation is that if I own a truck or other conveyance which I do not use all the time and wish to get some additional revenue from it and a dairy would like to hire it from me, I cannot rent it to the dairy nor can I get employment with the dairy for parttime. This is restriction of individual rights that goes to the extreme.\nThe chairman of the commission said in a statement which appeared in, the press on January 4 last that these regulations had been passed "to eliminate duplication and overlapping." As a matter of fact the regulations do not prevent duplication and overlapping. There were just as many trucks delivering milk on the streets of Saint John after the regulations were passed as there were before. They did prevent vendors from delivering milk to stores, hotels, restaurants and other institutions, but they did not prevent them from driving up to a store or restaurant, stopping their trucks, walking upstairs and delivering milk to customers who might live above the store or the restaurant.\nThe reason given by the commission convinced no one, and the public are up in arms over the injustice that has been done to the vendors who are hard working men,, some of whom served in the last war and some of whom have sons serving in this war.\nWhen the public began to take an active interest in the controversy because of the injustice that had1 been done, the commission announced that these regulations had the approval of the wartime prices and trade board. I do not know the details of the communications that passed between the commission and the board; I have not been informed of any of the details of the conversations that took place between them, but I have good reason to believe that the board1 was not fully apprised of the situation, although it should have been. I doubt very much if it would have given, these regulations its approval had it known, that the vendors\' business was being taken away from them without compensation and handed over to the dairies as a free gift.\nMay I give brief details of one or two instances of the effect of these regulations upon the vendors. A man owned a small dairy farm about two miles by road from Saint John. He became a vendor with five customers. These customers were one or two of the largest hotels and two or three of the largest restaurants, all centred about one public\nThe Address-Mr. Hazen', 'square. When the regulations came into force he went to the commission and asked them if he could deliver his milk by horse and wagon, assuming that the regulations had been passed to save gasoline and rubber. He was told that he could not, but there was nothing to prevent him from loading his motor vehicle up with milk at his farm and driving several miles past the centre of the city to sell his milk at wholesale to some of the dairies who would then pasteurize it and get an additional price and an additional profit when they delivered it.\nIn another instance a vendor had not been very successful. He was forced to sell his truck and what customers he had to a dairy and get a job as a hired man with it. The dairy then gave three * vendors who purchased milk from it about thirty\'\' quarts each. This was milk which this man used to sell to householders. But it took away from them over 200 quarts of milk each which they used to sell to stores or restaurants, and it said to them, "If you keep on selling to stores or restaurants we will not sell you any milk at all."\nI can readily understand that a system of zoning in the distribution of milk might save duplication and overlapping in large communities, but I am not in a position to say whether a zoning system would be practicable or would effect any worth-while saving in Saint John. These regulations, however, did not establish a zoning system. If they are intended to be the first step toward a zoning system, it has been a very ill-advised step, a step that cannot be justified. If it is proposed to establish a zoning system, the steps taken to set it up should be based upon the foundation of fair play and justice and not upon confiscation without compensation.\nIn bringing this matter before the house, I do not want to be misunderstood1. I am not making an attack upon the wage stabilization and price-ceiling policy of the government. I believe that all reasonable efforts should be made to keep inflation under control. I agree with what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said yesterday, that there is an obligation upon every member of this house to help to interpret the necessary restrictions that further our war effort, particularly those restrictions which some people find to be irksome or irritating. But I say that neither fear of inflation nor the furtherance of our war effort should lead the government to approve injustices such as taking people\'s businesses away from them without compensation and making a free gift of it to other companies or corporations.\n\nThese regulations which have been approved by the *wartime prices and trade board are most unjust. They serve no useful purpose and I would ask the government to instruct the wartime prices and trade board to review the situation with a view to withdrawing the approval which it has given, or else to insist that the vendors be fully compensated for the business which has been taken away from them.\nThis is not the first time I have complained in this house about citizens having been deprived of their rights without compensation. I have on more than one occasion protested against the regulation that was passed on the recommendation of the then Minister of Fisheries, which deprived the owners of property fronting on the non-tidal waters of the Saint John river of their proprietary rights in fisheries. I do not propose to deal with that matter now, but it is an injustice that must in the end be rectified.\nIn conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say what perhaps I should have said when I began. I wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. Harris) and the seconder (Mr. Halle) of the address upon the excellent speeches they made. It was most fitting and proper that members of the armed forces, one an English-speaking Canadian from the province of Ontario and the other a French-speaking Canadian from the province of Quebec, one who had been overseas and expects soon to return overseas, and the other who expects to take his unit overseas within a very short time, should have moved and seconded the address. The speeches they made were the speeches of loyal British subjects and of loyal Canadians who realized the very serious situation which we face to-day, and I have much pleasure in congratulating both of them upon what they said on Friday afternoon.\nOn motion of Mr. Gershaw the debate was adjourned.\nOn motion of Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre) the house adjourned at 10.58 p.m.\nWednesday, February 3, 1943']
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: May I direct the attention of the Prime Minister to the considerable number of questions, and notices of motions for the production of papers, which have already been placed upon the order paper. During the past two sessions it has been arranged, I believe, by consent, that these questions and motions should not await the conclusion of the debate on the address. I suggest to the Prime Minister that an opportunity be provided later this week for the presentation of answers to the questions on the order paper
Business of the House

and for the passing of the various motions for the production of papers. Many of them deal with matters of considerable importance upon which members of the house would wish to have information at the earliest possible day.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I had intended to say to my hon. friend before he brought up the question that I thought it would be advisable to follow in the course of the debate on the address the practice which we followed last session of fixing one day in the week on which questions and notices of motions for the production of papers might be considered. I had in mind suggesting Monday of next week, but if my hon. friend prefers Friday of this week, that will be equally acceptable. It might be understood that it will be Friday.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to direct three
brief questions to the Minister of Finance:
1.	When does he anticipate that the ordinary estimates will be tabled?
2.	Does the minister anticipate that the war appropriation bill for the next fiscal year will be presented immediately upon the conclusion of the debate on the address?
3.	Does the minister anticipate that a supplementary war appropriation bill, for the present fiscal year, will be necessary?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: The answer to the first question is that the estimates will be tabled at the conclusion of the debate on the address, when the address is adopted. The answer to the second question is that the war appropriation bill for the coming year will, I anticipate, also be introduced at that time. The answer to the third question is that a supplementary war appropriation bill will be necessary.
I should like to add that it is of very great importance, for reasons that I think will become apparent when I have an opportunity to explain the matter, that the war appropriation bill be introduced at the earliest possible moment, as well as the supplementary war appropriation. I do not say this with a view of urging hon. members unduly to shorten this debate; I am simply bringing the fact to their attention.


Gordon Graydon: The minister does not intimate that they should do so?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: The minister is just intimating that the money is all gone.


PRISONERS OF WAR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. Will he be in a position shortly to give the house some information about the shackling of Canadian prisoners of war by Germany?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will make a statement at some later date, and will try to make it at an appropriate time.


THE WAR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	.
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he would be prepared to set aside a time for some debate on the war situation and the submarine menace with respect to our own coastal defences, as I suggested in my remarks last evening. Has the Prime Minister given any consideration to that suggestion, or would he do so?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have been giving careful consideration to the whole matter of the procedure of the session. My colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has just told the house that there are very special reasons why the war appropriation bill and some other measures should be brought down as soon as possible. It is desirable that the government should have very much in mind the time that may be taken in discussion of other measures, also the imperative nature of some of the measures that may have been considered. If my hon. friend or hon. members feel that it is desirable to have a discussion on such matters as the submarine menace, the defence of our coasts and the like, I would feel that such discussion ought to come at a time which will admit of discussion being comprehensive. I would not like to make just a bare statement to the house. If it is to be a comprehensive discussion we shall have to find a time that will fit into the procedure of the house generally. That may mean that some days will have to elapse before any discussion can take place.

Chief Justice oj Canada


CHIEF JUSTICE OF CANADA
[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 2, to amend an act respecting the Chief Justice of Canada.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I rise not for the purpose of opposing this measure, but rather to explore the position which the government has taken, to ask some questions, obtain some information, if possible and make some general observations.
I assume that the government in introducing this bill early in the session and asking for precedence for it does so because it is a matter of urgency. The situation is that for the present at least this country has no chief justice of the supreme court. That of course is not a calamitous matter, but it is one which I think should be corrected at soon as possible.
At the outset I should like to ask whether the chief justice himself, for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration, and for whom I think generally speaking all members of the bar from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and especially those who have had the privilege of practising before him, have very great admiration, is a willing party to this extension of his period of office; or is this a movement from within the ranks of the government? If so, for what purpose? Is it to serve an ulterior motive, is there anything behind or dehors as to the suggestion that the term of office of the chief justice should bev extended for a further period?
I have always thought that the policy behind the statute which was passed by this parliament several years ago, whereby judges of courts created under the jurisdiction and authority of the dominion parliament should retire at the age of seventy-five was wise, and under ordinary circumstances should prevail, and should not be departed from other than in the most exceptional circumstances. I remember well the time that law was put on the statute book and of some of the reasons therefor. I am not going back into ancient history to indicate how certain judges were legislated out of office. I have never been in sympathy with the theory that justices of the provincial courts are there for life, so long as they are capable of carrying on, on the ground that there is an implied contract that they should so remain. I have an idea that the judiciary would be immeasurably strengthened if some of the younger men of the profession
were afforded opportunity to ascend the judicial bench and wear the ermine while still in the prime of life, rather than that these places should be filled by men who have passed the allotted tenure. I think there will be general agreement in that. I do not understand how a man of eighty or more- perhaps I am judging by myself-can bring to bear upon the duties of his office as good an intellect as a man of forty-five, a man in the prime of life. In this country we are too much inclined to delay appointment until the age of fifty has been exceeded. I am glad to see that recently a distinguished member of the Ontario bar who is on the right side of fifty has been appointed to the supreme court of that province. As I scan the list of .judges of some of our provinces I am reminded that we have perhaps too many old men. I do not say that in any spirit of disrespect; I am merely attempting to state a fact and support a principle.
I suggest that unless there are urgent reasons why this measure should be passed it should perhaps be reconsidered in the light of the theory I have endeavoured, perhaps inadequately, to bring forward.
There is another aspect of the matter. I say this with the greatest respect. I say to the Minister of Justice and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that in my view, which may not mean very much, and in the view of many who practise before the Supreme Court of Canada, and of the profession as a whole, the supreme court bench could well be strengthened. I do not want anyone to interpret that as a reflection upon any gentleman who has the honour to occupy a seat on that bench. If the Supreme Court of Canada, which is the highest judicial tribunal in our country, has among its membership the very best men drawn from the profession and from the appellate courts of the provinces, then I suggest to the Minister of Justice that there will be fewer appeals to the privy council, at least in commercial cases. I have had some experience in that regard in the last two or three years, rather sad ones in both instances, I may add, because we lost the appeals when the cases got over there. I am just throwing out this suggestion to the Minister of Finance


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Burpee Hanson: -I mean the Minister of Justice; the Minister of Finance has enough burdens on his shoulders without being called upon to carry this one. I should like to say a word for the younger men who have the ambition to become judges. Cer-
Chief Justice of Canada

tainly they will do their best if they are appointed while still in the prime of life, instead of waiting until they are sixty or what not. That will not bar the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald), in connection with whom I made a prediction last year. The hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier) has already been given his reward, which is of the very highest category, as I also predicted. But I am serious in what I have to say with respect to the appointment of members of our judiciary. Give the younger men a chance; they will grow in stature day by day and will become greater judges. I offer these remarks to the Minister of Justice in the best of good spirit, and I hope he will give consideration to them. In the meantime I should like to know what is the position with respect to Sir Lyman Duff.


Thomas Miller Bell: I should like to^support the former leader of the opposition, the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), in the point of view which he has taken. I believe the matter should be reconsidered. I was here when the original bill was introduced in 1939, when the present chief justice had attained the age of seventy-five. At that time parliament saw fit to continue him in that position for another three years. Consequently the chief justice is now that much older, and the present bill extends his term for another year.
I know there are exceptional cases in which men who have long since passed the allotted span of life are able to render signal service in the field in which they serve, but under the circumstances what the previous speaker said is relevant to the case. I do not believe the people of Canada would desire or approve an extension when there are so many able and capable younger men who could fill the position adequately. I have heard criticisms, not so much of Supreme Court of Canada as of other courts, because aged judges have been unable to pay concentrated attention to the arguments presented. On one or two occasions on which I have had the opportunity of following cases before some judges I have noticed that, particularly toward late afternoon, the aged justice did not seem to hear what was being said, if I may put it in that way. Consequently, when judges are interpreting law which may have an effect not only in the present but may create precedents for the future, parliament should endeavour to have on the bench men in the prime of physical and intellectual life.
I rise to support the plea that this bill be not proceeded with-not because I have any personal criticism of the present Chief Jus-

tice of Canada, but rather because I think it is in the public interest that parliament should not consent to this proposal and create another precedent. I may say that those of us who followed with great interest the recent history of the United States noticed how the supreme court of that country blocked progressive measures for some time until in his wisdom, and exercising his powers, the President of that country appointed a group of younger and more progressive men, with most beneficial results to the great republic to the south. When a man has reached the age of seventy-eight, as in this case, the government ought not to ask one so far advanced in the eventide of life to continue in a position which I imagine is, in one sense, arduous physically, and certainly. intellectually. In view of the fact that younger men are available who have had experience on the various benches of the country, instead of approving this proposal the government should reconsider the bill and make an effort to appoint a younger person to this, one of the most important positions in the country.
Mr. J. H. BI.ACICMORE (Lethbridge): I have not been able to determine by any process of reflection why this bill is brought in. I will grant that this gentleman may have done his work exceedingly well and merited the gratitude of the country, but a singular exception is being made in this case. When no apparent reason exists why such a thing should be done, I become suspicious. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I am going to oppose the bill.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, the principle of this bill has been before the house during discussion of the justice estimates for the past ten years. I have no particular objection to extending the term of the chief justice for another year, but I want to point out one important principle. This bill applies to a gentleman who is one of the greatest jurists in our history, a very able judge who has performed his legal duties excellently. But I should like to refer to a bill which has been before the house for the last ten years, to amend the Judges' Act, as to judges serving on political commissions. One section of that bill provides that judges shall not be allowed to sit on various political commissions appointed by municipalities, by provinces and by the dominion. As I have pointed out to the present hon. and learned attorney general and to his predecessors for the last ten years, the 'taking of judges from their judicial duties to serve on these commissions has seriously interfered with the admin-

Chief Justice of Canada
istration of -the law courts. They are asked to leave their judicial duties and take appointments to consider many matters under sections 91 and 92 of -the British North America Act. In the province of Ontario this practice has seriously interfered with the administration of justice. As we know, -there are twelve high court judges on- circuit in that province, some of whom at times have been ill, with the result that the bulk of the work has had to be done by the others, and with -the judges absent on commissions the work is delayed.
Then we come to the county court judges in Canada, -the -appointments of whom are controlled by the Minister of Justice. I could mention -one able judge in -the county of York, Judge Morson, who, although over the age limit when he was retired trained thirty or forty hon. members I see in -the house to-day as students at law. It takes five or six men to do his work now, and even then they cannot do it. I ask the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) if that is not right; he knows it. In these days some members of -the county court bench are serving on rent commissions, and blackouts and various other commissions. Some of -them in Ontario do nothing else but serve on commissions about blackouts. Others are out on food and rent control, with -the result that some of them have scarcely ever -tried a case.
We should follow the law of England, and make it clear that once judges are appointed they shall act continuously as judicial officers. Under section 91 of the British North America Act they have certain powers in the federal law courts. Then, in addition, powers are given them under section 92 of the British North America Act. Some of these learned gentlemen are away from -their judicial duties for long periods of time, and this condition at times seriously interferes with the proper administration of justice in the courts in Canada. Only recently in Ontario o-n two or three occasions courts have had to adjourn because of the condition I have described. I ask the minister to consider -these points in connection with the whole question of law reform.
I have no particular objection to the bill. I have known the chief justice of this court for a long time, but I believe the principle I have enunciated is a wise one, namely that once judges leave political life and legal practice they should be placed in their positions with good salaries, and that careful provision should be made for them by the government so that we may have a proper judicial service, as we have had in the past. I do not agree with part of what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cokhyell) 72537-5
has to say on the point as to the United States. He was referring to the United States, of course. Everybody in the United States who becomes a lawyer is called judge-because if he is not a judge to-day, certainly he hopes to be a judge to-morrow on a change of government. We in Canada are also becoming a nation of judges.
I do ask the Minister of Justice to consider these points in connection with law reform and any appointments he may make. I can tell him this, that some of the younger men who have been appointed to the bench -cannot stand the pace of attending the circuit courts throughout the country; they find particularly trying the heavy assize lists in- Ontario. Some of them have not the physical strength to stand it as did some of the older judges of a few years ago, such as Judge Morson and others I could mention.


Mr. A. R. ADAMSON (York West):: Mr. Speaker, a-s an official witness on the Hong Kong inquiry and having read in some detail the evidence there given, I regret that I cannot reconcile that with the official report; and I am therefore forced to oppose the bill.
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, may I express my appreciation of the remarks of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) with .respect to the bill. I can assure him that with all the general principles he has enunciated I am in- entire agreement. As he himself has said, there are occasions which call for some exceptions to even the best of rules.
The hon. member inquired whether this legislation was introduced with the consent of the right hon. the Chief Justice of Canada, and whether or not there was any ulterior purpose to be served by extending his term of office for another year. I give him my assurance that there is no ulterior purpose whatsoever. The only	reason for the
introduction of the bill is that it was found that the health of the right hon. the chief justice was remarkably good, and at the end of the last calendar year he was asked if in the event of parliament agreeing to the extension of the term, he would consent to perform for a further period the duties connected with the chief-justiceship.
As hon. members are aware, three years ago the right hon. the chief justice was entitled by law to retire with a retiring allowan-ce equal to his full salary-to all indemnity whatsoever he received from the crown- in his capacity of chief justice.

Chief Justice of Canada


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is scarcely accurate. He was obliged to retire when he attained the age of seventy-five years.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: He would have been obliged to retire, had not parliament six months before the time arrived enacted the legislation we now ask parliament, to amend. At that time, upon his reaching the age of seventy-five years, notwithstanding the legislation passed by parliament in the preceding July, he would have been entitled to retire on full salary-a retiring allowance equal to every dollar he was entitled to receive as chief justice of the country. The country was then at war. The government had already adopted its policy involving the abrogation of the rule under which civil servants under normal circumstances retire at sixty-five years. In those instances where civil servants were considered fit to carry on their work for a further period, they were permitted to do so.
The chief justice consented in 1940 to remain in office, and up to the end of 1942 he continued to perform the duties of his office, under conditions which meant that an-additional payment equal to the amount fixed for the office was not being made annually by the Minister of Finance. It is perhaps because of that that the hon. member for York-Sunbury referred to the minister. Up to the present time the Department of Finance has been relieved of a burden of $45,000.
At the end of 1942, the health of the chief justice appearing quite as good as it had been at any time subsequent to July, 1939, when the legislation was passed, the Prime Minister asked him if he would continue for a further period, if it were the will of parliament that he should do so. He gave his consent.
The hon. member has suggested that the Supreme Court of Canada might possibly be strengthened. I am sure he did not intend to suggest it would be strengthened by placing any other Canadian jurist in the position of the present chief justice.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Quite so.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am sure the hon. member and all other hon. members agree that this generation in Canada knows no greater jurist than the present chief justice. No one at this time is better qualified than he is to fill the office, and the placing of any other Canadian jurist in his seat would not in any way strengthen the court.

These being the facts, it was felt that in view of present conditions, when it is the duty of each of us to contribute to the service of his country in whatever capacity he may be best able to serve, it was indeed fitting to ask parliament further to amend the act so that the chief justice could continue for another year to perform services which are of such great value to the Canadian nation.
Mr.' GRAYDON: What would be the normal retiring allowance of the chief justice?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Under present legislation the normal retiring allowance for justices appointed since 1926 is a portion only of their salaries while in office. But for those appointed to the bench prior to that date the retiring allowance is the full salary.


Gordon Graydon: What is the distinction?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is a distinction between getting it all or getting only a part.


Gordon Graydon: What is the portion?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The maximum for those appointed since 1926 is two-thirds, while for those who would come under the provisions of the former law it is one hundred per cent.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Provided they have put in a certain number of years.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The present chief justice is entitled by law to an allowance equal to his full salary, and he could have taken that at any time since January 7, 1940. There has not been a day in that period when he was not entitled to retire and to receive an allowance equal to his full salary for life.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), -the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, said that he did not think the people of Canada would approve the continuance of the chief justice in office, and that he would prefer to see a younger man appointed thereto at this time. That may be the opinion of the hon. member, but from conversations I have had with many members of the legal profession since the announcement was made at Christmas time that the government would introduce this legislation it does not appear to me that that is the opinion of the profession. I have met no one who did not rejoice at the thought that the health of the chief justice was such that this move could be contemplated.

Chief Justice oj Canada


Mr. HOMUTH:: More than the legal profession should be considered in this matter.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Possibly, and the representatives of the people of Canada here in this house are asked at this time to express the opinion of those whom they represent.
The hon. ' member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) said that on reflection he saw no reason for this bill. I have no other reason to offer than the opinion I hold that the chief justice is still in such a condition of mental and physical well-being that he can well carry on the duties of this high office. It is my belief at this time that any man able to perform a service for his country should do so.
I shall not fail to give consideration to the remarks of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), but even though we were all in agreement with him they could 'hardly find an appropriate place in a discussion of this bill. They will come up for consideration on another occasion. I do not think the hon. member himself would suggest that they could be implemented in this bill, the sole purpose of which is to amend an act passed in 1939 by substituting the word "four" for the word "three".
The' house divided on the motion (Mr. St. Laurent) which was agreed to on the following division:
YEAS Messrs:
Abbott	Evans
Bertrand (Laurier)	Farquhar
Bertrand (Prescott)	F auteux
Bertrand (Terrebonne)	Ferron
Blair	Fontaine
Blanchette	Fournier (Maison-
Bonnier	neu ve-Rosemont)
Booth	Fraser (Northumber-
Bourget	land, Ont.)
Bradette	Fulford
Breithaupt	Furniss
Brim ell e	Gardiner
Cardin	Gershaw
Casselman, Mrs.	Gibson
(Edmonton East)	Gladstone
Chevrier	Golding
Cleaver	Graham
Cloutier	Grant
Corman	Gray
Cote _	Gregory
d'Anjou	Hanson (Skeena)
Dechene	Hanson
Denis	(York-Sunbury)
Donnelly	Hazen
Dorion	Healv
Douglas (Queens)	Henderson
Dubois	Hoblitzell
Dubuc	Howe
Dupuis	Ilsley
Durocher	Isnor
Emmerson	Jean
Eudes	King, Mackenzie
72537-5J
Kirk	Maybank
Lacombe	Mayhew
LaCroix (Quebec-	Michaud
Montmorency)	Mitchell
Laflamme	Mullins
LaFleehe	Mulock
Lafontaine	Neill
Lapointe (Lotbiniere)	Nixon
Lapointe (Matapedia-	O'Neill
Matane)	Picard
Leader	Pinard
Leclerc	Pottier
Leduc	Power
Leger	Purdy
Little	Reid
McCuaig	Rennie
McCubbin	Rheaume
McCulloch	Rickard
MacDiarmid	Roebuck
Macdonald	Ross (Calgary East)
(Brantford City)	Ross (Hamilton East)
Macdonald (Halifax)	Ross (Middlesex East)
McDonald (Pontiac)	Ross (Moose Jaw)
McGibbon	Roy
Mcllraith	Ryan
Me Ivor	St. Laurent
MacKenzie	Sanderson
(Lambton-Ken t)	Sissons
Mackenzie	Slaght
(Vancouver Centre)	Soper
MacKinnon	Taylor
(Edmonton West)	Telford
McKinnon (Kenora-	Thauvette
Ilainy River)	Tripp
McLarty	Tucker
MacLean (Cape Breton	Turgeon
North-Victoria)	Turner
McLean (SimcoeEast)	Veniot
Macmillan	Ward
McNevin	Warren
(Victoria, Ont.)	Weir
McNiven	Whitman
(Regina City)	Winkler
Marier Matthews	Wood-139.
NAYS	
Messrs:	
Adamson	Knowles
Anderson	Kuhl
Black (Cumberland)	McGregor
Blackmore	Maclnnis
Bruce	MacKinnon
Casselman	(Kootenay East)
(Grenville-Dundas)	MacNicol
Castleden	Marshall
Church	Nicholson
Coldwell	Nielsen, Mrs.
Douglas (Weyburn)	Noseworthy
Esling	Quelch
Fair	Ross (St. Paul's)
Fraser	Ross (Souris)
(Peterborough West)	Rowe
Gillis	Shaw
Graydon	Stirling
Green	Stokes
Hansell	Tustin
Hlynka	White
Homuth Johnston (Bow River)	Wright-40.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Donnelly in the chair.
Chief Justice of Canada
[Stage Direction]
On section 1-Term of office extended.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to make it clear, if I did not do so in my remarks on the second reading of the bill, that when I intimated that in my opinion this court should be strengthened I had1 no idea of suggesting that it would be strengthened by the retirement of His Lordship the Chief Justice. The Minister of Justice has correctly interpreted my position in that respect, and I have given effect to my view by voting for the second reading. At the moment I felt somewhat at a loss as to what should be done, but I have no doubt about what my course ought to be having regard to the esteem in which I hold the chief justice. On the general principle of this bill, however, I think I am just as right as any man can possibly be on any question about which there may be more than one opinion, and I do think that we ought to have an undertaking from the government, while the house is still in committee, that this will be the last time of asking as a matter of precedent. It should not go any further. The court should be recuperated and built up by a system of promotion, if possible by promotion from the lower appellate court. I wanted to make that explanation because what I meant might be open to misinterpretation. I do say that this court can be immeasurably strengthened by the addition of new blood from the younger members of the bench and bar. With that I shall be content.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I can assure my hon. friend that whenever the time comes for recommendations to the bench of the Supreme Court of Canada, if I am in the office of minister of justice, I will endeavour to make the best possible recommendations in the interests of the Canadian public. I appreciate, as does my hon. friend, how important it is to the Canadian public that the supreme court should be a strong court.


Richard Burpee Hanson: 
Thomas Langton Church: Law reform is one of the most important matters which Britain has had before it for the last twenty years, but I have yet to see any measure of law reform brought down in this house since I have been a member. My objection to the bill is to judges serving on commissions, away from their judicial duties. I would ask the Minister of Justice to take up this matter. It is not proper. We have one judge who had been trying cases and who is now in Australia making speeches. I may tell the Minister of Justice that this country wants a vast measure of law reform all along the line, and it has been a long time coming. The minister has been in office about a year and I hope he will bring dowm some general measure of law reform. I suggest that judges should be kept from serving on commissions and there should be a measure of general law reform in the interests of the working classes. We have had no such reform. That was a live question in England for years before the war started and they adopted vast measures of reform to bring the law up to date in many respects. I urge upon the minister the consideration of this question.


Gordon Graydon: Following what the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) has said, I should like to add a few words with respect to law reform. I shall not say much because I do not intend making any lengthy address at this stage of the proceedings. What the hon. member says is quite true, but there is something further to be said, and I bring the matter up at this early stage of the session so that the Minister of Justice will have ample notice with a view to having it considered by the house at some appropriate time.	[DOT]
A good many complaints have been made with respect to a practice of some of our judges in certain sections, and this is not confined entirely to county court judges or supreme court or appellate judges. The complaint is that in many parts of Canada there have been extraordinary delays in the handing down of judgments. We might well ask the Minister of Justice to make a survey across Canada if it is within his jurisdiction to do so. I know he will shake his head and say it is not. But the government has assumed extensive powers and jurisdiction over many things in this wartime period and I ask the minister to consider a survey across the country to find out what judges are handing

Chief Justice of Canada
down their judgments within a reasonable time and those who are unreasonably delaying judgments. It is a matter that affects not only those of the legal profession-that would not be of the same importance; it is of great importance to litigants, to the ordinary citizens of the country. I am quite sure that there are members of this house on all sides who could point to scores of instances in which actual injustice has been suffered by litigants owing to the failure of the bench to hand down judgments within a reasonable time. Very often judges who have the most to do bring down their judgments most quickly. The minister may expect the question to be raised later in the session, and I wish to warn him so that some consideration will actually be given to it.
Another point I wish to mention is very appropriate in view of the national social legislation proposed in the speech from the throne. We are going to try in this country, and I hope we shall succeed, to bring greater equality of opportunity and security to the men and women of Canada. I am raising my voice to-day not so much against the system that prevails with respect to judges of our courts as against the inequality which exists in respect to retiring allowances for other persons who are just as worthy. It is not showing a very good example to single out certain persons in Canada for retiring allowances up to one hundred per cent, and in other cases, as the minister said in answer to my question, two-thirds of their salaries, and to be so tardy in seeing to it that other sections of our population are given something more than a bare subsistence when they retire, sometimes at a much earlier age. I bring that up not with any idea of being small or mean or making any reflection on our judiciary, because I realize that many men are attracted to the judiciary by the provision for substantial retiring allowances. But while keeping that aspect of the matter fully in mind, I submit we should not single out any particular class for such ample retiring allowances without considering carefully the manner in which other classes who are just as worthy are treated in this regard. I hope that the type of security which others receive compared wdth that provided for those who sit on the bench may be given consideration-and this of course is no reflection whatever upon the bench.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	I hope that the
matter to which the hon. member has referred will be fully considered by the select committee that is to be appointed to deal with all
matters of social security. It is certainly an interesting point, and I am sure the select committee will not fail to deal with it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is no reflection upon any individual to suggest that with the passing of the years it is not always possible to discharge serious and onerous duties with the same powers of concentration as one had in earlier years. This is particularly important in view of the fact that for some years in Canada and the United States the powers of those who interpret the law have been of tremendous social significance to those countries. The decisions of the person holding the position of Chief Justice of Canada, by virtue of the leadership which he gives through his judicial interpretations, have a tremendous effect upon the operation of legislation that has been passed and legislation -that will be passed. It is, therefore, important that men should not be kept in such an important office beyond the time during which they can normally bring their full energy and powers to bear upon the task assigned to them.
Some mention has been made of the Hong Kong report. I have no wish to go back into that, but hon. members may recall that I made a statement to this house on July 27 last, found in Hansard at page 4794. I said then:
I should like to refer particularly in connection with this question of reinforcements to a matter which affects myself. I note that the commissioner did me the honour of quoting me on page 39 of the appendix. He stated that all the officers had completed their training- that is, reinforcement officers-and he says:
In general, this opinion was confirmed by
Mr. T. C. Douglas, M.P., *who knew five of
these officers and saw them shortly before they
left for Hong Kong.
That is one of the things which amazed me most in this report. If the rest of the evidence presented to the commissioner was interpreted with as prejudiced a point of view as the evidence I submitted, I have grave doubts about this report. I wrent before the commission at the suggestion of counsel for the commission. The commissioner was very kind to me, and seemed to be anxious to get all the facts. I told him what little I knew: that in October, 1940, I went into a reserve officers' training camp with some of these men. These men had thirty days' training in squad drill, ordinary rifle drill, and some elementary map-reading. They had never fired a Bren gun, a machine gun, or pistol when they came out. They went back to civilian occupations and were picked up again next spring and sent to Gordon Head, there to take a four months' course. They were then transferred to the Winnipeg Grenadiers and sent overseas. These officers were naturally perturbed-and I explained this to the commissioner-at the prospect of taking men into action after they themselvef had received in
Chief Justice of Canada

total about five months' training, one month as reserve officers and four months to qualify as active officers. They had no knowledge of mortars and only a limited amount of training in the handling of platoon weapons. In giving this evidence I tried to be fair to these men. I went on to point out that these men were not cowards; they were not perturbed about the danger to themselves; they were perturbed about the fact that they would he leading men and they doubted if they were qualified to do so. The commissioner interprets my remarks by saying only this:
He stated that they were overjoyed at the prospect of going into more active service and they were satisfied with their training courses as regards the handling of men and general instructions, although they had some uncertainty about their experience in operational manoeuvres.
It is difficult for me to understand that statement in the light of the evidence which I attempted to give.
It seems to me that there can be only two explanations of that statement in the commissioner's report. Either there was inability to interpret the evidence given, or, what seems the more likely, the appendix was not written by the commissioner. It was not signed by him. It will be remembered that the report consisted of only a few pages, but there were forty or fifty pages of appendix. That part was not signed by the commissioner, although of course he was technically responsible for it. Looking at it as generously as possible, I should like to think that probably it was drawn up by others on his staff.
Whatever may be the explanation, a man who has reached this time of life has neither the virility nor the power of mental concentration to deal with very complex matters. Particularly is this important at the present time when questions of the division of power between the provincial and federal governments will have to receive so much consideration. I referred this afternoon to the farm debt legislation; it is a very serious question in the west. There is also the question of the division of powers with reference to social security legislation and post-war reconstruction. This country needs in the Supreme Court of Canada not only men who can bring a new point of view, but men who still have sufficient physical and mental vigour to apply themselves strenuously to that task. That is why, without casting any reflection whatsoever upon the gentleman who now holds this high office, I for one am opposing this measure.


Mr. HANSELL:: There is one matter in respect to this legislation that I do not understand, and it fills my mind with misgiving. Why is the term of office extended for only one year?

My point is simply this. I believe the government should be perfectly open and aboveboard with the members of the house in respect to this matter. Personally I do not like to entertain any unwarranted suspicions; to do so is not conducive to clear thinking. The other day the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister urged that we do our best to avoid political discussions here. Well, we should all like to do that, and we shall all try our best. We ourselves want to be free from political discussion. But it is equally true that we want to be free from any misgivings as to the motive behind this or that legislation. I believe the government should be free to tell us exactly why they are desirous of extending the term of this office for one year instead of, say, four or five years. I have nothing to say with regard to the ability of the Chief Justice of Canada; though he has reached a ripe old age, sometimes wisdom grows with age, and when one's mind is particularly alert perhaps we have nothing to fear. I am not arguing along that line; I am not adopting a line of argument similar to that which has been advanced by other hon. members, though their argument masr be sound. The Minister of Justice has tried to dispel our misgivings in that regard by telling hon. members that in spite of the age ,of this very honourable gentleman he is still in fair health and mentally alert. Surely if that be so, one year is not going to make very much difference. Why does not the act continue him in office for four or five years? It is for just one year, just twelve short months. Would the government care to tell the committee why that should be so? Is it that they have some special work they wish to have done by the Chief Justice of Canada during the coming year? Is it that they would like to keep the office intact for some specific time for some specific reason? If so, why not be frank about it and tell us?
There is another point that concerns me. Perhaps I am not versed in all the matters of parliamentary procedure, but when the second [DOT] reading of this bill was moved to-day I could not help asking myself why all the rush. It is generally conceded that the debate on the address should be concluded and the decks cleared for legislation. When I came down to the building to-day I expected that the first order of business would be the debate on thh address, and that I would have the privilege of listening to my leader in this chamber. Instead, however, this bill is placed before us. Would two or three weeks make any difference? I may be over-suspicious along these lines, and that is something we want to avoid. Let us not have any misgivings. Will the

Chief Justice of Canada
Minister of Justice tell us frankly why we are asked to pass this bill at this particular time, and why he is only asking for one year's extension of the term of this honourable gentleman, who, he says, is physically able to carry on his duties and mentally alert in spite of his age?


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the Minister of Justice tell the committee what emoluments are received by the Chief Justice of Canada?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: In all, $15,000, which includes the salary he receives as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General.


Thomas Miller Bell: And I understand that if he is asked to undertake any other work, such as the Hong Kong inquiry, there is no further payment for services rendered in that connection?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: None whatsoever.


Ernest George Hansell: Then, following the minister's reply to that question, the reason for the extension of the term of office cannot be that this gentleman needs the money. Now will the minister tell us the reason?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If the hon. gentleman wishes me to state the facts I shall do so, and I think his misgivings will be entirely dispelled. There is no special work the government intends to ask the supreme court or the Chief Justice of Canada to do. There is no one for whom the office is being kept intact, The reason the house was asked to consider the bill at this time was given in the opening remarks of the former leader of the opposition. At the present time Canada is without a chief justice. It was thought that this bill would not be of a controversial nature, that it might be passed in a very short time; and the next clause of the bill proposes that it be made retroactive to January 7, 1943, from which date it will operate for one year. The other question was why one year is being suggested. It is that parliament will be meeting again within a year, and it was mot considered advisable at this time to ask parliament to commit itself for more than one year.


Thomas Miller Bell: How does the department evaluate the work of judges? I am not thinking only of the work of the chief justice, but how is an estimate made of the capabilities of judges? It is difficult to discuss this matter and remain within the rules, but most of us know of judges who have passed the age when they can give concentrated consideration to cases coming before them, and I should like to know if the department has any way whatever of finding out whether a judge-we will say the chief justice if you wish, because we are discussing this bill-is really capable of
performing the work which a judge must perform. I am speaking from a background of. shall I say, slight experience and knowledge of some of the judges who occupy the bench in this country. I am not referring to the chief justice in that particular, but I should like to know how the work of the judges is evaluated. We have many who have progressed far toward the end of life; what steps are taken to make sure that they are able to give concentrated consideration to the cases before them, and how is their work evaluated by the department in order that it may be done efficiently?


Thomas Langton Church: The principle of the bill is contained in one clause, which extends for four years instead of three the term of office, which means that the.chief justice will remain for one year from January 7, 1943. As I say, I have no objection to the age limit, because some judges at seventy-five or even more are almost at their best. The principle involved in this measure came up in the house, in a bill, about seven years ago, as to the court of appeal in Ontario, where there was no law to prevent judges of eighty years from continuing their duties. The bill, which provided for retirement at seventy-five, passed this house, but was thrown out in the senate. At that time I said:
The frequency, of recent years, with which judges are drafted for all kinds of such work impairs the efficient administration of justice and causes congestion in the law courts, and, as they are largely only fact finding commissions when appointed, they duplicate the efficient powers and functions of parliament, of the committees thereof, and of the many outside boards of recent innovation in war work, and furthermore .they are a costly adjunct to good parliamentary government of the people, by the people and for the people, cause delays and interfere with parliament's right to immediate solution of social and economic problems of urgency to good government; thus a system of "judicial commission government" is slowly being built up in Canada.
It is for that reason that I voted to-day against the second reading of this bill. I believe some of the judges over seventy-five years of age are the best we have. The principle applying in England with respect to judicial appointments and law reform should be copied by the dominions, so far as age limits are concerned. In Ontario high school teachers have been retired at sixty-five years. That was one of the worst possible pieces of legislation, because some of those principals cannot be replaced by younger men. In England they are being asked to go back to work in war-time. The same applies in some cases in the law courts. I can tell the committee that some of the judges who are over age are doing excellent work. I made special
Chief Justice of Canada

reference to Judge Morson in York county. No one can be found to do the work he did, with the result that four or five men are now trying to do it, and still they cannot do it as well as he did. Six hundred members of the Toronto bar presented a petition to the late minister of justice, and he said that so long as Judge Morson wished to stay he would not be retired. And yet the party which appointed him, the last appointee of Sir John A. Macdonald, never gave him any notice of his retirement. He was going down King street one day on his way to the Woodbine, and upon buying a newspaper he found that he had been retired by a Conservative government.
I believe there should be a principle of law reform in connection with this matter. We have never had any sort of reform in the Department of Justice, and I hope the minister will consider it.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: From the discussion which ha9 taken place thus far it might appear that parliament is conferring a great favour upon the chief justice by keeping him in office another year. The facts however are to the contrary. The chief justice is conferring a favour upon the people of Canada by remaining in office for another year. As has already been pointed out-and this should be emphasized1-if the chief justice retired at the present time he would for the remainder of his life receive an amount equal to his salary at the time of his retirement. As the Minister of Justice has said, his salary is $15,000 a year; therefore by remaining in office he actually saves the country that amount each year. If he were to retire he would continue to receive that sum, and the man appointed in his place would receive a like amount.
In this time of war many men who ordinarily would retire from active life are continuing in their work. Younger men are entering the armed forces, and those who are older feel they should do their utmost as long as they can. I am sure the present chief justice would be happy to retire from his task, a most arduous one, and enjoy the things he would like to do when freed from his office duties. But with his keen sense of patriotism he feels he should remain in office as long as he can serve his country. Instead of taking the attitude that we are conferring a favour upon him, we should be indebted to him for his willingness to remain in office another year.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: May I inquire just how much of a favour the chief justice is doing us by -remaining in
fMr. Church.]
office? On what basis does the chief justice pay income tax on the $15,000? And, answering the hon. member for Brantford City, if the chief justice made even one mistake it might cost the country more than $15,000. I do not feel it is a favour to the country to keep a man in office if he is over age. Perhaps the hon. member for Brantford City could fill his shoes.


William Ross Macdonald: Oh no, I am sure I could not.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I feel that there are other hon. members in the house and other persons throughout Canada who could fill the job. Does the chief justice pay a special rate on his income, or does he pay as you and I?
Mr, ST. LAURENT: The Chief Justice of Canada, like every other citizen in Canada, follows the laws of Canada and pays on the same basis as other citizens.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is the
minister quite sure of that? I thought there was a special provision; that is my recollection.
Mr. ST. LACJRENT: If the hon. member had received the letters I received from judges since the last budget was adopted, he would be under no misapprehension in that regard.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is a special provision, though.


Thomas Miller Bell: Generally speaking how is the work of the judges evaluated?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Judges in the provincial courts are appointed and paid by the federal government. The administration of justice in the provinces is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. In two instances since I assumed office a little over a year ago attorneys general from two provinces made representations to the effect that certain gentlemen were no longer capable of carrying out the duties of *their office. After making some discreet investigations-and these cannot be public investigations, of course~I took advantage of the provisions of a statute which has been on the books for some years, and wrote to the gentlemen concerned1 pointing out that representations had been made that they were no longer in a fit state of health to discharge the responsibilities of their office. Of course they were under no obligation to take my opinion, which had been formed from the information I had received, but it was indicated that if they were not disposed to accept my opinion I should feel compelled to appoint a commission under the statute to inquire into their

Chief Justice of Canada
state of health. In both cases the gentlemen sent in their resignations, and have since been replaced.
As the hon. member knows, the prevailing opinion is that under the provisions of the British North America Act with respect to the administration of justice, judges cannot be removed from office unless very good grounds have been shown for such action, and not under normal circumstances without a joint address of both houses of parliament.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is in respect of the courts established before confederation.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, the high courts. With respect to federal courts the question has arisen as to the unfairness of the reservation of judgments. I quite agree with the leader of the opposition that this is unfair to the litigants and to the public generally. Frequently there are cases the determination of which awaits the settlement of other matters. That is one of the difficulties with which we are constantly confronted. From time to time representations are made by members of the bar that certain judges are taking an extraordinarily long time to give judgments. In such cases correspondence is initiated with the attorney general of the province concerned and representations are made to the judge about whom the complaints have been received. They are not always as effective as we would like to see them. Only recently the benchers in one of the provinces considered a recommendation to the legislature of that province *that an act should be passed to provide that if a judgment was reserved for more than a certain number of months either party to the litigation could treat the case as susceptible of appeal and inscribe it for decision in the court of appeal. That matter is still under consideration.
I should like to see followed by as many as possible of the judges in this country the advice that I understand is given frequently to those who mount the bench in the United Kingdom. Lord Hanworth told me that when he first became a judge he was advised to try to deliver judgment immediately in all cases. He said that he found it very difficult to do that, but had succeeded in training himself to the point where in ninety per cent of the cases he delivered judgment immediately, and in cases where he had to reserve judgment, it was seldom that he did not succeed in getting his opinion ready over the week-end so as to deliver his judgment on Monday morning and avoid starting the week with any reserved cases. .


Richard Burpee Hanson: He was wonderful.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If anything approaching that degree of perfection could be achieved by our judges, it would be a real service to the public generally. I am sure the fact that this matter has been the subject of discussion in the house to-day will have some beneficial effect.


Mr. ROEBUCK:: I do not suppose anyone would) hesitate to agree with the general principle which has been stated that men should not be kept in high positions of any kind, much less upon the bench, whose powers have waned and whose ability to discharge the high offices they hold is no longer theirs. But that is a general principle. No one with any knowledge of the facts would care to contradict the suggestions that have been made. I have practised in the courts too long for that. Men do grow old, and sometimes judgments are long delayed, and judgment delayed is frequently justice denied. I have in my memory a case in which I acted counsel on one side in 1933 and the judgment has not yet been delivered. At least one of the litigants is dead; the lawyer who was on the other side is dead, and now the judge is dead. I fancy that the litigation is dead also.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Do not go any further.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: You cannot go any further in an instance of that kind.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I was thinking of the hon. njember.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: I suppose it is time that that happened. I have mentioned an extreme case, but it was because of incidents of that kind that I proposed, when I held the office of attorney general of Ontario, to introduce legislation giving a litigant the right to appeal to the court of appeal after a judgment had been delayed, say one year. The very threat of that legislation I think brought about a certain measure of reform. I know that the number of old and undelivered judgments was decreased in consequence.
But that is all general. At the moment we are not dealing with the general principles involved in delayed judgments or the continuance in office of judges who are too old, and all that sort of thing; we are dealing with one specific case. I have some knowledge of it. I have pleaded before the present Chief Justice of Canada, and a more delightful, more encouraging, polite and able judge never sat on the bench in Canada. I can say that from personal knowledge, knowledge of fairly recent date and knowledge that goes back a good deal. I have in mind an argument of ten or twelve days' duration in connection with constitutional appeals. It was a reference from

Chief Justice of Canada

the government, and it involved the most abstruse points and a vast amount of most difficult law. No judge whom I ever approached in court had the keenness of knowledge and insight, the breadth of knowledge of law, the patience, the good nature and the kindness of the present chief justice. If, as is now said, his health is as it has been, and, therefore, his keenness undiminished, I can say from real knowledge that there is no jurist in the Dominion of Canada who could replace him to the benefit of that court. I am voting for this bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Without
wishing at all to delay the passage of the bill through the committee, but rather to satisfy a measure of curiosity which I think is legitimate, I should like to ask the minister a question -which arises out of a remark he made with respect to investigation of complaints under the statute against judges who have passed the stage of usefulness. Does the department of its own initiative ever institute investigations, or does it wait until complaints are made by some body such as the law society, the benchers or what-not? I have known of a judge being incapacitated for three years, and yet nothing was done.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The policy of the
department is to not initiate an investigation until some complaint has been made. It is felt that to do otherwise might be considered by the provinces as an undue interference with the administration of justice.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Coming into force.
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: What is the status of the action which has been taken by the chief justice since January 7, 1943?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Since January 7, 1943, the former chief justice of Canada has not been in office, but the statute provides that during a period of six months after retirement a judge may continue to consider cases which he heard while in office and participate in the judgments that are to be delivered. My understanding is that the chief justice has been very busily engaged during the last few days on the preparation of a judgment in connection with a reference which was considered in his court some months ago, and which dealt with the right to tax the legations of certain governments.


Mr. SLAGHT:: Because my failure to make any contribution to this debate might be misunderstood, let me endorse what the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) has said. I have had the privilege of practising before this court.
IMr. Roebuck.]
Some three months ago I was engaged in a case before the supreme court which lasted part of two weeks, and I want to say to the house that the keenness of intellect of the chief justice is not in the slightest degree impaired by his advanced age, which has been commented upon. I think I can put it in this way: he is outstanding, a man of rare intellect and ripe experience, with a high sense of honour and integrity, and perhaps above all these qualifications as a judge he is a man of great kindliness of heart and of full understanding of hujnan nature.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, February 1, 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.
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I have been greatly interested in the discussion which has thus far taken place on the speech from the throne. I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Harris, Grey-Bruce) and the seconder (Mr. Halle) of the address and to give a little attention to some of the remarks which have been made before I proceed with what I had thought to say myself.
We are living in a time when there is a great deal of random talk about big things to be done, without any constructive proposals as to how those things are going to be done. I find in Canada, for example, politicians going all the way from promising SI .10 a bushel for wheat without telling us anything about how they are going to get the money to pay for it, to promising a new heaven and- a new earth without giving us any idea of how these things are to come about.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We have heard of a man promising $25 a month.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, and there was abundant evidence given of how that was to be paid.
As I was going on to say, persons abroad are indulging in the same kind of vague promises, and I think it is an extremely

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
dangerous practice. We find outstanding statesmen promising, for instance, that the world is going to have freedom from want and freedom from fear, without ever breathing even a word as to how they propose to bring about these great achievements. The members of this house at this critical time in our history should not accept all these assurances without some scrutiny. It is our duty to find out to some extent where we are going and how we are going to get there. We may be detoured from our path, but at least we ought to have some idea of where that path should lie.
May I turn now to some of the remarks made by hon. members who have already taken part in this debate. First I should like to give some attention to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) and to his very fine speech. I congratulate him warmly upon his first speech as leader of the opposition. It was beautiful, but, as I said before, there was not a word in it as to how he proposed to attain his ends. He told us that people, not socialists, are seeking a voice in parliament. Very true. He said that there is room for a new party, and he indicated that the Progressive Conservative programme provided a basis for a new people's movement, that it constituted an honest attempt to find a solution of our problems. A gentleman whom I am now going to quote has made a pronouncement upon the very problem which confronts us. I refer to Milo Perkins, a well-known government official in the United States, who has said this:
What we need most is a redirection of our genius as a people. Heretofore, we have concentrated on methods of efficient production. For the first time in history, we are suffering because we have too much of the things we need most. Henceforth, we must concentrate on efficient and businesslike methods of increasing domestic consumption, no matter how much violence it may do to some of our preconceived notions.
I am going to quote another passage from the same statesman:
The unsatisfied wants of two-thirds of our people make up the greatest new market that has ever loomed before our businessmen and our farmers. It is right in our back3rard. All we need is some courageous internal pioneering and some imagination.
I trust that the leader of the opposition will not consider me too unkind when I point out that I fail to see in all that he said and in all that emanated from the Winnipeg convention any sign of that pioneering and that imagination. Our problem is that of distribution. Men have solved the problem of production not only in Canada but throughout the world. Not only have
72537-6J
men solved the problem of production, but they are on the way to achieving a measure of production surpassing all that a man could have dreamed of as possible ten or fifteen years ago. Men like Henry Kaiser, the famous contractor, and Doctor A. A. Stine, of the chemical organization in the United States, are witnesses to this truth. If our problem when the war broke out was a problem of distribution, it is going to be doubly a problem of distribution when the war ends. Let us never for a moment lose sight of that fact. Then we shall look into every set of proposals for the secret of distribution. We need a new technique of distribution.
May I examine for a moment or two our distribution machine as at present constituted, with the object of endeavouring to discover if possible why it is inadequate and why It has broken down. Let it be borne in mind that the medium of exchange which we now use is the medium of distribution; for up to the present time there is no distribution without an exchange. This means that the medium of distribution to-day is the dollar, or a unit of currency.
We use for our dollars, for our media of distribution, only money which is borrowed from the banks. It matters not 'how great our production may be or how great it may become, the limit of our distributive capacity under our present system is the amount of money which bankers will lend, the amount which men will borrow from bankers. This constitutes the major flaw in our distributive system. Not only do we have to pay back every dollar which is borrowed, but we engage to pay it back with interest, which means that progressively there will come to be less and less money in circulation with relation to the debt which the community owes for the money. This constitutes another serious flaw in our distributive system. It means that the amount of monetary distributive machinery which exists in any community becomes progressively less effective as the years advance.
Let us bear in mind that this also follows: If bankers at any time choose to cease to lend or to restrict lending, or if men for any reason at any time cease to borrow, then immediately our distributive machinery is bound to be seriously impaired.
No government up to the present time has been able to prevent banks from ceasing to lend; no government up to the present'has been able to get men to go and borrow when they chose not to borrow. These two facts put together force one to the logical con-
The Address-Mr. Blackmore

elusion that at the present time the government of any country under the system under which we operate has no effective control over its distributive machinery.
There is another difficulty. Money, in so far as it gets out to people, reaches them through wages and salaries. The only access which the ordinary individual has to money or to distribution is through his wages or salary. As machinery increases, and as technological skill develops, the number of people who are required to operate the productive machine progressively decreases, with the result that unemployment arises, which means that the distributive machinery is again seriously impaired.
There is yet another difficulty-and this has a particular bearing upon the Atlantic charter and all the glowing promises of freedom from want and fear. Up to the present time, if goods are to be distributed from the United States, for example, let us say to Timbuctoo, so as to be completely harmless in our remarks, the only way in which that distribution can be made is through Timbuctoo sending goods to the United States to pay for the goods it receives. This means that no matter how much Timbuctoo may need the goods of the United States, if Timbuctoo has not acceptable goods to pay for them it cannot get them, which again means that the United States is forbidden to distribute to Timbuctoo by reason of the laws of our present distributive machinery. That is an exceedingly serious matter. Regardless of how much the President of the United States may desire to help Timbuctoo's people, the only way in which he can overcome the difficulty is probably by giving them the goods outright. How that can be accomplished we need to study.
Any nation with meagre resources or with a large population is placed under an exceedingly serious handicap in this world when it undertakes to get goods which come from a nation that is abundantly endowed with resources and richly equipped with industrial machinery, as a result of which it can manufacture a wide variety of goods. The more such a rich country can manufacture the less it wants to buy from abroad.
One more serious difficulty is that the cost of secondary products or manufactured products tends to increase progressively, and that the price paid for primary production, such as that of wheat and meat, tends to decrease progressively. We see this well illustrated in our own Canadian west where the farmers to-day are obliged to pay, for 147 articles which they require, 152-8 per cent of what they had to pay for similar goods in 1914, and

at the same time, except for the influence of the war which is transitory, they must accept less for their own products. This means that the primary producing area, nation or part of a nation, runs increasingly into debt to a secondary producing area. This truth has an exceedingly important bearing on all the proposals for the establishment of unity of nations, the removal of tariffs and trade restrictions, and all the rest of it.
May I turn now to the leader of the opposition and ask him earnestly to examine during the next two or three days all that emanated from Winnipeg and -to say whether} in all of that he finds anything -whatsoever that goes to the root of this distribution problem. May I ask him t-wo or three other questions in the most earnest and sincere way-for I have no desire to play politics. I am just an ordinary Canadian with children growing up in this country, who I suppose will be represented by grandchildren, and I really do want to see some reform made in Canada before everything goes -to ruin.
The hon. gentleman said that he stood for the conscription of industry without telling us what that means. He said that he stood for the conscription of finance or the mobilization of finance. I hope he will examine closely what I say in case I do not carry in my mind just what he meant to convey. What does he mean by the mobilization of finance? The Social Credit group in 1939, when the war broke out, declared in favour of the conscription of finance and pointed out what it meant by that term, namely, the taking over by the government of Canada of the pow'er and function of creating the nation's money. It insisted that that money should be created debt free. I should like to know what the leader of the opposition means by the conscription of finance. Does he mean greater and greater taxation? If he does, heaven help us. We have already gone too far in that direction. Then what does he mean? I will ask him three or four searching questions. Does he mean by the conscription of finance that the government shall take over the power to create money debt free? If he does, then I know something about how I shall line up with respect to him. Does his party agree, for example, with the idea expressed by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) in the budget debate last year when he advocated state-created debt-free money and when he elicited from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) such a sound scolding? Does the Progressive Conservative party agree with the views advanced by the hon. member for Parry Sound, or does it agree with the views

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
of the minister, who rose and delivered a speech which one of the members in the Conservative party characterized as a model of expression, or something of the sort? I want to ask him two or three more questions. What, in the opinion of his party, gives a dollar value? Is it the gold behind the dollar, as we were told in kindergarten? Is it a bank behind the dollar? Is it the fact that someone gave security when he borrowed the dollar? Is it the fact that the dollar has been borrowed? Is the dollar of no value unless it is a debt to someone? Is it scarcity of dollars that gives the dollar value? Is it the guarantee of the Dominion of Canada behind the dollar? Or is it the goods-producing power of the Dominion of Canada behind the dollar? There can be a difference. The guarantee of the Dominion of Canada might be this, that the Dominion of Canada agrees to get another dollar and replace the dollar in case it is asked to do so; whereas in the other case, if the goods and services of Canada are behind the dollar, the Dominion of Canada simply agrees to deliver goods in return for the dollar. When the leader of the opposition answers those questions we shall be able to tell whether he agrees with the social credit stand or not.
A good many people in this country are now beginning to talk monetary reform, because people are becoming interested in monetaiy reform. But there are different kinds of monetary reform, some of which are a good deal worse than what we already have. It is well to be specific in this matter.
Having asked the leader of the opposition these questions, I am now going to ask the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) and his group what their answers are to each of those questions. And I am going to ask the Liberals through their Minister of Finance to tell us what their answers are. When we get those answers-if those leaders are courageous enough to give them, which .1 doubt- we shall be able to tell whether those three parties differ among themselves or whether they all stand for the same thing. The line of demarcation lies right there, in their attitude to money.
The leader of the opposition referred to progressive labour proposals of the Winnipeg convention. Since he did that, I should like to point out that the best collective bargaining law in Canada is on the statute books of Alberta, put there by a social credit government. Also one of the best minimum wage laws in Canada is on the statute books of
Alberta, put there by a social credit government. And many other progressive measures with respect to labour, in so far as the province has the power to legislate respecting labour, are already on the statute books of Alberta. This indicates quite clearly the stand of social crediters with respect to labour.
I now turn to the social security proposals. They sound very fine, but the question must be asked over and over again, Where do the Conservatives propose to get the money? Here, for example, are a few searching questions: Does that party intend to pay the interest on Canada's debt at present contractual rates? If it does, what is it going to do if this war continues for several years and the debts of this nation mount to such a point that the annual revenue will be insufficient to pay the interest? What chance will the people have of obtaining social security under such conditions?
If the Conservative party is in power-


Gordon Graydon: The Progressive Conservative party.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes; I beg my hon. friend's pardon. I hope every time I slip he will remind me until I get the habit of using that name. Does the Progressive Conservative party propose to pay off the debt of Canada if it gets a chance? Does it propose to redtice the interest if it gets a chance? Does it propose to reduce taxation, and if so, how is it going to obtain the money with which to fulfil all its fine promises?
These matters are important, because an answer to these questions would serve to take off the mask and show what is behind it, whether there is a sincere heart and genuine understanding that intends to do things and has some idea how it will go about doing them.
Yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) jocularly intimated that the Liberals had been advocating the present Progressive Conservative platform for about twenty-five years. Well, the Progressive Conservatives can take warning by reflecting how far the Liberals got with that programme. If the Progressive Conservatives are not prepared to adopt some measures different from what the Liberals are adopting, they will not be able to do a bit more than the Liberals are doing, even if they should add three more handles to their name.
Turning to the speech from the throne, may I deal with two considerations that come to my mind'. The first has to do with a matter that is not mentioned in the speech, the other
The Address-Mr. Blackmore

inflation, whenever a Gerry McGeer or some other member has risen and advocated government money-indicating the finance ministers were either utterly uninformed or insincere. And they can choose whichever of those alternatives they wish.
Now it ought to be, then, feasible, practicable and safe for the government of Canada to take an inventory of all surplus goods which we have or could have within a reasonably short time, such as butter, eggs, wheat and other grains, vegetables, potatoes, fruits, certain kinds of fish, certain kinds of lumber, coal, gas and the like, and create, to represent and to distribute these goods, credit instruments such as stamps, coupons, tickets, commodity dollars, dollar bills or book entries; all of which are credit instruments capable of being used for the distribution of goods. Such credit instruments created by the government would be debt-free, causing neither debt nor taxation. Such media of exchange could be used, (1) to subsidize primary production prices; (2) to discount secondary prices; (3) to bonus wage rates; (4) to grant production loans; (5) to guarantee stable prices after the war, and (6) to provide adequate storage facilities on the farms or off the farms.
The simple application of the principles of social credit will solve our production problems in Canada in war time. These principles are:
(1)	The state creation of debt-free media of exchange, to represent unconsumed production in the country.
(2)	The use of such media of exchange or credit instruments to (a) subsidize primary producers; (b) discount by subsidy the prices of goods to consumers, and (c) bonus or subsidize wages and in other ways bring about just prices.
(3)	The use of such media of exchange to increase old-age pensions, to pay allowances to mothers, to provide medical care, dental care, to provide free hospitalization, to aid the unfortunate such as the blind, invalids and victims of accidents, and to reward the meritorious, such as returned soldiers. The amount of well-being in Canada can thus be caused to conform to the ability of the country to produce. The more she can produce, the more prosperous her people can be. Under the present system the more the country produces, the less prosperous the people are likely to be.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. C. S. BOOTH (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I regard myself as most fortunate, after two and a half years overseas, to find that the course of my duties has made it possible for me to return to my seat in the house, if even only for a few days, and to speak for the first time. I do regret sincerely it has not been possible for me to give more care and attention to the special problems of my own constituency of Winnipeg North. I believe however, my constituents appreciate that the work I have been doing is of some importance. Perhaps they appreciate it more because almost seventy per cent of them have their origin in countries now suffering under nazi oppression.
If I can make any contribution to the debate, it would be by telling the house something of - what is taking place in connection with the Canadian army overseas. I will not give statistics, because I do not think the people at home want them. I can say, however, that we have a grand army. They are grand men, and all are good Canadians who are over there to fight for their homes.
What people at home want to know is, I believe, how those men are being treated, how they train, how they do their work and how they play. I wish to make a few observations regarding these questions. Those of us who were over there during the previous unpleasantness, and who have again taken part in this one, are very much impressed by some of the improvements in certain aspects of training, accommodation, and also particularly in connection with some of the auxiliary services.
As a rear rank private in 1916 and 1917, I was never able to understand how the continuous drudgery of forming fours and marking time was going to win the war. Nowadays however, it is very much different. Battle drill, assault landings and the like bear a direct relationship to the job the men are going to do when they get into battle. They can really see and understand what their training is leading to, and for that reason they enter into their training readily and heartily.
With respect to accommodation may I say that our men are well provided for in England. In the reinforcement units the permanent buildings are well equipped; and even troops on operational duties are well taken care of. I believe I can say that our hospitals in England are better equipped than most of the civilian hospitals in that country. Notwithstanding the peculiarities of English weather, the health of the troops is quite good.
One change I have noticed from the last war is in the matter of feeding. I have some terrible recollections of the Newfoundland cod

The Address-Mr. Booth
sent over to us in 1917 and 1918, along with a lot of other funny things they used to give us. To-day an intelligent approach has been made toward the problem of feeding the troops. First of all, our cooks are well trained. We are getting away from the idea of the unit providing its own cook, and hanging on to him throughout the piece. We have all our cooks in one packet. There is one place in a reinforcement unit where they undergo their initial training. Then, if a cook becomes a casualty in a field unit, they can whistle up another immediately through second echelon. And they can be quite sure, no matter where he originated, that he will be a well-trained cook and will know his job.
The next phase of the matter of feeding is that in each of our formations overseas we have a catering officer. Of course there is not too much food in England nowadays. For the first two or three weeks after I got back to Canada I was most uncomfortable after almost every meal. This was simply because I had got used to pulling in my belt and restraining my appetite. I think this has been an excellent thing for a lot of people. When rations are not too plentiful it is necessary that the greatest care be taken to ensure that the fullest benefit will be secured from them. Therefore catering advisers, who are specially trained, are provided. They travel around among the units, look over the cookhouses, consult with the commanding officers and advise on how to set up attractive menus and to get the best value out of the food.
We have added to this service lately and have now in the office of the director of medical services a nutritional officer whose job, among other things, is to ensure that the quantity and quality of the rations supplied are adequate to sustain the men and to ensure that they will be perfectly fit for the duties they have to perform. It is true that in England the troops get much more by way of rations than the civilians. While the civilian in England has a fairly tight belt, I can say that this is not the case to anything like the same degree with our Canadian soldiers. The British soldiers, of course, are treated on the same basis as ours.
I should like to tell the house something about the educational services overseas. At the beginning of the war the Canadian Legion stepped in and undertook to provide educational services. .They have done a splendid job. In 1940, or even before that, there was appointed overseas a director of educational services. This gentleman is assisted by educational advisers who are qualified teachers or professors and have a thorough knowledge of
the kind of work the legion is doing. One of the main objects the legion had in mind in setting up this service was to provide facilities for those men who wished, to raise their standard of education or perhaps undertake vocational classes or special courses. Education is a special pet of General McNaughton, and he has done everything in his power to encourage the men and to have his officers encourage the men to take these courses. Hon. members may be surprised to hear that over 20,000 men in the Canadian army in England are taking classes or courses of one kind or another during the present winter. I am quite satisfied that nothing like that happened in the last war, at least not until it was over.
There has been some change recently in the educational set-up overseas. The army found that it was calling more and more upon the legion to provide facilities for education in certain specific cases. For example, there might be other ranks who possessed qualifications which would fit them to become officers but who found they were somewhat lacking in general knowledge. Quite often it was some time since they had been to school and they needed a little polishing up. We called upon the legion to provide courses for this purpose. Strangely enough, we found that there were some illiterates in our army in England and we had to set up special classes to take care of them. There are many other ways in which education may be provided which is of direct benefit to the army as such. With very little increase in staff, using most of the facilities that were already there, we have now an army educational service in the Canadian army overseas.
A point of interest in passing is that this army of ours is an army of specialists. There are thousands and thousands of young men in the army over there who have learned trades of which perhaps they knew nothing when they went overseas. I am hopeful that when this war is over we shall find that a goodly proportion of these boys will find themselves much better equipped to fight the battle of life than they were when they joined up.
I should like to say something about the work of the auxiliary service organizations. I suppose all hon. members know that there are four of these organizations, the Canadian Legion, the Knights of Columbus, the Salvation Army and the Y.M.C.A. Early in the war these four organizations volunteered to provide auxiliary services to the troops. In the first year they put on drives for funds, each one handling its own drive and each securing its own money. Of course they did
The Address-Mr. Booth

not each secure the same amount. As they came in to this work, some of the organizations found themselves particularly well qualified to carry it on, while others were not so well qualified. In any event the important thing was that they were there, and were ready and willing and reasonably able to carry on. We had nothing else which could' have done the job at that time.
The next year the decision was taken that the drives for funds would be consolidated into one, and that was done. In the meantime the work went on steadily. Let me complete the matter of finances. In 1942 the decision was taken that the funds for these services would be provided from the treasury. Controlling these funds and the expenditure of them in Canada is the war services budget committee. I know nothing of the situation in Canada, but I do want to mention a little about the work of these organizations in England because it has been of such great importance to us there. AVithout this work, particularly during the last year and a half, I just do not know how we would have maintained the morale of our men at the high level at which it now stands.
The four organizations each has a senior representative in London. They work in cooperation with the three services, the army, the navy and the air force. I shall speak only about the army because that is what I know about, but in any event the services available to the army are available also to the other services. The control in England is this: on the one hand there are the senior representatives of the four organizations; there are the heads of the forces, and then, as a third party, there is the overseas executive committee of the budget committee in Canada which controls the finances.
In passing I want to say just a word about that committee. It was set up quite recently, and it consists of five prominent Canadians who live in London, -with Sir Edward Peacock as the chairman. We have found that the existence of that committee has solved a great many of our problems. It has speeded up the provision of services to the men and, what is most important, Sir Edward Peacock has the confidence of the organizations as well as the confidence of the services. A\Thile he and his committee scrutinize expenditures most carefully, their first concern is to provide essential services to the troops.
The work overseas of the auxiliary services is divided into two main classifications. The first classification, by far the most important, is that in regard to the services to the troops in the units in the field. This is carried on by means of auxiliary service supervisors who

are trained personnel provided by the organizations to do this work. They are allocated to the troops in the field on the basis of one supervisor for each 800 men,. The large units have their own supervisor, but in the case of the smaller units, two or three may be served by one supervisor.
Because of the developments over the past three years the four organizations have now reached the point where each is providing the same measure of service. Each organization looks after approximately one-fourth of the troops overseas, and each has about the same number of supervisors. These supervisors are allocated to the units in accordance with our plan, and this is the kind of service they provide: Each of them has a car, and he may have one or two or three military helpers. He has a moving-picture outfit; he may have a canteen; he has a library, and he spends his time looking after the welfare of the troops, putting on picture shows in the evenings, organizing concert parties, sing-songs and games of all kinds. It is most important work, and it is of the utmost value at the present time because so many of our troops are spread around the countryside of England miles away, in many instances, from the big centres.
In addition, with the field formations, we have mobile canteens, which are under the charge of the supervisors. While these mobile canteens are not so necessary now, they will be of great value when the troops become engaged in active operations and they will then be used to provide essential services for the troops.
The organizations also provide recreation centres in troop areas. They provide leave hostels in London and elsewhere. At the present time in Canadian hostels in London there are some 2,800 beds, and they are full most of the time; indeed, every week-end there is an overflow of from one to two thousand who have to be taken care of in accommodation provided from British sources.
Each organization has also taken on a special project. The Y.M.CA.. look after a large share of the recreation centres. They also look after the major sports events for the whole army. Their experts advise the army on sports matters.
The Canadian Legion, in addition to having education as one of its projects, looks after the organization of concert parties. It trains and equips them. We have four soldier concert parties in operation at the present time. In addition, the legion provides entertainment, by professional performers who go around and visit the troops week after week.

The Address-Mr. Booth
The Salvation Army has performed a most useful work in purchasing and supplying moving-picture films for the whole army. It has in circulation at the present time a library of over sixty feature movie films, the same kind that can be seen in the moving-picture houses in this country. It has also hundreds of shorts and newsreels.
The Knights of Columbus have as their special project the providing of hospitality for the troops. Notwithstanding the rationing restrictions and restrictions of many other kinds, the people of Great Britain have been most generous in providing hospitality for Canadian soldiers and officers. The Knights of Columbus have a long list of individuals throughout the country who are willing to provide accommodation for our troops on leave. They have an office in London and sub-offices in the troop areas, and any Canadian soldier or officer going on leave who wishes to be entertained anywhere in the United Kingdom has only to get in touch with one of their offices and he can secure just about what he wants in the line of entertainment. It may be salmon fishing or a spot of grouse shooting, or he may want to spend his leave with some literary companions, or he may just want to go some place where he will not be bothered. Any of these things and many more can be provided for him. Thousands and thousands of our Canadian boys are going out into British homes every month as a result of this hospitality. Therefore it will be seen that the auxiliary services overseas are doing a splendid job for our troops.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Charles Stephen Booth: Before the six o'clock recess I was speaking of the work of the auxiliary service organizations for the troops overseas and was mentioning some of the many things that are provided by way of entertainment and recreation for the troops. From that I do not want to leave the impression that life is just a continual round of pleasure for the boys in England. Training is not only realistic but very hard. Manoeuvres are carried on continuously and the troops will march twenty-five miles a day, day after day, and continue fighting throughout that time. In a pinch I have seen an infantry regiment march forty miles between daybreak and night-fall.
I should like to describe the demonstration which was put on by General McNaughton in
December to celebrate the third anniversary of the arrival of the Canadian troops in England. There were all kinds of vehicles, big tanks, little jeeps, troop carriers, tank recovery vehicles, mobile workshops, ambulances, weapons of war, vehicles of war of all kinds. The demonstration lasted for about two hours and it was a marvellous exhibition of the make-up of the Canadian army in England. It was most impressive, and yet I think perhaps the most impressive unit of all to me was the last one to pass the reviewing stand. The review took place on a wide country road in the south of England. The road1 stretched almost as far as the eye could see in both directions, and as this last unit came into sight in the distance, about a mile away, it appeared to be a column of infantry coming along at a steady trot. As they came nearer we could see that they were carrying full equipment. They were carrying their rifles. On they came, and when they passed the reviewing stand not a man was out of place. Their alignment was perfect and there was not a sign of distress on any' one of those keen healthy faces. And on they went, maintaining that steady pace up the road until they disappeared in the distance. To me that was more impressive than all the tanks and guns in the whole parade. To me it typified the calm, steady, persistent spirit of the Canadian army, and I am satisfied that that spirit will remain until the job is done, no matter what may be the odds, no matter how great the task.
I have referred to certain matters which affect the morale of the troops. Three others I want to mention quite briefly in passing. First, there is the relationship between officers and men. These officers and men have worked together, some of them for three years now, and there is a spirit of mutual understanding and respect which can be gained only by men working together, striving together toward a common end. The men know that the officers will do as much as and more than the men themselves will do, and I am thoroughly satisfied that when the time comes the results of this will be manifest and will be of tremendous advantage to us.
Next is discipline and military justice. Discipline is good, and I attribute it in large measure to that same spirit which exists between officers and men. At the same time we have our offenders. You cannot have the thousands of men we have without having some bad eggs, and we have our troubles. However, in the administration of military justice, first of all we endeavour to ensure that everyone is fairly treated, both in the administration of justice and in the review of sentences. We bear in mind the fact
The Address-Mr. Booth

that these men are soldiers and that the sooner we get them back out of the "jug" the sooner will they be efficient fighting soldiers once again. This question of the review of sentence is considered to be so important that the policy in regard to it is centralized at Canadian military headquarters, and the senior officer at that headquarters, General Montague, gives his personal attention to every one of these reviews and himself signs whatever order is made with respect to them. We find that this is bearing fruit, because any man who demonstrates that he has learnt his lesson, who shows by his actions that he is willing to turn over a new leaf, is given an opportunity to do so. We are getting results. Notwithstanding the long time we have been there, our statistics show that relatively fewer offences are being committed. Between August, 1941, and August, 1942, there was a proportionate reduction of over 20 per cent in the numbers of all offences committed. I have not the later figures, but I do know that a steady decline is being maintained.
The third point with regard to morale affects particularly the people at home and is most important. It is a matter of letters from home. Not only do we want more letters but we want better letters. It is a sad thing to hear of a Canadian soldier who has been in England for two and a half years and who has not received' a single letter or a single parcel. It is hard to imagine the feelings of that man as he sees week after week his comrades receiving letters and parcels. It is one of the most damaging things so far as morale is concerned. It is true the people at home are busy, but there is too much of a tendency to put off. It is easy for the family to leave it to mother, but mother is busy too. So that quantity is one of the things we want, and next is quality, and I am not sure that is not even more important.
The boys over there are hungry for news. They want to know what is happening in the home town, what is happening to the family and to the neighbours across the street, or in the town hall or the community hall or whatever it may be, and it is only in letters from home that they can get that information. They are looking for cheerful letters. They like to feel that the people at home, *while missing them, are not unhappy. So very often we hear of cases perhaps of a wife who is lonely, who is feeling badly, just pouring out all her complaints in her letters t-o her husband overseas. It is proper that she should discuss her problems, but to pour out troubles for the sake of filling paper is not a service to anyone. An even worse class of letter, of which unfor-

tunately we get too many, is that sent by trouble-makers, an interfering neighbour, perhaps a jealous mother-in-law, who writes and suggests that Mary is not behaving or that she is not looking after the children. There are many such cases where these complaints are true, but there are many more which we have had investigated by reputable authorities here and we have found them' to be absolutely without foundation. I mention these matters because they are of real importance to the boys overseas.
It is marvellous that morale is so high after we have been so long in England. Three years of waiting is a severe test. I believe, however, that events have to some extent helped to carry us over the waiting period. When we first went to England everything was new; everything was different; we were training, getting ready for the job. Then came the fall of France, and the Canadian division at that time assumed much greater importance than one would expect its size could warrant. The fact is that the Canadian division was practically the only force that was intact and reasonably well equipped. Britain had been pouring out her troops and weapons overseas; when the boys came back from France they came back with nothing, and the Canadian division assumed the real defence of England

a poor enough force when one considers now what was against it. Fortunately the Royal Air Force, in which there are many, many Canadians, defeated the Luftwaffe, with the result that the probability of invasion during the winter of 1940-41 became remote. We were given a breathing spell. During that winter and the next spring our army was growing; England was busy making replacements for the weapons she had lost, and the situation eased a little. But Britain was still pouring out her troops and supplies to other theatres of war. Therefore the Canadian force, by this time growing, still continued its vital role of guarding the homeland. During that period there was little trouble with the men; they knew they were doing a job, and they were satisfied to do it.
Time -went on. The boys were looking for a fight. However, bombing over Britain continued and our men saw the sacrifices, the uncomplaining sacrifices, of the British civilians. What soldier could honestly complain when he saw how much was being suffered by others?
The winter of 1941-42 was a difficult period. The invasion scare was passing and the boys were again becoming a little restless. However, with the spring there was new hope that at last we were going to get into action. There

The Address-Mr. Senn
were large scale manoeuvres, assault landing practices. We were getting closer to the real thing.
Then came Dieppe. Great as was the cost of Dieppe, the lessons we learned and the experience we gained are invaluable. We shall not know until the last line is written how many lives may be saved by reason of the experience gained at that time. Many of our boys were bitterly disappointed that they had missed the show, but at the same time they knew that Canada had at last been in a real fight, and our boys had demonstrated not only that they could take it but that they could hand it out. Dieppe was a promise to them that their turn was coming.
So time went on. We saw the happenings in North Africa, in West Africa, and more recently in Russia. At last we can see the shape of things to come. We feel now, at long last, that we are really going to be in it. When and where the attack will come we shall not be told until the time comes. Just how we are going to find the ships, how we are going to find all the forces that will be necessary to sustain and maintain an attack on the continent, I do not know'. All we know is that the Canadian army is there to lead that attack, that it can break its way in and is ready and able to carry on. But if we are to maintain our morale we must get into that fight, and soon. The boys went over there to do a job; they are not bloodthirsty, but they went to do a job and want to get it over.
Now as to the post-war period. Everyone over there is concerned more or less about what is going to happen to him vdien this show is over. I think the boys appreciate the arrangements that have been made so far with regard to post-war rehabilitation, but they do want to see more. They are not overly concerned ; they are trusting the people of Canada and the government of Canada to ensure that adequate provision will be made for them when they return. They are not looking for hand-outs; all they ask is a chance to w'ork and make their own way, and they wish to be sure that there will be security for those, the wounded, the sick, and their dependents, who will not be able to look after themselves.
I cannot close without just a word about our leaders, Generals McNaughton, Crerar, Montague and Sansom. I know them all. I have worked under them and with them, and it has been a privilege to do so. The army commander, General McNaughton, is of course outstanding; he is a great soldier and a great leader. The others are fine soldiers, men in whom the troops overseas have the greatest confidence. Theirs is a great task and a great
responsibility. But I firmly believe that they will measure up to that task and that responsibility to the limit.
I have said that our army is eager to be on its way. Let me add that we do not believe that the mere fact of our landing on the continent of Europe will cause our enemies to collapse. We know there is much hard fighting ahead; our losses will be grievous and there will be much sorrow in Canada. Knowing all these things, we look forward to the struggle with confidence and in the sure knowledge that nothing will be left undone by the people of Canada to ensure that we shall be able to carry on to the end.	[DOT]
Mr. MARK C. SENN (Haldimand): Mr. Speaker, for special reasons I feel that at this time I must disregard the suggestion made by my leader (Mr. Graydon) yesterday and offer my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Harris) and the seconder (Mr. Halle) of the address in reply. I do this for two reasons: first, because I believe that in offering my compliments to these gallant gentlemen I also pay tribute to the armed forces of Canada to which they belong. My second reason is that if I am correctly informed, these two gentlemen represent in this house rural ridings somewhat similar to my own.
May I also congratulate the hon. member (Mr. Booth) who has just taken his seat upon his maiden speech. The description he gave of conditions in the Canadian army overseas was very interesting indeed.
I intend to speak briefly this evening, and to confine my remarks almost entirely to one question, the position in which agriculture in Canada finds itself to-day. I am sure everyone will agree that the production of food is just as essential to our war effort as any other kind of production in which we may engage. The farmers of Canada know this to be true, and they are doing their best to achieve that maximum contribution to the war effort which is expected of them. Unfortunately they are labouring under most severe handicaps in many ways, handicaps which they find themselves powerless to overcome, but which I believe must be removed if we are to achieve the greatest possible effort in the production of foodstuffs in this country.
The speech from the throne falls logically into two parts. The opening paragraphs are devoted to questions dealing with the war, and I am sure we all agree that measures concerning our participation in the war should be the first consideration of this house. The needs of our army, our navy and our air force must be considered most carefully, and I believe

The Address-Mr. Senn

it is the duty of the government to inform the house as fully as possible to what extent these needs are being met, just as it is the duty of an opposition to criticize when criticism seems necessary, and to offer suggestions of a constructive nature.
The second part of the speech from the throne deals with the legislative programme of the government, and, if I may say so, this part of the speech is more conspicuous because of the omission of certain subjects than because of those matters with which it deals. The amendment which was offered by my leader yesterday, and which I intend to support, recites three of these subjects. First, there was the question of man-power; second, the question of labour and third, questions concerning the problems of agriculture. It seems to me most disappointing that nothing is said in the speech from the throne about any solution of the important and immediate problems which confront agriculture. It is true that some suggestion was put forth that a study is to be made in order to see that primary industry shall receive an adequate income after the war, but there is no indication that measures are to be undertaken to overcome the shortage of labour on the farms and to see to it that prices of farm products bear a fair relationship to the cost of the goods and services which the farmer must buy.
It is difficult for me, and I believe the country will find it difficult, to understand why no undertaking to deal with these questions is apparent in the speech from the throne. Certainly some solution must be found; otherwise agriculture will be unable to achieve that effort which we all hope it may put forth. Moreover, I do not believe it will be able to meet the demands which have been placed upon it for higher food production. Those demands necessarily are very heavy. In his speech yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made some reference to the volume of foodstuffs being shipped to the United Kingdom, and took unto himself and his government a certain amount of credit for that achievement. Undoubtedly there was a very large production in Canada last year; it was a remarkable achievement. The farmers of Canada worked early and late and did everything humanly possible to bring about that result, and I believe they are entitled to any credit which may accrue because of the magnificent contribution we made in that regard.
I have said that the demands upon agriculture are particularly heavy. Production goals for 1943 were set at a dominion-provincial agricultural conference held last December.

I believe that meeting was convened by the agricultural supplies board, and those goals provide for substantial increases in food production as compared with 1942. For instance, in the case of meat an* increase of 285,000,000 pounds was asked, or an increase of 16 per cent as compared with 1942 and 18 per cent as compared with 1941. I believe last year we had the greatest production of hogs in the history of Canada, but there the increase asked for is 28-5 per cent, a fairly large increase. In the case of dairy products the increase asked for amounts to some 6 per cent as compared with 1942. I believe the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who was present at that meeting, gave out figures showing the increases that were asked in various lines of farm production. For instance, in Ontario the increase over 1942 in connection with hogs was some 400,000, or 20 per cent; in the case of butter, 15 per cent; eggs, 15 per cent; lambs, 20 per cent; cattle, 10 per cent; potatoes, 5 per cent, while the production of cheese was to remain at the same level.
I wash to point out that these increases were not asked for in connection with only a few lines of farm products they were requested in connection with almost every line of farm production, and if the house will bear with me I should like to mention the figures in order to show the increases on the wide range of products for 1943. They are as follows:
Percentage
increase
Beef cattle	 9.0
Hogs	 28-5
Sheep and lambs	 12'0
Butter	 14.7
Powdered milk	 42-9
Poultry	 io-o
Eggs	 29-5
0ats	 11-6
Barley	 44.3
Hay and clover	 7-7
Alfalfa	  17-4
Flax seed	 67-6
Sugar beets	 42'2
Potatoes	 40.7
I think the house will agree at once that this is a fairly large contribution for agriculture to be asked to make, in view of the conditions existing in the industry at the present time, in view of the shortage of labour and in view of other matters I shall mention as I proceed. I have stated already that production in 1942 was high. Last, year we were blessed with bumper crops, and in most sections of the country we enjoyed ideal weather for the harvesting of those crops. But if I may be allowed to say so, I believe those crops w'ere harvested-at least in eastern Canada-at the expense of preparation for

The Address-Mr. Senn
the 1943 crop. In eastern Canada and particularly in Ontario a very small acreage of fall wheat was sown. Fall ploughing was only nicely under way in many sections at the freeze-up, and there were large areas left in grass which would have been ploughed but for the fear in the minds of the farmers that they would be unable to harvest their crop in the fall of 1943.
In spite of these large crops last year, however, it has been shown by the leader of the opposition that shortages already are beginning to develop, that several kinds of farm products are rationed already and that others may be rationed shortly. Some mention was made yesterday of the rationing of butter which, as everybody knows, is an accomplished fact. The Prime Minister took the leader of the opposition to task for not stating that the rationing and the shortage of butter were occasioned by heavy shipments overseas. As a matter of fact I have made some investigations, and I cannot find that there was a pound of butter shipped overseas to the United Kingdom last year. In the case of beef, another farm item which is likely to be rationed in the near future, if we can believe the Minister of Agriculture who, according to radio reports, made a statement to that effect at Brandon a short time ago, there has been very little if any sent overseas. Therefore I think the Prime Minister was perhaps w'ide of the mark in criticizing the leader of the opposition for making such a statement.
The government has had plenty of warning that there is a labour shortage on the farms of Canada. A short time ago I mentioned the dominion-provincial conference held in December. At that conference where the provinces were represented, where the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa was represented and where the federation of agriculture and other farm organizations were present, a committee was set up to study farm labour problems. They brought down to that conference a report which, I believe, was passed. I have in my hand a copy of the report, and I must say it makes interesting reading. With the permission of the house I will place on record what it contains. The report of the conference on skilled farm labour quoted in the Farmer's Advocate of December 24, states:
In view of this increased production required for 1943, in face of the decreasing labour supply the conference is of the opinion that the urgent necessity for conserving and supplementing skilled farm labour available must be recognized. And in view of. the misunderstanding and confusion which exists w-ith respect to farm man-power, the importance of a clearer
definition of the man-power policy as it is expected to apply to agriculture is evident. With a view to contributing to the solution of the difficulties inherent in the farm man-power problem the following proposals are submitted for the consideration of the national selective service authorities.
There are five of these proposals, and I shall state them as briefly as possible to the house. They are:
1.	That agricultural man-power policies be administered with the assistance of local farm committees, and the provincial departments of agriculture working in conjunction with the employment and selective service offices.
As far as I am aware no local farm committees have been set up, and if the provincial departments of agriculture are working in conjunction with the employment and selective service officers it is certainly to only a very limited degree. Then:
2.	That the initial call-up which goes out to men on the farm be reworded so that they will clearly understand what the notice means in respect to their status as an essential agricultural worker, and state definitely what procedure they should follow for obtaining deferment.
I saw these notices not so very long ago, and as far as I know there has not yet been any change in them. If there has been a change it has been of only a very minor nature. So that as far as I know the second recommendation has not been implemented up to the present time.
3.	That all farm workers whose essentiality has been established should be given some form of official recognition which would indicate they are performing an important war service.
That is something which should have been done long ago. Many a skilled farm labourer has left the farm to enlist-and all honour to him for doing so-who would have served his country just as well if he had stayed on the farm to produce foodstuffs. He would have been doing just as useful a service there as he could possibly perform in the armed forces. I believe such men would have been perfectly satisfied to remain on the farms, had they had some way of showdng that they were doing their part, and that they were willing to do anything demanded of them.
4.	That a much larger proportion of men on farms where essentiality has been established be granted the longest postponement term with each successive call.
I believe in some instances that suggestion has been followed. Postponements have been granted on the U.F.N.-until further notice- basis. I believe those postponements are fairly permanent. But when the National Resources Mobilization Act was introduced, and it was found that no exemptions were to be allowed, and that only postponements were
The Address-Mr. Senn

permitted, I for one protested against that procedure because, after all, farmers must be assured that they are going to have sufficient help on the farms to harvest their crops. Otherwise they are not going to produce, and are not going to plan for production as they otherwise would. I see no reason up to the moment why young men eligible for war service who are allowed to return to the farm because they are absolutely needed to carry on food production should not have exemptions rather than postponements from time to time.
Those are some of the recommendations made by the conference to the Minister of Agriculture, to be carried to the appropriate authorities. As far as I have been able to ascertain, up to the present time those recommendations have not been carried out, at least in their entirety. I hesitate to discuss the matter of labour at much greater length. Every one knows that for years past there has been a constant exodus of young men and older men from the farms to the cities. They have been lured) there by the hope of higher wages and shorter hours of labour. That condition was greatly accentuated during the early years of the war and, as I have already stated, farm labour shortage was very much increased by voluntary enlistments.
I warn the government and the country that unless something is done, and done soon, to assure the farmers of Canada of a more adequate supply of farm labour, the production goals for 1943, to which I have already referred, will never be attained. Owing to the lack of preparation for the 1943 crop, unless something is dome I doubt very much whether it will reach the production reached in 1942.
There is another factor which to a great extent affects food production by farmers. I refer to the price ceilings which have been established on so many lines of farm produce by the wartime prices and trade board. My complaint about those ceilings is that they do not establish parity. I can see no reason for the disparity in farm prices. I do not believe the wartime prices and trade board can offer any reasonable excuse as to why there is not a fair relationship between farm prices and the cost of goods and services the farmer must buy. We have more than one proof of the condition which exists. Our federal and provincial governments have recognized the fact, because they are paying bonuses to-day on quite a number of farm products.
In addition to that, the present federal government is setting arbitrary prices on wheat. I have always felt that these ceilings were unfair to agriculture and I have often doubted whether they were necessary or

needed at all. In fact, speaking in the house last year from' this same place I said that I did not think high prices hadi done any harm ini the last war. At that time the farmers were enabled because of higher prices to pay off their mortgages in a great many instances and to set aside money which stood them in good stead during the days of the depression. Up to the present time I have not seen any reasons whatever why I should, change my mind. Undoubtedly the imposition of price ceilings at levels at which they standi to-day has resulted in a great deal of confusion and discouragement to the agricultural industry.
I go on to give what I think is even more convincing proof that these price ceilings are not at a high enough level. Agriculture to-day, as in the past, is not enjoying a fair share of the national income. Hon. members will remember that when the Sirois report was brought down it showed that for the ten years ending in 1938 agriculture in the Dominion of Canada enjoyed only about 10 per cent of the national income although the farmers comprised over one-third of the population. The situation has been very little better during the past four years. Although prices for farm products are somewhat higher, they still present a most alarming picture.
I have in my hand a statement from the bureau of statistics entitled, "Relative importance of agriculture to other sectors of the national economy of Canada". I do not intend to burden the house with a lengthy recital of the figures which this statement contains. There is shown not only the total figures of national income and farm income, but the percentage of farm income originating in agriculture in relation to the national income, at farm prices obtained from the records of gross incomes throughout Canada. I should like to point out that these figures are made up from four items: first, cash sales of farm products; second, the value of products produced and consumed on the farm; third, the computed rental of the farm house, although I have never been able to understand just why this should be included, and, fourth, government bonus payments. While the percentage of national income enjoyed by agriculture is somewhat higher than for the ten-year period prior to 1938, which I quoted, a moment ago, it has not yet reached a. fair level. For the year 1939 our farmers received 14-8 per cent of the national income; for the year 1940, 13-1 per cent; for 1941, 13-1 per cent and for 1942, 13-3 per cent.
It will be seen that despite price ceilings and, bonuses which have been offered by both federal and provincial governments, the farmer

The Address-Mr. Senn
of Canada to-day is in the unfortunate position of not receiving his fair share of the national income. I will go further and say that in most instances he is not receiving for his products prices which will pay for the cost of production and give him a reasonable profit. May I pause here to say I am glad that in the fourteen points which the new leader of the Progressive Conservative party enunciated some time ago there is included the principle that all classes of primary producers should receive a fair share of the national income.
Moreover, if agriculture is to reach the production which is being asked for the year 1943, it is absolutely essential that the farmer should not be asked to produce at a loss. I do not believe that Canada will ever enjoy the prosperity to which our agricultural areas and resources entitle us unless our primary producers can buy the goods and services they need. I believe it is an economic fact that income derived from primary production creates the buying power of the country. It is new wealth which is being produced each year, and for that reason it is one of the factors which contribute very largely to the country's buying power. If the farmers and other primary producers of this country or of any country are not prosperous, that country cannot enjoy the prosperity which it should.
I am not pleading for extremely high prices for farm products. I am not asking for prices which will bolster up inefficient or poor management. I am not asking for prices which will encourage the cultivation, of the submarginal lands in certain areas of this country. If we see to it that the farmers receive a fair price for their products, they will deliver the goods. There is no doubt that if the farmer is assured reasonable prices, if he is supplied with a reasonable amount of labour, he will produce to the fullest extent.
There is another reason why these price ceilings are not satisfactory. If there is one thing more than another that the farmers have complained of in days gone by, it is the rapid and violent fluctuations which occur from time to time in farm prices. A farmer must plan a long time ahead. If he is going to produce grain he must plough his land anywhere from six months to a year before he can place the grain on the market or even feed it to his stock. It seems to me that stability in farm prices is absolutely essential, and yet the wartime prices and trade board has perpetuated this system of price fluctuation. In the case of butter, prices are on a sliding scale, and the same applies to beef.
In this respect may I pause to make a suggestion. Under the present arrangement
the peak of beef prices will be reached next May. Farmers all over the country, particularly those who have an abundance of feed, are bolding their cattle in the hope of realizing these high prices next May. That is one reason why there is to-day a scarcity of beef on the markets of Canada. I would point out that there is grave danger that when the time comes when these higher prices are to be paid there will be such a glut on the market that the abattoirs will be forced to reduce prices in order to cope with the situation. The whole price ceiling policy to-day as it applies to beef seems to me to be most complicated and blundering.
There is another reason I should like to advance to show why it is unsatisfactory. A ceiling price has been placed on beef and it has had the effect of setting a price for killer cattle. But the price of Stockers has been allowed to find its own level, and last fall when many men were anxious to buy stockers they found that the price was actually higher than for the cattle which were finished in their stables and which the farmers wanted to sell. The result was that in a great many instances those cattle were held over, and the feed lots in Ontario and eastern Canada were allowed to remain vacant. That was a most unsatisfactory and unhealthy condition to prevail, particularly when we are so badly in need of beef.	_
There is another matter to which I wish to refer. Last fall, when the beef shortage began to become apparent and when the quota of cattle which we were supposed to export to the United States began to operate in the last three months, the government set up a food corporation the duty of which was to purchase the cattle which were destined for the United States. Drovers went into the country, bought up these cattle at Canadian prices and then sold them to the food corporation at United States prices which were as much as twenty and twenty-five dollars more than the farmer received for the cattle. Somebody made a handsome profit out of these transactions and certainly it was not the farmer, the man who was entitled to it. I am afraid that the activities of the food corporation at that time cost the country a very pretty penny indeed. I have pointed out these matters in the hope that something will be done to remedy the situation.
Just for a moment I should like to refer to another matter. I listened with a good deal of interest and attention last night to the remarks made by the leader of the socialistic group to my left. With his description of conditions in agriculture I very largely agree, but in a recent address which he delivered over the
The Address-Mr. Wood

radio he condemned what he termed "rugged individualism", and he laid the blame for the world-wide depression of the thirties on its door-step. I cannot agree with that statement. The depression was world-wide. It was just as prevalent and just as serious in those countries where private enterprise and individualism were shackled as in our own country or in any other democratic country. It is true farmers will never become wealthy, but if proper measures for their benefit are taken they may arrive at a competence which will provide a fair measure of security. One thing farmers prize above all else is their pride of possession. It guarantees to them the privilege of private enterprise and the right to follow their own way of life. We are at present fighting for these things, for our liberty and freedom. Nowhere are these privileges exemplified in all their beauty and in all their value more than on the Canadian farm. It would be a tragedy, if after these rights have been saved and retained for us by our brave men at the front, they should be taken away from us by any system of regimentation or state control such as is advocated to-day by our friends of the socialistic party.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that my remarks have been rather rambling. They have not been made in any spirit of carping criticism of the government. They have been made with a real desire to point out some of the difficulties under which agriculture is labouring at the present time and, if possible, to point out the way in which these difficulties may be remedied. There is no doubt that farmers, if they are given a reasonable opportunity, are only too anxious to cooperate in our war effort, and I believe that if the remedies which I have suggested are applied and the farmer is assured of a reasonable supply of labour and of a fair price for his products over and above the cost of production, he will produce to his full capacity.


Mr. G. E. WOOD (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset may I extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Harris) and the seconder (Mr. Halle) of the address. It was refreshing to hear these two brilliant young men speak in this parliament after returning from overseas where they have been defending the cause of liberty. They were both very modest, and I am sure that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) must have found inspiration in their splendid addresses. Both spoke in a refreshing manner, using no extravagant language at all. It was evident that they were speaking for the sole purpose of revealing the facts as they are to-day.

I also wish to congratulate the leader of the opposition upon having been chosen by his party to occupy the exalted position in which he now finds himself in this house. I have enjoyed his friendship ever since he came into this house, and I trust that nothing will ever happen to weaken that friendship in any way. Of course he has taken upon himself the responsibilities that go with the leadership of the opposition, and it may become my duty at times to take him to task.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: That would be only
natural.


George Ernest Wood: I am sorry I did not hear the hon. member. I should like also to commend the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) for his contribution this evening in defence of the farmer. I believe he was wholly sincere in presenting his case, and I share with him his concern for agriculture in this country in regard to the labour shortage. But I wish he had spoken a little longer and offered some solution. It is very easy, of course, to find fault, but what we are anxious to hear is a solution of the problems that beset us.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: That is your job. You are in power.	.


George Ernest Wood: And I believe that if we do as well in the coming year as we have done in the last three years we shall make a pretty good job of it, too.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Ask the farmers about that.


George Ernest Wood: I should like to give a little resume of conditions as I see them to-day. We have just harvested one of the largest crops in the history of Canada, and if we do not harvest a large crop this year I believe we shall have a sufficient carryover to maintain our production of meat, for which we have a market overseas. We have only a limited market for our wheat and grains, and we are therefore in an extremely fortunate position in having a large carryover of grain because it enables us to maintain our production of meat and meat products.
The hon. member for Haldimand rather challenged the explanation which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) gave last night with regard to the butter situation, and I do not think the hon. member was quite fair. We do not export butter, it is true, but we do export butter fat in the form of cheese, and no one knows that better than does the hon. member for Haldimand. I think he should have completed his statement on the butter situation by giving that explana-

The Address-Mr. Wood
tion if he wished to be fair not only to himself but to the house. Butter is in a similar position to beef. We do not export beef, but we do ship about 200,000 head of cattle to the United States each year. That is done under our reciprocity agreement with the United States which was brought about by this government in 1935, an agreement which has done more to maintain farm income than anything else, I believe, in the last few years.
May I take this opportunity to give a resume of the progress we have made from the point of view of agriculture, as far as the national income is concerned. The hon. member for Haldimand was very much concerned because, on the basis of the prices which the farmer receives for his products, agriculture does not obtain, according to him, an adequate proportion of the national income. I do not take too seriously the percentages given with respect to agriculture's share of the national income and the assertion that it is but a small proportion of the whole, because possibly the hon. member is living in a state of mind suggestive of the days of Christopher Columbus, when 100 per cent of the national income came from the land. We must bear in mind that we are progressing and that we have steel mills and various manufacturing industries, and naturally, therefore, the proportion of agricultural income to the total income will not be as high. But what the hon. gentleman should have pointed out was that the portion which one-third of the population received from agriculture was so much, because many people living in rural sections receive incomes from sources other than the farms. That is something which should be taken into consideration. What does concern me as a farmer is whether the farmer is receiving more to-day than he did in 1939. That is the real point. It does not make any difference to the farmer what anyone else gets as long as he gets his share. That somebody else is wealthy makes no difference to me so long as I receive what I want.


Mr. ROWE:: How much more do you pay?


George Ernest Wood: Well, I know that at the close of the last war in 1918 the cost of living had increased by twenty per cent, and to-day it has increased only two per cent in consequence of the restrictions brought about by price control.


William Earl Rowe: And the farmers got forty per cent more for their products then.


George Ernest Wood: Yes, but what good did the forty per cent do? As a matter of fact, it created in the farmer the belief that he
could accumulate debts, public and private, and that is something which we are trying to avoid by the system of price control. The national income in 1942 is estimated at about $7 billion, of which labour, with four million workers, gets about $4,150,000,000, or sixty-three per cent. The farmer's cash income this year, according to estimates I have from the Department of Agriculture, is $1,080,000,000 and added to that will be $90,000,000 of subsidies, which brings it to roughly $1,100,000,000. Against that he has costs of production of about $350,000,000. But what I wish to point out is this. There has been a steady increase in the prices of farm products in spite of the fact that we have a ceiling price on the finished articles. Many object to the ceiling price being applied only to the manufactured product, leaving natural products free, but the result of the system is this, that there has been practically a two cent increase in the price of beef from 1941 to 1942. Steers in Toronto in 1940 were $7.50; in 1941, $8.63, and in 1942, $10.16. The average for twenty years was $7.03, so that there has been a pretty fair increase. Let me give prices for the live weight of hogs. In 1940 they were S8.57; in 1941, $9.95, and in 1942, $11.72. Will anyone say that there has not been a substantial increase in the price of farm products? The same applies to lambs and butter.
Butter in the Montreal market in 1940 was 30-2 cents; in 1941, 34 cents, and in 1942, 36 cents, and on top of that we have a ten-cent subsidy until April.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: And now we cannot get it.


George Ernest Wood: Now that the hon. member
has raised that question I might as well discuss it at once. No one knows better than he does the reason why we cannot get butter. It is not that the farmer did not produce as much butter in 1942 as he did the year before. The difference is only one per cent, but the fact is that there was a greater consumption by seventeen million pounds, and we have exported in butter fat to our friends of the united nations thirty-two million pounds which went into cheese. Surely it does not call for a great deal of intelligence to understand why there is a shortage of butter, and I am surprised that the hon. member keeps raising the question. There are few people who have access to the information that he has, and he should not go round trying to sow the seeds of unrest among the population when he could do a kindness not only to himself but to the war effort by informing the public of the facts.
The Address-Mr. Wood

I am quite aware that in a country such as this, under the principle of free enterprise, and especially to us who are the sons and grandsons of old pioneers who came here seeking liberty and who hewed out for themselves a home in the stubborn forests, we do not take kindly to these restrictions. I trust, however, that the day is coming, when the war is over, when we shall get back again to the principles and policies of free enterprise and when we shall not have these restrictions any longer. Until that happens, I heartily agree with the leader of the opposition on the policies and principles which he has endorsed, and I am glad to know that at least there are some things which I have in common with him in that regard.
May I call attention to one matter about which I am concerned. It is to be found in the Atlantic charter in clause 4. I believe the leader of the opposition quoted clause 5, but the one I am concerned about is this:
They will endeavour, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all states, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Hear, hear.


George Ernest Wood: I am glad to hear the hon. member for Waterloo South endorse that. He is one of those who are in and out, on and off, ready to change their name and adopt any kind of policy, and they seem to get away with it. Nevertheless it is good for the people concerned1 to know where the Progressive Conservative party stands on the matter of tariffs.
As far as social security is concerned I was pleased to hear that the leader of the opposition was favourably impressed with that part of the speech from the throne and was even prepared to enlarge upon it. I must say that until the Winnipeg convention I cannot recall one contribution he has made as long as he has been in. this honse that indicated to me that he was seriously interested in broader plans of social security. After all, it is by one's deeds that one is known.
I should like to refer to a contribution I made on this subject, which will indicate that I am not a new convert in the matter of social security. I have always believed that in a country like ours we should at all times exercise sufficient frugality and thrift to set aside a certain portion of our earnings for future welfare and social security. On May 2, 1938, speaking on relief and agricultural dis-

tress, I had this to say, as reported at page 2472 of Hansard:
The time has come when, no matter what station in life a man may hold, it is his duty to contribute, according to his ability, to his own general welfare, and I would suggest that when the minister brings down his unemployment insurance scheme he keep that fact in mind.
On June 25, 1940, when asking for extension of the scope of the legislation for unemployment insurance, I made this statement, as found on page 1120 of Hansard:
I should like to see in our social legislation some provision for a contributory national pension scheme which would take the farmer into consideration. To-day he is not only supplying the food of^ the nation at less than cost, but he is making a great contribution to the education and to the social and industrial life of the country. [DOT].
No nation can afford to neglect the farmer. The farm has given a great contribution to industry and all branches of society by giving periodically a blood transfusion, as one might call it, to all departments of public activity. Farmers have made a great contribution to the pulpit and to all walks of professional and industrial life, and it is essential that we should retain a strong and virile people on the land. If we have a policy whereby farmers can participate in social security, it will do much to encourage people to stay on the land.
I do hope, however, that no plan will be devised that will lessen or destroy initiative in any way, and that it will only be a plan that will contribute to the minimum requirements of life, and our future policy should be based upon the principle of merit. The greatest contribution that can be made is by individual initiative.
I should like to call attention to the share that labour is receiving in our present war effort. The share of labour amounts to 84,124 million. I do not yield to the leader of the opposition in my desire to serve labour. After all, labour is the greatest customer of the farmer, and it is necessary that the industrial worker should be prosperous. But labour is not entitled to the only place. Very often, especially at times such as this, there is a great desire on the part of organized labour to seek to increase its share of the national income. I have in my hand some Canadian figures showing that in 1929 total wage payments amounted to 61-4 per cent of the national income. It is interesting to note that regardless of what labour does, it seems to be able to obtain only a certain proportion of the national income. I believe it is the duty of labour, as of everyone else, if they want to enjoy a fuller life, to

The Address-Mr. Wood
try to increase the national income. That does not mean, as our friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation seem to argue, that a more or less equal distribution of the country's wealth should be made; that will not raise the standard of living. But if the national income is increased, the standard of living for all will be improved. We must all go down the road of success abreast; there is no use in seeking to safeguard our own class only.
I listened with great interest to the speech by "the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) on the radio about two weeks ago. One thing that struck me was that when he was commenting upon the weakness of the old orthodox political parties he made some grand and glorious promises about a new order and a new world. There came to my mind stories that when an election was on, politicians would come to a town and promise the inhabitants a new post office, hoping to secure the votes of that community. But the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation had them all stumped because he promised a new world.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Prime Minister promised a new heaven and a new earth.


George Ernest Wood: That would not be very interesting to some lion, members.
What about this new order? I have listened time and time again to these promises of freedom from want and all these other freedoms. There seems to be a belief on the part of some people, who, I am sure are sincere, that by creating certain conditions and changing things around they will be able to take the struggle out of life. I do not think it can ever be done. As long as this world is inhabited by human beings, most of us will have to be kicked upstairs. There is plenty of room there; but we need something to put us up there; it will not be done automatically, and I do not believe it would be a very good thing if that were so.
I should like to direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to some views I hold and the reason why I take this stand. We talk about the distribution of wealth; we are told very often that there are a few people in this world who have control over great wealth while the rest are nothing but slaves and peasants of the very favoured few, who are able to reach underneath the chairs in which they recline comfortably and pull out anything they want while the rest of us have to get along with very little. If you analyse the income tax returns you will find that if you took everything away from those with incomes of more
than $50,000 a year, which is considered the high income tax class, you would be able to maintain our war effort for only a very few weeks. I happen to have before me an article published by the Wood Gundy people, which shows the distribution of our bank deposits. Savings deposits amounting to $1,000 or less account for 31 per cent of all savings deposits, and total some $496,300,000. Accounts of from $1,000 to $5,000 total $522,200,000, or 32 per cent of the total savings of the country. In other words, in this class there is practically 64 per cent of all the savings held by our small bank depositors. We have some $3,100,000,000 lying in our banks, belonging to about 4,000,000 depositors. That is a pretty good percentage of the population of this country. We also have 2,500,000 people holding insurance policies, having an average value of $2,000. Surely there never was a time in the history of this country when wealth was more equally divided than it is to-day. Some of us have perhaps had a little taste of how it feels to have some savings, and we want more. When we look around and see someone with more than we have, of course the human elements of jealousy and envy creep in; the have-nots envy the haves, and we begin to think we need a new order so that we may be placed in a favoured position. But I notice that generally the man in the most favoured position is the man who has earned it. I remember as a boy listening to a sermon in the Baptist church to which I went in the village; I remember that the subject was that the Lord does not trust everyone with talents to the same extent, and I thought there was a great deal to that. The reason why many of us have not very much wealth is that we cannot be trusted with it, and I have discovered that a great many people cannot be trusted in that way. Perhaps the greatest calamity that could happen to many people would be access to too much money. We have records to show that many men who at one time possessed some wealth lost it over a period of time, and it came into the hands of someone else. There is nothing permanent about wealth. We have the income tax, the succession duties and everything else to take away this wealth and hand it back to society, thus giving those who have not been able to accumulate anything a second, third, fourth and perhaps tenth chance to do so.
I notice that this new order is being discussed by many who belong to an element in the community who, as far as I can see, have never known what it meant to make a living,
The Address-Mr. Wood

but under our capitalist system they have enjoyed the privilege of free education. I do not want to be unkind to the academic mind just because I do not happen to possess one myself. I do say, however, that in my opinion if there is anything calculated to disturb the equilibrium of our country it is the few people who have been blessed with absorbent intellects, who have taken advantage of our educational institutions, who have become proficient in the use of the English language and who go round this country talking to working people, farmers and others, but who have nothing to sell except speeches. They are good enough business men in their own line; they are cautious in what they say to their customers, generally saying the things they know their audience want to hear rather than, the things that should be said. I am satisfied that these men constitute a challenge to the sober, orthodox-thinking people who have laboured hard, who by frugality and thrift have been able to secure command of some of the good things of this world. Perhaps if some of these men had possessed some capital to offer together with their suggestions, they would not be talking quite so much. Generally speaking, however, it is those who have nothing who are always looking for some new world order to take the struggle out of life.
Just here I should like to mention that I come from the county of Brant, which on February 19 will celebrate its freedom from debt. That is a splendid thing. The county of Brant is out of debt to-day, and I hope to attend that celebration. This is the result of action taken a number of years ago, when a number of frugally minded men-and I want to say that then, as now, they were the sons and grandsons of the old. pioneers of Brant county-decided that we would get out of debt and follow a pay-as-you-go policy. That was early in 1930. At that time we had to meet a bill of .$220,000 from the province of Ontario, representing our twenty per cent share of the cost of building highways. In addition, we had a funded debt of |218,000, and early in 1933 a bridge was built at a cost of $129,000. We set to work to pay that amount in cash. In order to meet all those commitments we had to sell a bond issue of $150,000, and the balance of what we owed we paid in cash. Previously our funded debt had always been on the fifteen-year plan. We issued that $150,000 on a ten-year plan, which is why we are going to be out of debt this year instead of five years from now. The point, however, to which I should like to direct attention is that we took this action at a time when the purchasing power of the 
dollar was extremely low. I happen to have before me a record of prices from 1930 to 1934-35, when it just happened that it was not a Liberal government that was in power here.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Or 1936 or 1937, or 1938.


George Ernest Wood: 
Thomas Vien: The hon. member's time has expired.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


George Ernest Wood: I thank the house for this gracious gesture. I do not wish to take advantage of this privilege, but there is one further point I should like to mention. I know there are troubles in this world and there always will be. It is, however, our duty to try to do our part, whatever our station in life may be, and make some contribution toward making this a better world.
I had sent to me a book which I have no doubt other hon. members received. It is entitled "The Common Problem", and is written by William R. Yendall. I have enjoyed reading the philosophy of life outlined in this book and I accept a great deal of it. The solution of our problems is well explained in it, namely, that instead of wrecking and tearing down our present economic order we should follow the plan therein suggested. The author relates that an Irish town councillor called in an engineer and said:
"WTe have decided to build a new gaol. We have decided to build it out of the bricks of the old gaol, and we have decided to use the old gaol while we are building the new one."
The engineer laughed, for that is not the engineering method.	But the problem of
modern society is essentially the problem of the Irish town council, to build a new- world out of the bricks of the present world, and use the present world while we are building the new one.


Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my words of appreciation to those of the hon. members who have preceded me in the honours accorded to the members of the armed forces in moving and seconding the address of his excellency in the speech from the throne. I think every member of this house realizes that our armed forces are the spearhead which stands between our democratic way of life and nazism, that the very existence of this house is dependent upon their initiative and their success.
The Address-Mr. Wright

I should like also to compliment the new leader of the Progressive Conservative group (Mr. Graydon) upon the honour which has been accorded him by his associates. I am, however disappointed that he should have accepted even the temporary leadership of a group which for the past seven years has consistently set its sails to catch every political breeze which has been blowing in Canada and then found when the sails were set that the wind had veered and they were again left in the doldrums. I am disappointed also that they should, in stating their mobilization policy, have again used the qualifying phrase. The hon. member should have known by now that he cannot compete with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who has had thirty years experience in this house in the use of that phrase. Their mobilization plank reads:
We believe in the effective total utilization and proper allocation for war, by compulsion where necessary, of all the resources of Canada, including agriculture, industry and finance.
That is exactly the policy of the government. mobilization where necessary. I do not think that is what the people of Canada desire to-day. I believe they desire total mobilization, mobilization of industry and finance on the same basis as we have mobilization of man-power at the present time. I know that is what the people in my part of Saskatchewan believe.
He complained also about the adoption by the government of many of the planks in their platform. This is nothing more than could be expected because there is to-day no fundamental difference between the two major political parties in this country. They both believe in capitalism; they both believe in the return to capitalism immediately this, war is over. The people of Canada realize that to-day there is no fundamental difference. This is not only my opinion; it is the opinion of some of the keenest political observers in Canada. Mr. Grattan O'Leary, writing in Maclean's magazine of December 1. 1942, said this:
Except in labels there has been no difference between the liberal conservatism of the party led by Meighen, Bennett and Manion and the conservative liberalism of the party led by Mackenzie King. If there has been difference at all it has been in that while the Conservatives practised liberalism in office and talked toryism in opposition, the Liberals talked liberalism in opposition and practised conservatism in office. In fundamentals they have been alike as two peas.
But in Canada to-day there are two distinct lines of thought. There are those who believe in the continuation of our present capitalistic system and there are those who believe in a 
cooperative economy. The one is the direct opposite of the other; both cannot continue to exist and expand in any country; one must supersede the other. Capitalism stands for the control of the services and productive facilities of this country by individuals and groups of individuals who shall operate them at a profit for themselves. On the other hand, cooperation 'believes that these services and productive facilities should be owned by the people cooperatively in order that the services may be provided at cost. Any political party or parties that contend that they believe in the return to capitalism and believe in cooperation are patently trying to ride two horses at the same time. The farmers of this country know that is an absolute impossibility.
We hear a good deal of talk about free enterprise under the capitalistic system. Free enterprise is fast disappearing under our present monopolistic capitalistic system. The farmers of Canada are concerned over what is going to take its place. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation believe, as do the farmers of this country, that a cooperative economy is the only democratic solution and is the only method by which the individual can use his initiative effectively at the present time. I do not think I need to bring this particularly to the attention of the house. We have seen in many instances during the past thirty years the disappearance of private initiative. To-day the small storekeepers are finding it practically impossible to compete with the chain stores and the mail order houses. The small manufacturer and the small machine-shop have disappeared. The small farmer is disappearing, and the present-day value of farm property has depreciated fifty per cent from what it was twenty years ago. Farms which were worth 110,000 twenty years ago, to-day are worth approximately So,000. This is what has happened under a capitalistic system.
That is why the farmer is now becoming more and more a cooperator, and a believer in the cooperative movement. He believes that lack of planning is hampering production on all farming fronts. His criticism is that he is deprived of any opportunity to participate in the planning of the contribution which he will make. Had the counsel of the farmers been sought, many of these blunders might have been avoided. In the fourth year of the w*ar this government continues to leave economic controls largely in the hands of business men who have been trained in the technique of monopolistic capitalism, while they ignore almost completely the counsel of the farmers. Under such domination there

The Address-Mr. Wright
is great possibility of the enterprise and initiative of the farmer being further endangered and crushed.
Not only have the recommendations of the national federation of agriculture been ignored, but no attention has been paid to the part that could have been played by local committees and by the farmer producer and consumer cooperatives. One of the most glaring results of this lack of planning is the farm labour shortage that we have in Canada today. Last March the Prime Minister stated in a speech in the house that it was the intention of the government to maintain the men then on the farms in their positions there, except those who wished to enlist voluntarily. After that address in the house, the then Minister of National War Services issued a press release explaining the new policy which had been adopted. In explaining the difference between the new policy and the old, he said:
There is, however, this fundamental difference, namely, that if the applicant is a person wholly or mainly employed in agriculture within the meaning of the amended regulations, the board, subject to certain exceptions hereafter mentioned, shall-
The word "shall" is underlined:
-grant him a postponement order until further notice and such postponement order shall be an allocation of such person to agriculture.
It is this direction to the board, namely, that the board shall grant him a postponement order until further notice, that constitutes the "fundamental alteration of the policy regarding compulsory military training and service where such service touches persons wholly or mainly employed in agriculture," referred to by the Prime Minister in his speech in the House of Commons on Tuesday, March 24, 1942.
Previously, under subsections (1) and (2) of section 14 of the national war services regulations, it was provided that the board "shall have power to grant an advancement or postponement order when it is of the opinion that it is in the national interest to do so," but there was no obligation upon the board to grant such orders. The matter was left to the discretion of the boards.
There has therefore been a fundamental change of base in the regulations. It is not a question of greater latitude having been given to the boards in the matter of granting postponement orders. Nor is it a matter of preferential treatment. The amendments go much further and constitute a fundamental change of approach, both by the applicant and by the board. When the applicant has shown that he is a person wholly or mainly employed or engaged in agriculture within the meaning of the amended regulations, he is prima facie entitled to a postponement order until further notice. He does not have to prove, as was the ease formerly, a special case for postponement of a fixed duration.
These instructions have certainly not been followed by the mobilization boards in western Canada, at least not by the ones with which 72537-7
I have had contact. As far as the Saskatchewan board is concerned, it has proceeded in exactly the same manner as before. It is calling up men from agriculture and granting them only temporary postponements. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), speaking in western Canada a- short time ago, stated that only ten per cent of the men from agriculture applying for postponement to the Saskatchewan board have been refused, but I maintain that that is only a half truth. The whole truth is-


Mr. GARDINER:: Just in order that the
record may be accurate, what I stated in Saskatoon was that I was so informed by the board in Saskatchewan.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am not stating that the
minister's information was not correct; what I am stating is that if it is correct, these men were granted postponement for only a short period, and within six months from seventy-five to eighty-five per cent of those who had been granted postponement found themselves in the armed forces. I had an instance brought 'to my attention. A young chap wrote to the board asking for a postponement for three weeks in order that he might complete his arrangements before he was called up. In reply he received a telegram from the board stating that if he would signify his willingness to enlist for active service, there would be no trouble about granting the postponement. These things are not right, and the government must face this problem in a realistic manner. They cannot have at one and the same time both more men in the armed forces and greater production as far as western agriculture is concerned, and I believe this applies to eastern Canada as well. The man-power problem is acute. In substantiation of what I have said I wish to quote a telegram which has just been received by the leader of our group. It is from Rosetown-Biggar and reads:
Am farming two sections and half of land. Am up against it for farm help. My last man just called up. Have over sixty head cattle, over hundred sheep, thirty brood sows, twenty horses and nobody to look after them. I am sick and cannot get help. What am I to do? It would be a great sacrifice to sell stock. Have had four or five men working other years, now the last man is going. Please advise.
If the government requires greater production from western agriculture I believe that the men who are on the farms in western Canada to-day should remain there.
There is another matter which I wish to bring to the attention of the government. In obtaining evidence as to the essentiality of a man to agriculture the practice has grown

The Address-Mr. Wright

up in western Canada of using the services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as the body to make a report. I have every confidence in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police when it comes to enforcing the law. I believe they have done wonderful work in Canada during this war in preventing sabotage, but I maintain that they are not the proper body to make these reports. Many of the men who are at present in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in western Canada are young constables, the older men having gone to other posts. These young constables are not acquainted with the people ip the locality in which they are stationed, and they must go to somebody else to get information to complete their reports. I know of many instances in which they have never approached the individual concerned but have taken the word of neighbours and other individuals as to the essentiality of that man to agriculture. Reeves of municipalities, the municipal doctor, the clergy and other representative men in the locality have written in to the board signifying that certain individuals were required on the farms, and yet the report of the mounted police has been accepted in preference to the advice given by these people on the spot, with the result that men have been taken off the farms and called up for military service. I know of several instances in my own constituency where that has happened, as a result of which the father of the boy has had to sell his stock and rent his farm, and that farm is being used to-day for the production of more grain instead of producing things which the government requires much more urgently at this time. Local committees of responsible men who know the people in their own community and their circumstances would be a much better source from which the board could obtain evidence than the reports made by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
There are two specific recommendations which I should like to make with regard tc farm labour. I believe that all men now engaged in agriculture should be continued in their present occupation, and that in cases of emergency, where real need is shown, men might be taken from the armed forces in Canada to supply the deficiency of manpower on the farm. I also believe that the services of conscientious objectors who have experience in agriculture might be used. These conscientious objectors are to be found in some of the camps in large numbers. I do not know what the total number is, but many of them are experienced in agriculture. Farming to-day is a specialized industry, and

farm labour must be experienced. A farmer cannot afford to-day to hire an inexperienced man to run machinery which may cost anywhere from two to five thousand dollars a unit.
What happened with regard to the harvesters' excursion which was run to western Canada last fall? Some four weeks before harvesting started in western Canada the government of Saskatchewan made a survey of conditions throughout the province, and every municipality stated what its needs were with regard to harvest help. The provincial government had that information, and I suppose they passed it along to the proper departments at Ottawa. We were told by the Minister of Agriculture and by others that we must depend in Saskatchewan upon our own help in harvesting the crop. Yet when harvesting was almost half completed the labour situation became so serious that the government decided to send large numbers of men from eastern Canada to the west. These men were largely taken from our universities in the east. These men were anxious to do the job, but they were inexperienced and just could not fill the bill. Within a very short time large numbers of them were back in the towns and cities with blistered hands and sore backs, asking to be returned to eastern Canada. Probably fifty per cent of the men who came out on that excursion performed a useful service, but there were large numbers of them who should never have left eastern Canada. There should have been more selection in the choosing of them.
Another thing that happened in Saskatchewan was this. Our university opened as usual. Students from all over Saskatchewan went into the university, and the second day after they were there, universities in eastern Canada closed and started to send their students to Saskatchewan when our own students were there in the university. Immediately the university authorities or the provincial authorities, I do not know which, became alarmed at the anomaly, and the students were sent home. Many of them were left stranded in Saskatoon and had to telephone to their parents to send them the money to pay their fares home. These are examples of lack of efficient planning.
I believe that if serious conditions are not to develop this fall there must be a greater allotment of machinery to western Canada, The allotment of our farm machinery required for production of grain is twenty-five per cent of the 1940 sales. In the case of many companies I was informed that the 1940 sales were very low, and I do not believe that twenty-five per cent of those sales are going to be sufficient to meet the requirements of western

The Address-Mr. Wright
agriculture this year, especially with regard to certain types of machinery. I believe we shall have to have a larger number of combines. One large combine would have taken the place of approximately twenty of those men who came from eastern Canada. During the last year of the last war wheat was selling in western Canada for $2.25 a bushel and you could purchase a binder there at that time for $2S5. To-day it is worth $385. A seed drill which then cost approximately $250 is to-day worth approximately $400. I believe, and the western farmers believe, that there should be a greater parity between the prices we receive to-day for what we have to sell and the prices we have to pay for the commodities we have to buy. The government's policy of freezing farm prices at levels that obtained between September 15 and October 10, 1941, has, I believe, proven unworkable. In a great many instances it has been necessary to adjust these prices by subsidies. These subsidies in some instances have been paid to the processor of agricultural products. In others they have been paid directly to the farmer, but where they have been paid to the processors it was expected that they would pay a higher price for the product which they were processing.
We in this group do not believe in the principle of subsidies. We believe that the government should appoint commodity boards which wouldi purchase from the farmer the products he has to sell, at cost of production or, if that could not be ascertained easily, at a parity price established on the basis of a period of years in which agriculture has received a proportionate share of the national income. If there were a loss to the government, the commodity board could absorb that loss, and we would not have to set up the bureaucracy which in many instances has been set up in the payment of these subsidies in western Canada. As an example of this I would mention the subsidies paid on the wheat acreage reduction plan. We have in western Canada, according to returns tabled in this house, a list of names of men who were paid for this purpose, and according to that list, there were some six hundred men in the west who were doing this inspection work.


James Garfield Gardiner: Six hundred employees.


Percy Ellis Wright: In that particular part of
the province which I represent ninety per cent of these men are political appointees, and they are deliberately mixing business with political propaganda. The farmers of Canada have become disgusted with this method of doing business. We had a grain policy announced last Friday by the Minister of Trade
and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon), and I should like to compliment him upon the promptness with which the government's grain policy has been announced this year. I would suggest, however, that it would have been better had he consulted organized agriculture, as represented by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, before presenting this policy.
There are some things in the policy with which I do not agree. I believe that the stoppage of payment for storage of grain on the farm is not defensible at this time. The minister gives one reason why the policy was adopted. I submit that there are two other reasons. Statistics show that a considerable amount of storage is not being used in the elevators in western Canada. In many in* stances this is because certain elevator companies have bins which have been available for. say, No. 4 wheat, but a large quantity of grain in that particular district is No. 3 wheat, and when the farmer comes and asks if there is a bin for No. 3 wheat he is told that there is no space available but that they have a No. 4 bin if he is willing to accept No. 4 for his wheat. As a result of that, there has been a great deal of grain held back in the country. There are also a large number of farmers in the west who desire to use their own facilities in the delivering of their grain, and they are holding their grain back until there is room in the pool elevators at their particular point so that they may deliver their grain through their own system. This legislation, stopping the payment of storage, is forcing these men to deliver their grain through other sources than those which they would like to use, and they are delivering grain at a lower grade than they should obtain.
With regard to prices, may I say that they are far below a parity level. There has been a great deal of misunderstanding in this country as to what is meant by parity prices. In the United States they took the period of 1909-1913 as the period in which agriculture in that country enjoyed an approximately equal place in the division of the national income with labour and industry, and they worked out a basis of parity prices on that period. In Canada a great many organizations have accepted the period 1926-1929 as being the basis on which parity prices should be established in this country. I would point out that during those years agricultural income was only one-sixth of the national income, although one-third of the employable males in Canada during that period were engaged in agriculture. As far as we are concerned we are not prepared to accept that basis. We believe that a period should be chosen in which.'
The Address-Mr. Wright

agriculture enjoyed a proportionate share of the national income with the other economic groups.
According to a pamphlet issued by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture there has been only one period in Canadian history in which this has occurred; that is, the years 1915-1919. Agriculture will be satisfied with parity prices established only on a basis that will give it a proportionate share in the national income with other groups. This pamphlet shows that the average income per farm in 1932 in Canada was S198 in cash and kind, and Sill in actual cash. From that time on there has been a substantial improvement. In 1941 the total cash income of the farmers of Canada was $876,500,000. Adding produce consumed on the farm amounting to $172,000,000, we get a total income of about $1,048,500,000. Deducting expenses of $363,000,000, which according to the Rowell-Sirois report is about what the expenses would amount to in that year, we get a total net income of $685,500,000. This figure, however, does not include depreciation or interest on investment. Dividing it by the number of farm units, we find that in 1941 the average income per farm was $914.
At the present time we have available income figures for only the first nine months of 1942. Working them out on a percentage basis, we find that the average net income per farm for 1942 would be about $1,005. On the average farm there are at least three people engaged. This gives an average income of about $335 for those three people.
In spite of these facts, we see articles in the press suggesting that the farmer is not paying his fair share of the income tax. This is an entirely inadequate income at this time, and if the government are to get the increased production necessary for a successful war effort they must give further consideration to the establishment of parity prices for farm products, which are at present entirely out of line with the returns to industry.
Another matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the government in connection with increased farm production is this. In industry, if the government wants increased production of any commodity and it is necessary to have new plant and equipment for the purpose, depreciation allowances are made which enable the industry to write off the cost of that plant in two or three years. This was shown quite clearly yesterday by the leader of this group when he read quotations from the report of the special committee on war expenditures. But when the government ask for increased farm production they make

no allowance for depreciation on the additional equipment that the farmer must buy to get that increased production. This is a distinct preference given to industry.
Again I wish to state, as I did at the beginning of my remarks, that it is only by long-term planning for agriculture that we can hope to obtain much further increase in production. While it may be that the present shortages in butter and dairy products are not entirely the fault of the government, nevertheless they must accept a considerable share of responsibility. I do not like to be one of those who say " I told you so," nevertheless in 1940 I did point out in this house that our export of dairy cattle to the United States had increased thirty-five per cent over that for 1939 and our export of calves to that country had increased by fifty per cent. These were largely dairy calves. Anyone who knows anything about agriculture would know that this increasing shipment of dairy stock out of the country would result in a shortage of dairy products sooner or later. Nevertheless nothing was done about it. At that time the price of butter was entirely out of line with the cost of production, and farmers naturally disposed of a large amount of their dairy stock because of that and of the shortage of labour.
If we are to get the increased production that the government have asked for, we must have long-term agreements with the countries to which we are exporting. It is not enough to have agreements which just run from one year to another. Our agreement with Great Britain should continue at least for the duration of the war and two or three years after, so that agriculture could be assured of a market for its products if our herds are increased as the government is asking at the present time. The methods being followed in the United States in their long-term plan, of establishing local committees of farmers prepared to advise in the carrying out of the AAA programme, have been a means of bringing about great additions over there. It is a democratic way of obtaining the support and the participation of the farmers for any such plan, and I believe it could be used with great advantage in Canada to-day in our war-time production effort.
There are several other matters which 1 should like to bring to the government's attention. Two of them are the implementation of the Veterans' Land Act and the amendments to the Soldier Settlement Board Act recommended by the committee on land settlement last year. In that special committee last year I endeavoured to have a parity' price clause written into that agreement. I thought this might be a suitable place for

The Address-Mr. Hazen
the government to introduce the principle of parity prices in our agricultural economy. Here we have a small group of the most deserving of our citizens who were going to be placed in agriculture on their return to Canada. Surely, if the government was genuine in its protestations of desire to better agricultural conditions, this would be a good point to start. They refused, however, to introduce this amendment. Nevertheless the committee brought in a recommendation that the government give further consideration to the principle of parity prices. I should like to know if the government has given this matter consideration, and, if so, what its decision is.
There was also the matter of the treatment of soldier settlers of the last war. I did not consider that the recommendations made by the committee which dealt with the matter were sufficient, and this year I should like to see the committee reconstituted in order that it might receive a report from Mr. Murchison, director under the new Veterans' Land Act, as to what progress has been made under that act, and so that we might be able to make certain recommendations to him at this time.
There is also the matter of the allowances paid to the girls who are at present in our armed forces. I understand an order in council has been passed' providing that women employed in industry shall receive the same wages as 'the men they are displacing. If this applies to women in industry, I believe it should apply equally to the girls who are going into our armed forces. They are displacing men, taking over their jobs, and I believe they should receive the same pay as the men. That is only fair, and the government should give consideration to this matter. There are also the matters of old age pensions, veterans' widows' allowances, health insurance and the social security provisions, on which I hope to have more to say at a later date.
There was, however, one matter taken up in the speech from the throne, on which I should like to say something definite at this time. I refer to the question of redistribution. Under the new act we in Saskatchewan will lose four members, and I believe Manitoba will lose three. We believe that any redistribution at this time is going to work an injustice as far as Saskatchewan is concerned. Large numbers of men and women who formerly lived in that province have gone elsewhere to secure employment. Many families from the south of the province were settled in the north, in the reestablishment areas, where their living was very slim indeed. As soon as war broke out and employment became
available in other parts of the dominion, these people came east or went to the coast, where at present they are employed in war industry. There is no doubt that immediately the war ends, many of those people will return to Saskatchewan. If to-day under any redistribution bill the numbeT of seats in Saskatchewan is reduced, two years from now, when those people return to Saskatchewan and our population again increases, as I believe it will, we shall not be fairly represented in this house; and that will apply for the next ten years. Consideration should be given this point in any redistribution carried out at this time. I also believe that instead of a committee of the house we should set up a commission to deal with this matter. Redistribution has been a political football too long. I believe We will get a fairer redistribution through a commission than through a committee of this house.


Mr. D. KING HAZEN (St. John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to ask the government if it approves the "don't give a damn for the middleman" policy that has been adopted by the wartime prices and trade board. I do not ask this question in any spirit of levity; I ask it in all seriousness, because I have been informed by businessmen from my own community, on their return from Ottawa where they had been discussing with the board difficult problems which confronted them, that the officers of that board had told them in no uncertain terms that they "did not give a damn for the middleman."
I found it hard to believe that such a policy had been adopted by the board, but a short time ago, at a public meeting in the city hall of Saint John, called by the mayor of that city, to inquire into certain difficulties regarding the delivery of milk which had arisen by reason of regulations recently passed by the New Brunswick dairy products commission, the secretary of that commission told the meeting that recently he had been in Ottawa and said, I quote his remarks from the Saint John Telegraph-Journal of January 14:
The wartime prices and trade board is interested in the price to the consumer and the price to the producer; as far as the middleman is concerned, the wartime prices and trade board does not give a damn; he has to stand the squeeze.
A policy that does not give a damn for the middleman or for the little man, a policy that squeezes him out of business, cannot, in my opinion, be justified. Under our system
The Address-Mr. Iiazen

of competitive business and freedom of enterprise, he carries on because he renders a service to the community. To adopt a policy of "don't give a damn" toward him and to make regulations that will squeeze him out of business is to adopt a policy which at the conclusion of this war, or perhaps before that time, will place all the business of this country in the hands of great corporations and monopolies.


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Douglas King Hazen: Not just now, if you please.
I know that the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, or socialist party, in a radio address only a few evenings ago, said:
. . . when peace comes there must be no return to the old way of doing business with its unplanned, unregulated competition. . . .
1 do not agree with that statement. In my opinion, competition subject to proper safeguards as to hours of labour and living standards of wages, is the life of trade and of economic progress; and only as long as we have freedom of competition and freedom of enterprise will freedom continue to exist in this country.
I was not inclined to believe that the government would approve any such unwise and dangerous policy, but only a few days ago I read an address given in Vancouver by Mr. Donald Gordon, the energetic and able chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, during the course of which he said:
In spite of uninformed critics, responsible government was nowhere more in evidence than in the administration of the board. The suggestion that the board or its chairman could wield wide powers without ministerial control or responsibility was not in accordance with the facts.
If the correct conclusion to be drawn from that statement is that the government approves this don't-give-a-damn policy, then I have no hesitation in saying that it is time it reconsidered that policy, and came to some other decision in the matter. I would say further that the time has come when these regulations, or some of them, should be reviewed, and, when necessary, altered in order to protect the middleman and the small businessman.
This matter was forcibly brought to my attention recently by certain regulations that were passed by the New Brunswick dairy products commission. This commission was established by act of the New Brunswick legislature in 1935. Its object was declared to be, and I quote from the act:

The enforcement of commercial ethics and marketing conditions that will enure to the common benefit of the dairy trade and the general public.
The dairy trade, the act states, comprises the producer-suppliers, or farmers, the vendors, the dealers or dairies and the storekeepers.
The vendors are the men who buy their milk from the dairies and sell it to their customers who, until these regulations came into force, were stores, restaurants, hotels, institutions and private homes.
Most of these dealers, or dairies, in addition to selling milk to the vendors also have their own delivery wagons, and sold milk to the householders.
These vendors had been in business for many years in the city of Saint John. They would be up every morning, about half past two, and would reach the dairies at a very early hour. They would have their milk delivered to their customers in time for breakfast. They would not finish their work until some time in the afternoon. Their hours were long and the work was hard. But these men did not think the country owed them a living, and they did not look for government bonuses or assistance. They made their living by rendering a service to the community.
Recently, without consultation with the dairies, without consultation with the vendors, without taking any expert advice so far as I have been able to find out-and I questioned the commission about it-the commission issued certain regulations having the force of law, which provided that in future all milk sold to stores, hotels or other institutions had to be sold by the dairies themselves, and could not be sold by the vendors. These regulations took from the vendors about fifty per cent of their business-the best part of it, because it is much easier to deliver two or three cases of milk to a store, hotel or some other institution than to climb up one or two flights of stairs to deliver one or two bottles of milk to one householder and one or two to another. Not only did it take away about half of their business, and the better half, but it cut their incomes in half. It did all this without providing them with any compensation whatsoever.
Undoubtedly it was highly pleasing to the dairies, or most of them., to get the best part of the vendors' business, without any expense to themselves. But it worked a great hardship and a great injustice to the vendors; for these men had families to keep, rent to pay, taxes, insurance premiums and other obligations to meet, and this drastic cut in

The Address-Mr. Hazen
their income put them right on the spot. They had no redress other than to appeal to public opinion.
In effect the commission said to these men, "Sell your trucks to the dairies; get jobs with them as hired1 men, or else be content to get along with half of what you are earning now, or seek some other form of employment".
This, sir, is Hitlerism with a vengeance. It is a step toward the establishment of a totalitarian state in the place of freedom of enterprise in competitive business.
If three or four persons get together, break into my house and steal my property we call them gangsters and thieves, but three or four people can get together and take away half of the business of certain hard-working taxpayers in a community, and we call them a commission. It would be just as well if we called, a spade a spade. It would be well- and I think the time has come-to take steps to put a stop to such wrong-doing.
Not all the dairies of Saint John were pleased to get this business. One of them, which had been established by a man who had a thorough knowledge of the dairy business, first as a farmer or producer, and then as a vendor, conducted its business on a different system. It did not make any of its own deliveries. All of its milk was delivered by vendors.
Many dairies which made their own deliveries had had a difficult time of it. Some of them failed. But this particular dairy went ahead. The system had great advantages. Under it the vendors owned their own delivery wagons, and consequently took a greater interest in and greater care of them than hired employees would have done. The vendors were interested in getting additional customers, and this meant more business for the dairy. The vendors made their own collections, thereby making fewer bad debts, and the sydtem resulted in a simpler and cheaper method of accounting for this dairy.
Under the new regulation, if this particular dairy were to remain in business it had to buy additional	trucks at a	time when	it wasdifficult, if not indeed impossible, to obtain them.	It	had1 to hire	additional	men todeliver	its milk at a	time when	it wasdifficult, if not impossible, to hire competent men.	It	had to set	up a much more
elaborate system of bookkeeping in its office. There was arbitrary interference with business management. It completely upset the system under which this dairy had successfully conducted its business, and the managing director of the firm had grave doubts if it would be possible for him to carry on successfully if these regulations were enforced.
Among other things, the regulations provided that all milk and cream had to be delivered in a conveyance owned by the dairy and operated by a full-time employee. This meant that no dairy could hire a vehicle or a man part-time to make deliveries. The effect of this regulation is that if I own a truck or other conveyance which I do not use all the time and wish to get some additional revenue from it and a dairy would like to hire it from me, I cannot rent it to the dairy nor can I get employment with the dairy for parttime. This is restriction of individual rights that goes to the extreme.
The chairman of the commission said in a statement which appeared in, the press on January 4 last that these regulations had been passed "to eliminate duplication and overlapping." As a matter of fact the regulations do not prevent duplication and overlapping. There were just as many trucks delivering milk on the streets of Saint John after the regulations were passed as there were before. They did prevent vendors from delivering milk to stores, hotels, restaurants and other institutions, but they did not prevent them from driving up to a store or restaurant, stopping their trucks, walking upstairs and delivering milk to customers who might live above the store or the restaurant.
The reason given by the commission convinced no one, and the public are up in arms over the injustice that has been done to the vendors who are hard working men,, some of whom served in the last war and some of whom have sons serving in this war.
When the public began to take an active interest in the controversy because of the injustice that had1 been done, the commission announced that these regulations had the approval of the wartime prices and trade board. I do not know the details of the communications that passed between the commission and the board; I have not been informed of any of the details of the conversations that took place between them, but I have good reason to believe that the board1 was not fully apprised of the situation, although it should have been. I doubt very much if it would have given, these regulations its approval had it known, that the vendors' business was being taken away from them without compensation and handed over to the dairies as a free gift.
May I give brief details of one or two instances of the effect of these regulations upon the vendors. A man owned a small dairy farm about two miles by road from Saint John. He became a vendor with five customers. These customers were one or two of the largest hotels and two or three of the largest restaurants, all centred about one public
The Address-Mr. Hazen

square. When the regulations came into force he went to the commission and asked them if he could deliver his milk by horse and wagon, assuming that the regulations had been passed to save gasoline and rubber. He was told that he could not, but there was nothing to prevent him from loading his motor vehicle up with milk at his farm and driving several miles past the centre of the city to sell his milk at wholesale to some of the dairies who would then pasteurize it and get an additional price and an additional profit when they delivered it.
In another instance a vendor had not been very successful. He was forced to sell his truck and what customers he had to a dairy and get a job as a hired man with it. The dairy then gave three * vendors who purchased milk from it about thirty'' quarts each. This was milk which this man used to sell to householders. But it took away from them over 200 quarts of milk each which they used to sell to stores or restaurants, and it said to them, "If you keep on selling to stores or restaurants we will not sell you any milk at all."
I can readily understand that a system of zoning in the distribution of milk might save duplication and overlapping in large communities, but I am not in a position to say whether a zoning system would be practicable or would effect any worth-while saving in Saint John. These regulations, however, did not establish a zoning system. If they are intended to be the first step toward a zoning system, it has been a very ill-advised step, a step that cannot be justified. If it is proposed to establish a zoning system, the steps taken to set it up should be based upon the foundation of fair play and justice and not upon confiscation without compensation.
In bringing this matter before the house, I do not want to be misunderstood1. I am not making an attack upon the wage stabilization and price-ceiling policy of the government. I believe that all reasonable efforts should be made to keep inflation under control. I agree with what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said yesterday, that there is an obligation upon every member of this house to help to interpret the necessary restrictions that further our war effort, particularly those restrictions which some people find to be irksome or irritating. But I say that neither fear of inflation nor the furtherance of our war effort should lead the government to approve injustices such as taking people's businesses away from them without compensation and making a free gift of it to other companies or corporations.

These regulations which have been approved by the *wartime prices and trade board are most unjust. They serve no useful purpose and I would ask the government to instruct the wartime prices and trade board to review the situation with a view to withdrawing the approval which it has given, or else to insist that the vendors be fully compensated for the business which has been taken away from them.
This is not the first time I have complained in this house about citizens having been deprived of their rights without compensation. I have on more than one occasion protested against the regulation that was passed on the recommendation of the then Minister of Fisheries, which deprived the owners of property fronting on the non-tidal waters of the Saint John river of their proprietary rights in fisheries. I do not propose to deal with that matter now, but it is an injustice that must in the end be rectified.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say what perhaps I should have said when I began. I wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. Harris) and the seconder (Mr. Halle) of the address upon the excellent speeches they made. It was most fitting and proper that members of the armed forces, one an English-speaking Canadian from the province of Ontario and the other a French-speaking Canadian from the province of Quebec, one who had been overseas and expects soon to return overseas, and the other who expects to take his unit overseas within a very short time, should have moved and seconded the address. The speeches they made were the speeches of loyal British subjects and of loyal Canadians who realized the very serious situation which we face to-day, and I have much pleasure in congratulating both of them upon what they said on Friday afternoon.
On motion of Mr. Gershaw the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre) the house adjourned at 10.58 p.m.
Wednesday, February 3, 1943