1943-02-16

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House, Ottawa,
February 16, 1943.
Sir.-I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. Sir Lyman Poore Duff, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber to-day, Tuesday, February 16, at 5.65 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



PRINTING OF PARLIAMENT

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of a joint
444	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
committee of both houses on the subject of the printing of parliament, and that the members of the standing committee on printing, viz., Messieurs Bertrand (Terrebonne), Bonnier, Bourget, Casselman (Grenville-Dundas), Chambers, Chevrier, Corman, Crete, d'Anjou, Denis, Dubois, Durocher, Edwards, Emmerson, Esling, Evans, Fauteux, Ferland, Fraser (Peterborough West), Furniss, Gillis, Goulet, Grant, Green, Healy, Hlynka, Hoblitzell, Hurtubise, Kuhl, Leader, MacDiarmid, MacKinnon (Kootenay East), MacLean (Cape Breton North-Victoria), McGregor, McNevin (Victoria, Ont.), Mills, Moore, Mulock, Nicholson, Purdy, Rheaume, Ross (St. Paul's), Sinclair, Sissons, Soper, Tripp, Tucker, Tustin, Weir, White, Whitman, Winkler and Wood, will act as members on the part of this house, on the said joint committee on the printing of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house has appointed the Honourable the Speaker and Messieurs Adamson, Aylesworth, Black (Cha-teauguay-Huntingdon), Bruce, Cardiff, Casselman (Grenville-Dundas), Castleden, Coldwell, Emmerson, Eudes, Factor, Farquhar, Fontaine, Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont), Gershaw, Goulet, Graham, Green, Hansell, Henderson, Howden, Hurtubise, Jaques, Jean, Lizotte, Macdonald (Halifax), Mackenzie (Neepawa), MaeKenzie (Lambton-Kent), Macmillan, Marier, Martin, Mayhew, Moore, Poirier, Pouliot, Purdy, Raymond, Reid, Rickard, Ross (St. Paul's), Thauvette, Warren, Winkler and Wood, a committee to assist his honour the Speaker in the direction of the Library of Parliament, . so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a joint committee of both houses on the library.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, February 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. E. Harris (Grey-Bruce) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Graydon, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Hon. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a brief contribution to this debate it gives me great pleasure to welcome back to this house the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). He is a very active minister and I predicted that something would happen to him if he did not take things easier, but I was not thinking of an accident of the kind

that did befall him. In January he came to visit the military units in my city. It was a cold day, although not quite as cold as it is to-day. He was reviewing the troops when the thermometer registered 21 degrees below zero with a thirty-mile gale. I went up to call on him and I prophesied a severe attack of pneumonia if he did not watch his step. We are glad indeed to see him back, restored to health and ready to take up the onerous duties he has to perform.
I desire to make some brief reference to the speech from the throne. It is rather colourless; there is nothing very startling in the government's programme. Nearly all the major proposals have been anticipated already by the general public and by the press. I am glad to know that we are being spared the indignity of another plebiscite and that sort of thing; so that I shall not devote much time to a discussion of the subject matters referred to in the speech, although some of them require elucidation.
Reference is made to a joint committee representative of Canada and the United States to coordinate the efforts of the two countries in agricultural production. I regretted that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) did not touch on this important matter during the course of his remarks. I am not condemning him; I am simply saying that the house and the country should be told at the earliest possible moment just what these proposals are.
There is also the matter of the Canadian war supply board. In the resolution standing on the order paper in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) reference is made to the establishment of a Canadian war supplies allocation board. I understand that the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) is to be the chairman of that board, and that it is to be made up of members of the cabinet. We shall await with considerable interest the statement of the minister in this regard. I assume he will make it at an early day, possibly on that resolution if not during this debate. The house should be told just what this proposal is and what is intended. It is a new departure, a departure that carries with it implications of great good in the common cause. More than that I shall not say at the moment, except that I shall await with interest the government's proposals.
Then there is the paragraph written by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the seclusion of his own sanctum sanctorum. He utters this pious hope:
Every effort must be made to ensure, after the close of hostilities, the establishment in

The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) .
useful and remunerative employment, of the men and women in our armed forces and in war industries.
I think we can all reecho that. But as to the ways and means of doing it we are left entirely in the dark. How is it to be accomplished? We are not told. May I remind the Prime Minister and the members of this house that in a magnificent address delivered within the last few days, to which I am sure nearly all of us listened, the President of the United States told his people and the world at large that private industry and private enterprise would provide the great bulk of employment after the war, to be supplemented by appropriate congressional legislation and action. He made bold to make that assertion, and so it will be in Canada, notwithstanding all the isms and all the talk that is going around in this and that circle as to the world that is to be. There is nothing that will take the place of private enterprise in our economic system.
I have not looked into the constitutional history of the development of what is known as the speech from the throne, but my memory indicates that it had a definite purpose in the days of long ago. To-day it is a truism to say that quite often the speech from the throne is used as an instrument to conceal rather than to reveal the government's intentions. I think that can be said with some degree of truth with respect to this speech from the throne. I have sometimes wished it were possible under our constitutional set-up that our speech from the throne could be patterned on the address which the President of the United States gives to his nation at the opening of a congressional session and in which he dilates upon the state of the union and gives a lead to the nation. I quite appreciate that with us this may not be possible, since we have not in Canada the same separation that there is between the legislative and executive functions in the United States. This is just a suggestion which arose in my own mind, because I have been convinced that the speech from the throne does not mean very much in Canada. I am certain that there is great opportunity for improvement.
I should like to turn for a moment to a consideration of the war position. As I read the speech, more than once, I felt that sufficient emphasis had not been placed upon the fact that this world-wide war has not yet been won.	I believe the Prime Minister
during the course of his remarks in this debate endeavoured to bring us back to a sense of reality, but I am afraid, and I hope I will be pardoned for saying so, that the Canadian people do not listen very much
these days to the Prime Minister with respect to matters of that kind.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr.	HANSON	(York-Sunbury):	That	is
true notwithstanding the "ohs" that greet me now. Because of his vacillating policies the Canadian people are not impressed as they ought to be when the Prime Minister strikes a note of warning. Be that as it may, and it is a matter of opinion-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr.	HANSON	(York-Sunbury):	What	is
the matter over there?
Mr.	MACKENZIE (Vancouver	Centre):
What is the matter over there?
Mr.	HANSON	(York-Sunbury):	There	is
nothing the matter over here. Let us have a little quiet.
In most of the speeches in this debate, if not all of them, I have sensed a lack of appreciation of the fact that the end of this devastating conflict is still far off. It would seem that some of us are more concerned with post-war conditions and political manoeuvring than we are with the vital task of winning this war-and that goes perhaps for all of us. For three long years Britain and her dominions were on the defensive. Then the great United States came into the conflict. In November last, and not until then, with the invasion of North Africa we began to see a gleam of light over the hill top-the end of the beginning, as Mr. Churchill so aptly put it. Since then in Russia, in the southern Pacific, in Africa and in other theatres of war our gallant forces have steadily gone forward. But I suggest to hon. gentlemen that the victory is still far ahead. One thing has emerged, and perhaps we can be in agreement on this, that as the allied nations have taken the offensive the danger of invasion of this continent is receding. But we have not yet won the battle of the Atlantic. The U-boat menace-and I want to be careful in what I say about this-is as great to-day as it was at any other time in the history of the war. The battle of Tunisia is not yet won; it is only beginning. I predict it will be a long and a hard battle, but it is a battle which must be won before there can be a successful opening of a second front in Europe. It may be months before Rommel is driven into the sea, as Mr. Roosevelt so graphically predicted the other night. Notwithstanding the magnificent, the marvellous progress of the Russian armies, the battle of Russia is not yet won. Our gallant Russian allies have not yet recovered all the territory that nazi Germany took from them in
446	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
the summer of 1942. But I am happy, as I know we all are, to pay tribute to them for the magnificent victories which they have already won over German arms at Stalingrad and elsewhere, and to wish them godspeed on their way.
While it is all right to talk about the world that is to be after this conflict is over, and to begin now to plan to win the peace, I say with all the earnestness at my command: let us concentrate on winning the war; let us keep our eye on the ball; for winning the war is the first and foremost objective of this nation and of every other one of the allied nations. All other matters are in point of time and in substance relatively unimportant.
On this issue of the winning of the war the position of the party to which I have the honour to adhere is clear and unequivocal, and always has been, and please God always will be until the last gun is fired. I have proclaimed that objective many a time during the three sessions I had the honour of leading this party. From that objective I have never wavered and this party has never wavered. Recently at Winnipeg this party reaffirmed its position in the following words-I am going to put them on Hansard so that all who read may understand:
We pledge to the men and women in the services at home, abroad and at sea, support to the limit of our resources, to the end that they shall be adequately 'supplied with reinforcements, equipment and munitions of war in order that they can and shall be so employed in cooperation with our fighting allies that Canada shall make her due and honourable contribution to a common and complete victory.
There is nothing equivocal about that. And further:
Recognizing that the world struggle in which Canada is engaged requires a total war effort, we believe in compulsory national selective service, and that all those selected to serve in the armed forces should be available for service wherever required. 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, as well as man-power, and that our aim should be at all times to bring about so far as human means can achieve it, an equality in sacrifice.
We stand by that declaration, Mr. Speaker, and by it this party shall be judged. We believe in the principles enunciated in those two paragraphs, and we commend them to the people of Canada.
With many of the topics raised in this debate, I have not time to deal, but I cannot refrain from making a brief reference to the speech delivered the other evening by my old friend the member for Richelieu-Vereheres (Mr. Cardin). What I shall have

to say in this regard is said in all kindness and without intent to wound or to injure; I hope no word of mine will be constructed as having been so intended. I regret that the hon. gentleman is not in his place to-day.
First let me say that with many of the views which the hon. gentleman expressed, those, for example, relating to methods of government by order in council while parliament is in session, those relating to certain regimentations and forms of control, and especially those relating to the supremacy of parliament, I am in hearty accord. But I was much pained at what he said near the conclusion of his address, in what I believe was the main portion of his address, with respect to Canadian participation in this war. As I heard him I thought: This is isolationism in the nth degree, this is isolationism stark naked and unashamed, I wondered whether his views reflected those of his compatriots whom he represents in this House of Commons. If they do, then let us say good-bye to national unity in Canada; for it indicates a dangerous situation which must be faced by every one of us who loves Canada and desires to see it prosper, everyone who would like to see the two great races in this country go forward hand in hand to build up this country and have it do its, full duty. If the views which he expressed are the considered opinion of the people who sent him here, there is not much hope for this nation. The school of thought which he represents in that connection is as far apart as the poles from the school of thought to which I adhere in this great conflict. I shall not say more in that regard, except that I regret the attitude on the part of the hon. gentleman, and I regret it the more if he represents any very considerable body of public opinion in his province and among his compatriots.
But, on reflection, I am not really surprised. As a student of public affairs I know, and we all know, that since 1917, for more than twenty-five years, he under the leadership of my right hon. friend taught his people day in and day out that Canada, if ever called upon to fight in battle, should think and fight only for her own defence and for her own salvation. That, I submit, is an unworthy attitude.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I take exception to my hon. friend's statement when he attributes to myself a point of view such as he has just described. It is not correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, I am content to leave the matter to the judgment of history and the public.

The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So am I.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All I
would add is that the Prime Minister has changed but my hon. friend the member for Riehelieu-Vercheres has not changed; and the chickens are coming home to roost.
I should like to refer briefly to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). The minister made an able but, may I say, an ex parte defence of his administration in the agriculture department and the food situation in Canada. A calm reading of that speech will disclose many fallacies in his argument. I have only time to refer to one or two. On the question of shortages and surpluses I put this conundrum to the house after listening to the Minister of Agriculture; when is a surplus not a surplus? When is a shortage not a shortage?


Mr. GARDINER:: Read the speech.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have
read the speech. I did the hon. gentleman the honour, or-I will put it this way-I did myself the honour of listening attentively to his speech; I read it as well, and as I say, it was an able but ex parte exposition of his position. We really have only one great surplus in this country, and that is of wheat and other grains. We have no large surplus of butter, but we have a sufficiency. It is apparent that, for reasons, there is a shortage of beef, but I suggest that if the price ceiling policy of the government were not so sacrosanct there would be an ample supply of beef in this country.
What is happening? The hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Mills) intimated the other day that there was a black market in beef.


An hon. MEMBER:: He quoted the Globe and Mail.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there a black market in beef? I know this, that if the wartime prices and trade board will allow the price of beef on the hoof to rise to twelve cents a pound there will be an ample supply for everybody. And why should not the farmer, the primary producer, who has gone for so many years without his fair share of the national income, now, at a time when there is an abundance of purchasing power in this country, get a fair return for his beef?
There is no shortage of butter, but the butter situation is spotty. There are shortages in some communities and surpluses in others. In my own province there is no shortage of butter, but a grave injustice is being done to one-half of the producers of butter in my province by reason of a system under which the price structure is being buttressed by the
bonus system. Half the production of butter in New Brunswick is through the creameries, and half is home processed butter: the one is given the advantage of ten cents per pound bonus on butter fat, and the other class of producer is denied it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Let them send their cream to the butter factory.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All right. I examined that position. How are you going to send your cream to the butter factory in a country which is filled with snow and where the roads are not ploughed? How are you going to divert channels of trade which have been built up for fifty years? Something has to be done to redress the grievance of half the butter producers in the province of New Brunswick, and if it is not done there will be trouble in store for somebody. The party across the floor was licked once on butter, and history might repeat itself. They are slipping, but they don't know it.


Mr. ROWE:: I think they realize it now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not wish to say anything more on that point, because I am just realizing how short my time is.
There is another topic, however, to which I desire to refer, and that is the man-power problem. I see the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) in his seat. It will be recalled that on March 23 of last year the Prime Minister, after voting down the amendment I had the honour to move in this house three or four weeks previously setting forth a substantive, affirmative motion which would lay down a definite principle for dealing with this question of man-power qua agriculture, industry and the armed forces, announced the establishment of the national selective service and defined its scope and policy. Coupled with that announcement, or at about the same time as that announcement was made, came the appointment of Mr. Elliott Little as director of national selective service. Mr. Little came to Ottawa amid the acclaim of the government and all the government propagandists. Most people, I fancy, thought that the government did have a real policy in relation to this vital question of manpower, and they were expecting to receive and ready to receive a definite lead on the question. I have no doubt that when Mr. Little came to Ottawa he too thought that the government had a policy. At all events I believe he entered upon his duties with the good will of everybody, including, if I may say so, organized labour itself. The next step in this tragedy of errors was the man-power speech which the Prime Minister
448	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
delivered over the radio on August 19, in which he told of an extension of that policy. I quote his words:
... in order to put every competent man and woman to work in essential industry.
I believe I am correctly quoting him. Mr. Little went to work. \Ve had a new minister of labour under and with whom Mr. Little was to work. I ask this question in view of the disclosures of last summer: How much help did Mr. Little get from his minister?


Mr. MITCHELL:: All the help he wanted.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All he wanted? Well, that is a question which is in the minds of many, and the minister's affirmation that he got all he wanted does not prove the case. Did Mr. Little have the full support of the administration and his minister? I put that query to this house. If one believes what Mr. Little says, he did not have it. Now, what did happen? The minister instead of staying and supporting Mr. Little took a jaunt to Europe and left his job.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think it is fair to say it was a jaunt.


Richard Burpee Hanson: A trip to Europe, then.


Humphrey Mitchell: No more than my hon. friend's trip to Europe.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, yes; but I had not the responsibilities of the Labour department on my shoulders, and the minister had. I pause here to say to the minister that it was very natural, very human, that he should want to go to Europe after he had risen to the dignity of a privy councillor and Minister of Labour in this country. It was natural that he should want to go to his own home town.


Mr. CRERAR:: Very necessary too.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Possibly it may have been for one reason, but I suggest to the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), who has interrupted me, that it was necessary that he should stay at home and work out the government's policy on national selective service, and that was not done. Mr. Little told the sad story in his lengthy memorandum made public on the return of the minister and on his resignation. I have not the time to go into all the details, but that statement shows conclusively that the man-power policy of the government as announced by the Prime Minister was a delusion. The government had no real policy.

If it had, it refused to give governmental direction, and that is one of the charges Mr. Little made against this administration; and what was called a man-power problem was really a man-power muddle. I am not coining these phrases; these phrases were coined by the oldest liberal journal of the maritime provinces, the Halifax Chronicle, in discussing this matter. And a muddle it has remained ever since. That is the consensus of opinion of the people of Canada.
The Prime Minister, so far as I can recall, has never made any statements publicly since the Little resignation. I was given to understand by press reports that he was having the memorandum studied by a group of experts. Recently, in the month of January, a report was published that the Prime Minister had sent the Minister of Labour a letter requesting detailed answers to nineteen pertinent questions relating to Canada's man-power situation. The minister the other day verified that statement, but tried to laugh it off by saying that it was merely a routine matter. Was the letter ever sent? If so, what were the nineteen questions and what were the answers? I do not know, as a matter of fact, that the letter ever was sent, but it would be a matter of tremendous interest to the people of Canada if they could see the questions and the answers. So far we have had very little enlightenment from the administration. Some slight hint, I am bound to say, of the attitude of the ministry was given by the Prime Minister in this debate, when he intimated in veiled language that it was not easy to transfer labour from one branch of industry to another in this country. But apart from that we have been kept in the dark, and I do say that elucidation of this whole matter should be given to the Canadian people. It should be brought out into the light of day.
True, we have a new national war labour board under Mr. Justice McTague, and I pause here to say that in my view, so far as the chairman is concerned, the government could not have made a better selection. I am not quite so certain about the other gentlemen. I am going to reserve judgment until we see what their performance is. My own view and, I believe, the view of public opinion in this country, is that the government refuses to deal realistically with this problem, one of the great problems before the nation. It has adopted a policy of hedge and compromise, and that has emasculated the whole selective service plan.
I am indeed glad to see the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) in his place to-day, because I am concerned about the reinforcement position of our troops overseas.

The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
For three years the Canadian army has been in training in the old land. It has not yet been in action. That is no fault of theirs. We are told that they are the best trained and equipped army in the world, and that is high praise. I hope it is true. I believe it is true in large measure, but the fact remains that they have not been in action, and when the testing time comes, as come it must, be it soon or late, this whole question of reinforcements for the fighting units of our army overseas becomes of paramount importance.
If the casualties are as high as they were at Dieppe, or even if they are half as high as they were at Dieppe, what is the position of reinforcements then? In the last war, I am assured, for every fighting man in the trenches it was the objective of the Canadian authorities to have one hundred per cent reinforcement man for man, so far as that was possible. That was the target aimed at; that was the objective. I do not say that it was always reached, but I am told by those who have knowledge of military matters that that should be'the ratio. What is the ratio to-day? We have never been told and we should be told. The information should be given.
There are certain- questions which I desire to put to the Minister of National Defence. I shall not expect him to answer them to-day or to-morrow. When the war appropriation bill is before the house I hope he will answer them fully, so that we, the people's representatives, may understand what the true position is. I believe it is in the national interest to put these questions to the minister, and that they should be answered, so that the house and the country may know exactly what the man-power situation is as it affects the armed forces.
In 1942 our army establishment consisted of an active army overseas, the home army, and the veterans' guard, and it was greatly increased in that year. We have now six divisions overseas and two in Canada-


Mr. RALSTON:: Five.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I thought there were six. However, together they constitute a huge army for this little nation of eleven and a half million people. These are my questions:
1.	What is the total establishment for these divisions (a) in fighting men, (b) in auxiliary units?
2.	How is that establishment being maintained?
3.	How many men have been requisitioned during the last fourteen months, say since January 1, 1942?
4.	How many men have been actually received in the training centres in that period, (a) as volunteers for the active army overseas, and (b) draftees who have not volunteered?
5.	How many men have been returned from overseas and discharged from the army because of disabilities and unfitness since the first division went overseas? I fancy the number is rather large and I am surprised at it.
6.	What is the number and quality and extent of the training of the men. who are sent to replace them?
I may tell the minister frankly, I have heard some disquieting rumours about the character and quality of the training of men who have been sent overseas as reinforcements and additions to the troops. I have heard that some of them had not completed their four months' basic training. I know that if they are not put into action- at once they will complete their training in England, but I suggest that every man sent overseas in a reinforcement un-it should have at least his basic training in Canada if that be possible.
7.	Most important of all, what is the ratio of reinforcements or replacements, (a) overseas, and (b) in Canada, to -the number of fighting men in the divisions overseas?
8.	If the Canadian army goes into action in an invasion- of continental Europe, how long can the present ratio of reinforcements or replacements be maintained under the presen-t set-up?
9.	What is the present position of voluntary
enlistment?
10.	In the event of Canada's army being engaged in large-scale action in Europe or some other major theatre of war, cam its establishment on the present basis be maintained, at what rate and for how long?
These are searching questions. It is my conviction from what I have been told that if the Canadian army is engaged in any large scale action, say in an invasion of Europe, and the casualties are even half what they were at Dieppe, where I believe casualties and prisoners went as high as sixty-seven per cent, the ratio of reinforcements will be exhausted in a month. That may not be true, but I should like to know. If it be true, what then? It is our responsibility, I submit, to the men in the active army overseas, and to the people of Canada who are so magnificently supporting them, to get the facts and to be in a position to know and to urge upon the government appropriate action; for when the testing time comes these trained

450	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
reinforcements will be needed and needed at once. And they must be trained men. Canada must not fail these men.


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


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not like to ask the indulgence of the house, but there is one other matter with which I did want to deal.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I thank the house for its indulgence. I will not trespass too much on the good nature of the house in the days to come.
After three years Canada has done well in certain aspects of her war effort. I rather attribute that to the urgings and promptings and proddings that we gave to the government for three long years. I am proud of the little Royal Canadian Navy, even though it has not any capital ships. I know some of the personnel of that navy.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They have sunk a good many submarines.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, I said I was proud of them, although they had not any capital ships. But you cannot run before you can walk, and you cannot walk before you creep. I am proud, very proud, of the contribution of the Royal Canadian Air Force. I think our greatest contribution in fighting capacity has been in the noble lads who have gone-I was going to say to every theatre of war-from the Royal Canadian Air .Force. I saw them in action myself in England, and I know something of the character and temper of the men who are operating day in and day out at great danger to themselves. The casualty lists that come to us daily tell a more eloquent tale of their heroism than any words I could summon to my assistance.
May I say to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) that Canada is now in her stride in production, and any meed of praise that is coming to him personally he can have from me. But the greatest praise should go to private industry-and by private industry I do not mean only executives and management; I mean for the most part executives, management and labour. There have been bottlenecks in production; I know of some of them. At times I have known of bottlenecks in the production of aircraft. I have never splashed it on the pages of the newspapers, but I have taken the opportunity to write occasionally to the director of aircraft

production, and he has been good enough to tell me of some of the troubles in connection with production.
I wish to deal briefly with this amendment of our socialist friends. I shall not read it, but I call attention to a phrase in the body of the proposed amendment in which the leader of that party refers to the powers contained in the National Resources Mobilization Act and their application to war industries and financial institutions "in the same manner" what is the significance of those words-"as they are being applied to the mobilization of man-power for military service"? If he means in the sense that men have been bludgeoned into the active army overseas under false pretenses, I am not in agreement; for I know some of the methods that have been employed to get men to enlist as "volunteers" in the days gone by. I wish before this debate is over he would elucidate just what he means by that phrase. I am at a loss to know what he does mean.


Mr. COLDWELL:: The meaning is obvious.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think it is. The truth of the matter is that there is nothing new in this amendment to the amendment. It is in effect a repetition of the principles underlying the policy outlined by the leader of the socialist party at the last session. But behind the 'principle enunciated by that amendment is his proposal that in the first two years after the war is concluded the government of this country shall spend five billion dollars to provide against unemployment. I suggest that that proposal is wholly political, that it is looking for the votes of the people. He does not tell us how that money should be raised or to what it should be devoted. It is the most colossal bribe ever offered to the people of Canada. The intention is to bribe the people with their own money; that is what that proposal means, at all events to me. Therefore it is "wholly political.
Does the hon. gentleman think that government spending will cure unemployment? Let him look at recent history, not of this nation alone but also of Britain and the United States. It was tried in Britain and was condemned. Mr. Roosevelt tried it in the United States on a colossal scale, and it failed.


Major James William Coldwell: What did you do in
1932?


Richard Burpee Hanson: We tried it on a minor scale and it failed. It will never work; government spending can never under our economic system take the place of private enterprise. It can help.


Major James William Coldwell: How would you do it, then?

The Address-Mr. Breithaupt


Richard Burpee Hanson: I wonder if the hon. member heard President Roosevelt last Friday night, when he stated unequivocally that private initiative and private enterprise would supply employment after the war, and that if it could not take up the full slack, then congress by legislation and otherwise would devise ways and means of taking up the slack. That is the attitude of the greatest national leader of the United States since the time of Lincoln. But government spending is not the cure for unemployment-and, by the way, neither is the Beveridge plan. They are mere palliatives. It is an aid to private enterprise and private initiative, but it is in no sense a substitute.	,
I suggest that under any democratic system private enterprise is the only effective agency that can give full employment, and you cannot have private employment under a system of controlled governmental regimentation such as my socialistic friends visualize. You cannot have a successful system of private enterprise unless it is a system of free enterprise, controlled, if you will, against abuse and exploitation, but free to engage in useful production with the aid of governmental action and supervision.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: Why has it failed so far?


Richard Burpee Hanson: It has not failed. It has had its weaknesses; but your ipse dixit that it has failed does not prove that it has, and never will. Believing thoroughly in that system, I propose to vote against the subamendment.
Mr. L. 0. BREITHAUPT (Waterloo North): Mr. Speaker, I should like first to address a word of welcome to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) who is back in our midst to-day. All hon. members agree that he is a busy man. Sometimes we think he is too busy; certainly he does not consider his own physical welfare. From time to time he visits Kitchener, the city from which I come, but on those visits he moves so rapidly that one can scarcely see him for dust. Particularly is this so when he visits No. 3 training camp of the Canadian Women's Army Corps. His visits of inspection are always a source of inspiration.
In spite of the suggestion that all frills be eliminated from the debate, and that the usual congratulatory references to the mover and the seconder be dispensed with, nevertheless in view of the fact that this is my first speech from the floor of the house and that the mover and the seconder are members of the armed forces, I am sure that under the circumstances even the leader of the
opposition (Mr. Graydon) will excuse me if I transgress in this respect. Both the mover and the seconder are to be congratulated upon their splendid and eloquent addresses. I think it was most appropriate that two soldier members of parliament should have been selected to fill so ably this important assignment.
A personal note about the mover, the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Harris) will, I hope, be permitted. On his recent return from overseas the hon. member had as his cabin mate a near relative of mine who is a captain in the Scots Fusiliers of Canada. He had not had the pleasure of meeting the hon. member prior to that crossing. Reports he gave me upon his return to Kitchener respecting the good character and high ideals of the man he had the pleasure of meeting and with whom he bunked only serve to bear out the earlier impressions the hon. member for Grey-Bruce has already made upon all hon. members of the house. Undoubtedly similar favourable reports as to the character and high ideals of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Halle), who so ably seconded the motion, could be given by those from his native province who know him best.
Personally I am strongly convinced that the great body of men in the armed services who are fighting our battles should receive not only our unstinted praise and thanks for their great sacrifices, but as the opportunity presents itself should be further honoured by being placed in high positions in the government of our country. My suggestion in this connection is that Lieutenant-Colonel Merritt, V.C., of Dieppe fame, be named to. fill one of the existing vacancies in the upper house. Surely a man of his type would be a valuable acquisition to the parliament of Canada, particularly in the post-war period when men of his calibre and courage can contribute so much to the stabilization which will then be so necessary.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is noted for progressive innovations, such as the appointment of the first lady senator. Who can doubt his wise choice in this connection? I am sure he will not consider it out of place if I make a suggestion which I feel will be equally progressive and popular with the people of Canada. I trust he will give this matter his early and favourable consideration.
Just a word about the riding of Waterloo North, which I have the honour to represent. It is the historic constituency which first sent our present illustrious Prime Minister to the House of Commons. He was born in Kitchener and it was from his native city that he first

The Address-Mr. Breithaupt
came to Ottawa to represent the good people of that great industrial and agricultural riding. As a small boy I well remember his first vigorous campaign there. If you will permit me to say so, Mr. Speaker, election fights of those days had a far more interesting rough and tumble tone and a far greater interest was manifested on behalf of the voters in exercising their franchise, than campaigns of recent years in which the radio is so extensively-perhaps too extensively-used. In passing I cannot help contrasting the elections of yesteryear with those of to-day, particularly municipal elections in which there is an alarming lack of interest on the part of the voters in the exercise of their democratic rights. I am told that in a municipal election recently in Toronto less than twenty-five per cent of those entitled to vote took the trouble to go to the polls. This general matter was recently given careful study by the council of Kitchener, and recommendations were made to the various governments in this respect. It is to be hoped that some remedy for this apathetic trend will be found at an early day.
To come back to Waterloo North, may I tell the house how proud the people of his native town were to have had the honour of first sending to parliament their native son, our present Prime Minister, and how proud they still are of his grand record of achievement in the many years of unselfish service he has given to his country since that time. Their justifiable pride is enhanced by the fact that he has a longer record of government leadership than the head of any other allied nation. As he himself said in jest the other day, "Prince Albert now has the best of representation". I can assure you Mr. Speaker, in all earnestness, that this opinion is shared by the good people of Waterloo North, who heartily concur in this jocular observation. Undoubtedly as time goes on some move will be originated in the Prime Minister's native riding, in which I hope the whole of Canada will be privileged to assist, to recognize suitably the fact that it was there he was born and it was there he spent his boyhood days.
The riding from which I hail has been the battleground of many hard-fought campaigns. I cannot let this opportunity pass without also paying tribute to the splendid service rendered to his country by my immediate predecessor, the Hon. W. D. Euler, former minister of trade and commerce and now a member of the upper chamber. In the discharging of his duties in numerous portfolios of government there was not a more conscientious or able minister. Others who have preceded me were Mr. J. E. Seagram and

Mr. W. G. Weichel. It makes me very humble indeed and conscious of my great responsibility when I consider the men who have previously represented Waterloo North in this house.
Much has been said in this chamber during this debate about the plight of agriculture and the unhappy lot of the farmer in these strenuous war days. Fortunately the farmers in our district have developed mixed farming over the past years, to perhaps a far greater extent than in many other parts of the country, and therefore one perhaps does not see as much distress there as has arisen in other parts of Canada where a similar technique has not-been developed to the same extent. It is gratifying to note that with the much larger shipments of hogs, cattle and dairy products from the west, along with the higher prices received for them, mixed farming is developing rapidly and continued improvement can be looked for throughout the country.
I have recently been in touch with members of the wartime prices and trade board and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in connection with the butter fat subsidy being paid to the producers of dairy butter. I am pleased to be able to say that while this matter was overlooked in the original butter fat subsidy, it is now being considered. It is hoped that announcement will be made soon and the plight of these farmers overcome, particularly in view of the fact that under the coupon system the farmers would receive coupons when they sold their butter, which coupons could be used as a basis for settlement so far as the subsidy is concerned.
I notice in connection with the beef shortage that it has been announced recently that freight subsidies will be paid in connection with the shipment of western cattle to tire eastern market to relieve this shortage. These shipments will augment the supply of beef in the more thickly populated provinces of central Canada. This is an intelligent move and fine as far as it goes, but it appears to me from information I have gleaned from many farmer friends that this is only a palliative. They say that the beef shortage would be very quickly overcome if the price were set immediately at the May figure instead of registering periodical advances as the season progresses. Whether this will be done without puncturing the all-important price ceiling, I am not aware, but if it can be done I think it would be a tremendous relief so far as the beef situation is concerned.
Apart from any other benefits which would accrue, there are undoubtedly others worthy of consideration. First, shipments would be coming to the market before the ravages of

The Address-Mr. Breithaupt
the warble fly had reached peak proportions on winter stable-fed cattle. Second, the hides from these cattle would be freer from grub holes caused by the warble fly and as a result would be much superior to those hides taken off later in the season. They would produce leather and shoes much more suitable in quality for high-grade leather footwear for the armed forces. It is a well known fact that a serious hide shortage as well as a beef shortage is developing in this country, and unless steps are taken promptly to ensure a greater flow of cattle to the killing floors and an increase in imports, if necessary, of raw materials from South America, a situation will develop which will be most embarrassing so far as the providing of footwear to the armed forces is concerned.
While provisions have been made for postponement of military service for farmers and essential war workers, in the opinion of many these provisions did not go far enough. In order to ensure continuity of effort these postponements should be changed to exemptions, the future status to be changed only in case the present needs of the armed forces for farmers and war workers become more urgent than at present. By making this change our producers could plan a much better flow of war production than is now possible with farmers and war workers living in constant uncertainty.
I think most hon. members are interested in the controls and administrations that have been set up, and I would not be fair to the people of my constituency or to the people of Canada as a whole if I did not register their strong disapproval of some of the rulings of certain of the administrators who hold positions of war-time control. It is the general feeling that far too large a percentage of these temporary appointees are ruling with an iron hand and without consultation with those affected or with those who know the answers to their problems. They are entirely unmindful of the fact that in a democracy, for whose rights we are at present engaged in a life and death struggle, the people and their representatives are entirely disregarded and dealt with in a far too arbitrary manner.
Recently one of my constituents came to Ottawa to discuss a matter with one of the control officers. He was given a fair hearing but he was told that in no case would it further his cause to bring with him the representative of his constituency. I do not know whether other hon. members have had the same experience. None of us is looking for additional work in these strenuous days, but I do think that in matters in respect of which
the member can be of help to his constituency, he should be allowed to go to see a controller or administrator.
There are far too many examples which might be cited at this time, but the outstanding regulation concerning which one hears perhaps the most violent objections is the fifty-mile bus limit regulation. The unnecessary inconvenience caused to many passengers particularly those in the armed forces who are on leave and those in essential war industry, is in my opinion entirely unnecessary. If it is necessary to curtail further the use of gasoline and rubber, it has been suggested that the travelling schedules be amended by having fewer buses run, but let those which are running carry passengers to their destinations and eliminate the present practice of discharging them from the bus into snowdrifts or wherever they happen to be.
There is another matter which I think might very well be considered by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). It is a ruling which I believe has greatly impeded our war effort. I refer to the extreme restrictions on the taxicab business in Canada. It may be argued that these restrictions are necessary in view of the shortages, but I strongly maintain that this branch of transportation should be one of the last to suffer so extremely. Surely the services it renders are more important than those rendered by many other forms of transportation, and I would urge the minister to reconsider this matter so that at least the taxicab operators can increase their fares to a level commensurate with the additional costs and present hardships.
In the remarks made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) recently I was pleased to note his assurance to this house that appointees in the various control departments would in the future to a far greater extent than in the past be responsible for their actions to their ministers and to parliament as a whole. This is a very welcome announcement and one which will be received by the people of Canada as a necessary and constructive development. I believe that the large majority of Canadian citizens appreciate the splendid work and many personal sacrifices which most of these gentlemen are making, and if the few cases are dealt with as the Prime Minister has suggested I think all reasons for complaint on this score will be quickly removed.
I want to say a word about the civil service. I think it is only proper that at this time we should pay high tribute to the civil service as a whole. I have come in contact
The Address-Mr. Breithaupt

with a great many members of the civil service, both here and in my travels throughout the country, and have noted not only that they are faithful in discharging their regular peace-time duties but that many of them, motivated by high patriotic principles of service, have willingly undertaken additional responsibilities. They are doing a splendid job, and many of them are discharging duties far beyond those of their original positions. But I think the time has come when we should not only pay tribute to the civil service but see that they are paid a proper remuneration for the work they are doing. Many of the civil service do not receive the cost of living bonus. These are matters which might be very carefully considered so that the civil service can get a much better break.	.
Coming to the speech from the throne, I see much in it to commend itself to the people of Canada. I cannot agree with the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) that it is an indefinite document. Personally I think it is clear and terse. It leaves no doubt as to what it means with respect to the various policies it mentions. I am pleased to note that it forecasts a further expansion of the Royal Canadian Navy. The remarks of the hon. member for York-Sunbury with respect to the Royal Canadian Navy may be considered, I think, as damning it with faint praise, but he tried to make up for that by saying later on that the navy had done a good job. In my observation, Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Navy has done a splendid job under the veiy able leadership of the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services tMr. Macdonald). Undoubtedly the submarine menace is the greatest we have now to contend with. I believe that the navy and the merchant marine should be increased to the greatest possible extent so that we may have more and more ships not only to transport war supplies but to protect our own shores, and let us have these ships without delay.
The speech from the throne states also that parliament is to be asked to make further grants towards Canada's making her utmost contribution to the winning of the war. These are desirable and necessary, and no doubt will be cheerfully agreed to by all parties in this house.
I am also pleased to note, in spite of what the hon. member for York-Sunbury has said, that the government is making further efforts to economize in other directions wherever economies are possible. Buildings and tracts of land temporarily required by the services should in my opinion in future be rented

and not purchased. I am convinced that both large and small economies can still be effected which would ease considerably the lot of the overburdened taxpayer. I do not see the sense in purchasing many buildings for the different departments if we can get along by renting buildings. This trend towards buying new buildings should be carefully considered, and buildings should only be purchased where it is absolutely necessary to do so.
In a conversation recently with me the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) indicated that there was far too great a tendency for many departments of the government to place their financial requirements on his doorstep, on the assumption that they could readily and easily be taken care of. While the Minister of Finance and his capable aides have done a splendid job in achieving their various financial objectives, nevertheless I believe that their burdens in this connection should be eased to the greatest possible extent. The Minister of Finance is doing a splendid job and it is up to every spending body in the government and to every member of this house to support his efforts and those of his aides. I am convinced that if the spending departments not directly connected with the war effort will continue' to make strenuous efforts to cut down unnecessary expenditures the tax burden will be very materially lightened.
I want to say a word about the pay-as-you-go income tax plan. I am glad to see that the speech from the throne contains the forecast that further measures will be introduced to alleviate the present situation in regard to outstanding income taxes accumulated from previous years. This announcement has been well received by all classes of the community. I have received a great many petitions from working people in my riding who to a man are favourable to having this change made in collecting the income tax. It is to be hoped that when legislation is brought down dealing with this matter no discrimination will be shown and that all taxpayers will receive the same treatment. I hope that the legislation will provide for complete cancellation of back taxes.
While I am on the subject of finance I wish to make a suggestion to the minister, and that is that when the new budget comes before us for consideration provision will be made for returning to the former method of collecting income taxes from employees through what was known as the national defence tax plan. I think some similar plan should be adopted now, because the present system is too complicated and too cumbersome, particularly for

The Address-Mr. Dorion
workers who are not accustomed to keeping books and accounts. I submit that a straight deduction in the form of the old defence tax, instead of the present complicated method, would materially reduce the serious trend towards absenteeism in essential industry, and that a greater incentive to stay on the job would accrue to the worker.
I cannot let this opportunity pass, Mr. Speaker, without congratulating the Minister of Finance and his able assistants upon the policies adopted by this government for price control and controlling inflation. That the policy pioneered by this government has been remarkably effective is indicated by the fact that from November 1, 1941, the high point prior to the imposition of the price ceiling, to December 1, 1942, the official cost-of-living index in this country has risen by a little more than two per cent, while in the United States, where controls have not been as effective as here, the corresponding increase has been nearly ten per cent. Compare this truly remarkable record with conditions that existed in the last war. The Canadian cost of living then rose in a similar period by more than twenty per cent. While one hears many fair and unfair criticisms of the government, it is regrettable that one hears so little of an achievement in price control which is truly outstanding, not only in Canada but in other countries, none of which has been able to surpass Canada's record, let alone equal it.
Just a word, in closing, about social security. The. indication in the speech from the throne that a select committee from the house will soon be appointed to examine and report on questions of social and health insurance is timely, highly desirable and has met with public approval. I feel, however, that timely and desirable as these all-important objectives are, the winning of the war and the defeat of the axis powers with the utmost dispatch is still objective number one, and must be pursued with relentless determination. But I wish to congratulate the government upon having taken the initial steps to bring about a greater measure of social security for the people of Canada in the post-war period. This government has done much in the past to improve living conditions through progressive- I might say liberal progressive-legislation, such as unemployment insurance and other similar acts. And now, by the introduction of legislation which will provide in the final analysis a still greater measure of freedom from fear and want than has ever been experienced in the history of the country, it has shown its direct interest in and its ability to deal with such all-important subjects affecting the everyday life of our people, and at the
same time to foster free enterprise and individual initiative. I am sure that such a measure will be well received by the people of our great country who share with me the basic belief that Canada, having demonstrated clearly through her production record in this all-out war effort and through the energy and resourcefulness of her people, that she can carry on and finance successfully, by the same token should be able in peace time to plan and produce so that all her citizens shall have the right to employment and to a share in the heritage to which they are so justly entitled.


Mr. FREDERIC DORION (Charlevoix-Saguenay):: My first words in this house are words of thanks: thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, for the kindness you have shown me since I have been here; thanks to the hon. members of this house whom I have had the privilege of meeting in the course of the last two weeks, for their hearty welcome; thanks especially to the hon. members for Gaspe (Mr. Roy), Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) and Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe), who dared to come and help me during my recent electoral campaign; but thanks over and above all to the electors of Charlevoix-Saguenay for the magnificent support which they gave me on the 30th of November last.
I wonder whether all hon. members have a true knowledge of the constituency which I have the honour to represent. May I be allowed to give a short description of it so as to complete if necessary the information they already have?
If we look at the map we can see that it is the largest constituency in the dominion. It starts from Chateau Richer, a place situated fifteen miles below Quebec on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, and it goes as far as Labrador, over eight hundred miles farther. It encloses all the northern part of the province of Quebec from the St. Lawrence to Hudson bay and Hudson strait.
I must tell the house that this very large area of our country has not yet been developed as it should have been, owing to lack of means of communication. In the western part, that is to say west of the Saguenay river, we have roads, and one railroad which goes as far as Murray Bay. In the eastern part, east of the Saguenay river, which is the larger area, we have just one road about a hundred miles long, as far as Comeau bay, and beyond that we have only the water and the air as means of communication.
I know, Mr. Speaker, having been informed by experts, that our country possesses great natural resources. There are huge water powers,
The Address-Mr. Dorion

rich mines, wonderful forests, and in numerous places the soil can be cultivated to great advantage. The best and probably the only way to provide this country with the necessaiy means of development would be to build a road along the north shore of the St. Lawrence. In this regard I wish to draw the attention of the government to the fact that the building of such a road would be very useful for the defence of our country and for the help of our allies; in fact it could be used to carry food and war materials to the Atlantic coast and to Newfoundland. Would it not be the safest way to provide the eastern military stations with the necessary equipment, food and war materials?
Furthermore, this road, which would be very useful for military purposes during the war, would also be immensely advantageous after the war. It does not happen very often that we have the opportunity of undertaking military works which will become necessary improvements after the war. The building of this road is one of them. That is why I urge upon the government that they consider this'project and execute it as soon as possible.
Now, Mr. Speaker, allow me to tell you that this constituency is inhabited by over 65,000 right-minded and peaceful people whose only desire is to devote themselves to their country and their families. They love this country which has been built up by their forefathers and to which they are loyal. They like the democratic system under which we are living and they want to keep it. They have fought in the past for the maintenance of their rights, their creed and their tongue, and having been successful in preserving them, having no attachment to any other part of the world, they are deeply rooted to the soil out of which they themselves, like their forefathers, have extracted their living, and they are not much interested in international disputes. They understand, however, that we are now fighting for the safeguarding of democracy, and they are willing to share the war effort in so far as it does not annihilate altogether their national patrimony. They believe that the right definition of democracy has been given by Lincoln, as follows:
Government of the people, by the people, for the people.
They believe also that, as was expressed by Mr. H. E. Manning, K.C., a few months ago:
The essence of democracy is respect for the rights of minorities. In their contempt for the rights of minorities lies the iniquity of totalitarian systems. Beware lest in the heat and stress of war we trample upon the rights of

minorities. If we do we shall have cast away the thing for which lives are being sacrificed and fortunes squandered.
We believe also that if our efforts to-day must be directed towards the winning of the war, we must not forget that we have to prepare for the post-war period. The publication of the Beveridge report containing a programme for social security in Great Britain has aroused world-wide interest. In the United States the national resources planning board has placed a somewhat similar programme before President Roosevelt, calling for extension of social security measures. The technical adviser of the board, Mr. W. J. Cohen, recently said, commenting on the Beveridge report:
If Great Britain during her life and death struggle can find the time to undertake during the course of the war a comprehensive evaluation of her whole social security system, then surely we can follow a similar course. It is becoming increasingly clear that an extended social security programme is as necessary to victory as is production of guns and ships.
The people of Charlevoix-Saguenay, like the people of the whole province of Quebec, desire earnestly the establishment of a true national unity throughout Canada, unity not only in words, 'but in facts, unity not only in war time but also in peace time. They want to remain what their fathers were at the time of the building of the confederation, that is to say, the partners of their English fellow citizens, and not their inferiors. They want to do their utmost to attain the object our fathers had in mind, the building of a great nation.
On this point, may I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to tell this house that we in Canada must at last attain our unity not in regimentation, but in a balanced, well-knit cooperative diversity. Otherwise our historic and present mission will not be fulfilled. Lord Tweedsmuir said five years ago:
Canada can never be quite like her neighbour, and that is all to the good; for it means that she has a specific contribution of her own to make to North American civilization. I like to think of her, with her English and French peoples, as in a special degree the guardian of the great Mediterranean tradition which descends from Greece and Rome, and which she has to mould to the uses of a new world. I want to see her keep her individuality; for that is of inestimable advantage, not only to her, but to her neighbour.
If we, the members of this parliament, followed these wise admonitions, I am sure we would contribute to the settlement of many internal misunderstandings.
We must not forget, either, that we are here to participate, as representatives of the people, in the government of this country. But,

The Address-Mr. Dorion
looking around me, since I have been here, and trying to find out what we had to do, I came to the conclusion that most of our privileges had been vested in numerous boards and commissions. We have built up an enormous bureaucracy; we have administrators of every conceivable trade appointed by the wartime prices and trade board; we have controllers of every kind. We have different boards and different administrators giving conflicting orders and conducting duplicated and triplicated investigations of the same thing, and we have an immense amount of red tape. What is worse, many of these administrators and controllers are young men without experience, and are the real makers of the laws of this country.
Think of it just a moment, and see if it is fair and reasonable that our whole economic system should be in the hands of these dictators. The people of this country are not satisfied with this state of things, and the government should bring in the necessary corrections.	[DOT]
Even if our efforts and our energies must be directed towards the winning of the war, we must not forget that we shall have to live again in this country after the war. We must, if our political system has failed to bring us all the satisfaction we wanted, do our utmost to improve the situation. This is the reason why, in September 1941, at the suggestion of the hon. member for Gaspe, a few hundred people, from all parts of the province of Quebec and from all ranks of society, met in Quebec and adopted the following resolution:
This meeting expresses the wish that the efforts of the people of Canada in this war be rewarded with success; and this gathering prays the Almighty to stand by our armies and those of our allies in order that a definite victory be achieved.
Our country will then enjoy a lasting peace which will favour the full development of the vital forces of the various technical groups and will foster an intimate collaboration among them, this to be achieved in a spirit of constitutional liberty and social justice; thus paying the way to the creation of a truly and exclusively Canadian nation.
This resolution contains a real programme which could and should be accepted by all true Canadians.
Before closing my remarks in English, I cannot refrain from referring to a declaration made the other day by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), which was reproduced in big headlines by some newspapers. He was referring to the sinking of enemy submarines by Canadian corvettes. Addressing himself to members sitting in this 72537-30
comer of the house he was asking us if we were not proud that a corvette manned by Canadians and bearing the name of the city of Quebec was able to sink an enemy ship on the waters of the Mediterranean. As this argument did not press upon me very strongly, I really could not prevent myself from smiling. It was then that the Prime Minister added:
Yet at this critical time, of all times, hon. gentlemen in the far corner opposite find it necessary to separate themselves from colleagues in their province in order to support an isolationist view with regard to the war effort of Canada! Their action does credit neither to themselves, nor to their province or to our country.
I thought at the time he was addressing himself to the hon. members sitting to my left, but the following day I noticed in the papers that my name was connected with those of the members for Beauharnois-Laprairie and for Beauce, and therefore that the public was under the impression that I too was pointed at as supporting an isolationist view.
I must state, first, that I am not associated with the hon. members who recently formed this new political group called Le Bloc Populaire, and I have not to come to their defence. But speaking for myself I wish to say that I have no lesson of loyalty to receive from anybody, because during the last war, instead of travelling through the United States, I enlisted at the age of nineteen in the Royal Air Force. I went and served overseas and I came back with my commission of lieutenant in the imperial army. To-day my only son, who is twenty years of age, student at law at Laval university, voluntarily enlisted two years ago in the Canadian Officers' Training Corps. I think that settles the question.
Furthermore I found it very peculiar to hear the Prime Minister speak about isolationists. I wondered whether he did not remember what he and his colleagues had been telling the people of the province of Quebec during the last twenty-five years. I do not hesitate to declare that considering the attitude taken by the Liberal party during this period of time, no member of this party has the right to accuse anyone from the province of Quebec of being an isolationist.
(Translation)': Mr. Speaker, even if I could speak English as readily as French, I would make it my duty, on the occasion of my first speech in the house, to say in French what I have to add to my previous remarks, in order to stress the officially bilingual character of the house.
A few moments ago, I enumerated the reasons why the electors of Charlevoix-

45S
The Address-Mr. Dorion

Saguenay have put their trust in me, on November 30 last, and I wish to complete this statement.
First, my election constitutes an evident proof that the citizens of the province of Quebec refuse to support either of the two older parties. After forsaking the Conservative party, they long held to the hope that the Liberal party would guarantee the accomplishment of their legitimate yearnings. They honestly and loyally put their trust in the leaders of the Liberal party in their province of Quebec, who strongly condemned the Conservative external policy and promised that a just and fair solution would be found to the internal problems; they now realize to what extent they have been deceived.
After having, for 75 years, been tossed between "reds" and "blues" with the only result of serving as stepping stones to power, and without any advantage to themselves, they have become wary and, although not sure of the political orientation they will ultimately adopt, they have decided, for the present, to support men, who, having broken with old ties, can offer them guarantees of sincerity and above all, unselfishness.
If the citizens of the province of Quebec have reached this point, which I may call a strategic turn in their political history, it is because they have understood that their representatives in the past had been but a minority in both old parties and had been incapable of upholding their interests and, unfortunately, too often unequal to the task.
The French Canadians intend to play the part assigned to them in both political fields of the country. In the dominion field they want the spirit of the confederation pact maintained. They' ask for no more, but they are insistent on this point.
Is there, in this whole country, a single man who-could honestly claim that in the dominion government, the French Canadians get their rightful share? And is not this truer than ever since we have resorted to be governed by commissions? Let us review the list of these dictators who presently control the economic life of Canada, without any responsibility to the people through their representatives, and let us examine whether the French Canadian element gets its rightful share.
I do not claim that the solution of this problem lies in the granting to French Canadians of a few positions in the civil service or in the various dominion departments. This matter goes much deeper.
What is needed is that, through actual and active sharing of responsibilities by French Canadians in the government of the country,

our whole economic set-up should show plain evidences of the dual character of our institutions rendered necessary by the two racial elements making up the Canadian nation.
They want the representation in this house to be proportionate to the populations of the various provinces, as provided by the confederation pact. In my opinion, the government should, at this session, introduce a bill to effect such a redistribution of the electoral seats. Otherwise, we shall once again tear up another section of the confederation pact.
They claim that Canada, in its international relations, should be guided solely by the interests of its inhabitants; not as has so often been the case in the last 50 years, by the interests of some other nation.
They realize that Canada is an American country and that as long as its leaders endeavour to manage its international affairs as though it were European, they will never attain the object intended by the Fathers of Confederation.
They also claim that Canada should assume its proper place in the Pan-American Union and thereby reap all the privileges enuring from association with natural allies.
Indeed, whether we want it or not, in spite of the ready communications, which have lately brought all the nations of the world so much closer together, it remains true, nevertheless, that on each side of the Americas, there are oceans which will always have to be reckoned with, especially when we consider that, at the start of the present war, a 20-milewide channel has been enough to halt the ravaging hordes of the German dictator.
In the same train of thought, I take this opportunity to state that we are wondering why we are still allowed to have our legal problems solved by the Privy Council in London. The right of appeal to the Privy Council constitutes, in my way of thinking, a vestige of the former domination of the mother country over her colonies and I feel that this right of appeal should be abolished.
In the provincial field, I repeat what I said a few moments ago: all that the French Canadians want is the enforcement of the confederation pact. Unfortunately, jurists and politicians have not always been of a mind as to the proper interpretation of the British North America Act. respecting the relations between the provinces and the central government.
Two theories have been vigorously upheld. There are some who claim that the central government has precedence over the provincial administrations; they take the view that the confederation act is an act passed by the

The Address-Mr. Dorion
Imperial government and accepted by the contracting parties; the others say that it is a contract based on an agreement concluded by the provinces in 1867. This last theory has been brilliantly defended by a number of legal and political lights; it has even been accepted, in a certain measure, by the courts of law, at different times.
In the course of an enquiry held by a parliamentary committee, in 1935, to consider ways and means of amending the constitution, certain opinions have been expressed from which I shall quote the following extracts:
Hon. Mr. Veniot: Confederation is not based entirely on the Quebec resolutions.-
Mr. W. S. Edwards (Deputy Minister of Justice): I know.
Hon. Mr. Veniot: Because the Quebec resolutions make provision for certain jurisdiction on the part of the provinces which at the time of confederation when the act was passed in Great Britain were not included; for instance, jurisdiction with regard to immigration, and certain other matters such as fisheries were given to the provinces by the Quebec resolutions. When the Act of Confederation passed these were transferred to the dominion; and further than that, it must be understood I maintain that it was a strict agreement between the provinces.-
And Mr. Edwards added:
I agree with you, that it was an agreement.
Although I believe that the right of appeal to the Privy Council should be abolished, I am evidently not questioning the ability of the legal gentlemen sitting on that court. So that I have no hesitation in seeking a solution for our outstanding problems of the moment in the opinions which they have expressed. In this manner I have found in the rulings of the Privy Council arguments in favour of this second proposition regarding relations between central and provincial authorities.
In the case of John Deere Plow Co. versus Wharton there is mention by the Privy Council of a political agreement.
In the reference of the Initiative and Referendum Act, the Privy Council states that the constitution of Canada was adopted in 1867 by the Imperial Parliament in order to give effect to the wishes expressed in the resolutions adopted at the Conference of Canadians held at Quebec in October, 1864.
In the case of Edwards versus Attorney General for Canada, the Privy Council, referring to the B.NA. act, mentions that it is a case of compromise.
Again, in the reference concerning Regulation and Control of Aeronautics in Canada, the Privy Council once more mentions a political compromise.
Another theory has been put forth in recent years, known as the theory of Institution, and 72537-301
here is what an eminent Dominican sociologist, Reverend Father Delos, has to say about the definition given by Georges Renard:
An institution, says he, is the result of a communion of men in an idea, it constitutes the body, the reality, the being born of this communion. An idea to be realized, a purpose, "establishing solidarity between them who entertain it together or successively"; a community of purpose arising between contemporaries and successive generations. An institution, again according to Mr. Renard. is an idea supported by appropriate ways and means of eventual establishment, of realization, through the assumption of shape and objective being. . . . It entails the giving of an internal statute and organisms permitting external action, a coming into being as a social body enjoying internal life and external activity.
This doctrine has been upheld by men whose functions afforded them more than most others opportunities for a close study of the mechanism of the British North America Act. I would quote the opinion given by a journalist, Mr. Leopold Richer, which is to be found on page 125 of "Notre probleme politique''-.
We regret that up to tiie present our jurists should have offered commentaries on our national constitution which on the whole are rather superficial, oftentimes even of a controversial nature. It is not sufficient to state that our constitution is a legislative act; its nature, its finality and its origin must also be accurately defined. Nor is it sufficient to contend that the British North America Act does or does not constitute a contract or to dispose of the matter in a few pages.
But, for practical purposes, I am convinced that we are bound to conclude that the Canadian confederation was established, following an agreement between the various provinces and that, consequently, we must always consider the legitimate aspirations of each group forming the constituent elements of the dominion.
Although each province is interested in safeguarding its rights and privileges as conferred by the British North America Act, for the province of Quebec it is of essential and paramount importance. As a matter of fact, the history of the province of Quebec begins 100 years before that of the other provinces. We cherish special traditions; our culture does not spring from the same sources and our civil Law differs from that of the other provinces. We have, therefore, a very special ethnical character and that is why the citizens of Quebec are so anxious to safeguard the autonomy of their province at all costs, so that they may keep what they cherish above all else and thus avoid, in another field, useless arguments and dissensions.
The Address-Mr. Dorion

Unfortunately, in the last few years, and especially since the beginning of the; war, this provincial autonomy has been severely assailed.
Under the urgency of war, the dominion government has passed a number of laws curtailing the activities of the provinces to a large extent. We are often told that this centralizing policy is of a temporary character only; however, I must frankly admit that, this statement, in itself, does not constitute, in my opinion, a sufficient guarantee of an eventual return to normal conditions at the close of the war.
For these various reasons, the citizens of the province of Quebec, fearing, more than ever, that their provincial autonomy might disappear, are averse to supporting the old political parties who have both, each in its turn, shown tendencies toward centralization.
Once more, I say that they wish to cooperate with their English-speaking fellow-citizens. They are ready, as they were in 1867, to extend to them a loyal offer of cooperation in the erection of a great nation. They claim, with 'reason., that cooperation between the various elements of our population, when properly understood, does not mean assimilation, but the very opposite.
In conclusion, I ask my English-speaking fellow-citizens not to judge the ideals actuating the citizens of Quebec from reports that are too often fantastic. I believe these ideals are perfectly and briefly described in the following few sentences taken from the concluding remarks of a lecture given by Father Lionel Groulx, at the Monument National, in Montreal, on September 16, 1942:
Let us re-create our economic, political and national solidarity. Yes, doubtless, we form only a small, a very small people. We are reminded of this fact often enough, at the present time, when we are ceaselessly told that minorities have to submit to the harsh rule of majorities. But we know that, in the eyes of God, nations are not valued by their material, political or military strength, but by the nobility of their souls. And our faith, as well as our history, teach us that, in heaven, there is a merciful and generous Providence for the small nations who have the strength to accomplish their mission.


Mr. M. E. McGARRY (Inverness-Rich-mond):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few remarks this afternoon I wish first to associate myself with hon. members who have extended hearty and well deserved congratulations to the mover (Mr. Harris) and the seconder (Mr. Halle) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The efforts of these hon. members was an outstanding example of having the right men in the right place, saying the right things. Those hon. members not
*Mr. Dorion.]
only represent vital civilian communities in the dominion, but are representative of the Canadian forces who to-day in the different theatres of war are fighting for liberty.
I do not wish to trespass upon the time of the house by going into any detailed description of the commendable progress made by the Canadian people in their war effort. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and many other hon. members in their speeches have given factual and detailed analyses of our war effort. I am sure every hon. member and each intelligent person across the country knows the history of our successful programme, and I am equally sure each is proud of it. It is an achievement whereby, in four short years, Canada has been transformed from a state of military unpreparedness to the third greatest arsenal of the world. Not only is this a splendid achievement by the people of Canada, but it stands as a lesson to the whole world, because it reveals that we must have had first-class management by the ministers in charge of our war programme. Our war effort has given evidence of Canada's unlimited resources, and has shown the willingness and ability of our people to utilize our resources for the nation's good.
If we wrere to accept what we read in some parts of the press, and what we hear in some speeches both in and out of the house, we would think there was much disunity in Canada in connection with the carrying out of our war effort. I believe if we survey the facts any such idea will be driven from our minds. We will find that in every province of Canada thousands of our young men have enlisted voluntarily and have shown their willingness to serve in any theatre of war. Then, we must not forget the part played by our brave women,'some of whom have left lucrative secretarial and clerical positions in order to enter industrial plants for the purpose of releasing young men for the armed forces. Then, comparatively old men, men beyond middle age, men who experienced the hardships and horrors of the last war, are voluntarily standing in arms to defend our shores. Men and women are giving freely and generously, not only of their savings but of their earnings. These offerings amounting to huge sums are given to assist Canada in her gigantic war effort. We find to-day that the taxpayers are accepting without murmur the burdens which are placed upon them by way of taxation and which, as the war goes on, will become greater and greater. We find that our people are not complaining about the restrictions and rationing which are im-

The Address-Mr. McGarry
portant elements in our war effort. To-day the housewife is obliged to accept inferior substitutes for commodities which were available in peace time. She has had to deny herself the use of certain utensils which would make her work easier and more expeditious.
The travel of business men and pleasure seekers has been reduced to the minimum, but we hear very little murmuring about this. In many instances the present volume of business of industrial employers is only a fraction of what it was prior to the war. Many of these men-there are some in my constituency- have been obliged to fold up but we hear very little complaining.
Does this indicate disunity? What does this generosity, this tolerance, and this willingness to pay indicate? Does it not reveal that our people are intelligent and that they realize that the winning of the war is the all-important thing? Does it not reveal that they realize that their money would be no good if we were overrun by the hun? They realize that the sacrifices and inconveniences which they are suffering to-day are as nought compared with the serfdom, tyranny and butchery to which they would be subjected if our allied forces did not succeed in turning back those who would be world dominators. All these things show clearly that our people are united, and show that they are capable of cooperating with the other powers to carry on this great effort. I believe that when the history of the world is written one thing that will stand out among the records of all countries is that in proportion to population Canada has contributed more to this war effort than any of our allies.
We hear sometimes that there is a lack of preparedness for the aftermath of this war. I believe, and I imagine almost every Canadian believes, that while the successful prosecution of this war should be uppermost in our minds, we must have some thought for the day when the thousands of men and women now employed in industrial work revert to their peacetime pursuits. There must be some planning for that time. Prices will drop from the dizzy heights of war time down to the lower and stable levels of peace time. We must plan if we are going to avoid the terrible depression which we experienced after the last war, some of the pangs of which were almost as bad as anything we have experienced during this war and many of the results of which have not entirely disappeared.
Has our government taken any notice of this? What do we find? Three months after war was declared in 1939 this government established the wartime prices and trade board.
We all know the effect of that. As a result of the control there has been over prices we are not looking to-day on the disgraceful spectacle we witnessed in the last war when men grew fat on the sacrifices and blood of the nation. The government has been doing a little planning all along. Take, for instance, the land settlement act. We all know what a failure the former act was. It was nothing more or less than a racket, but under the amendment, which is remedial in character, security is now accorded to the settler and he knows that he will be sustained on his land. The present regulations provide that the land must be up to a certain standard of production and that the man who goes on the land must have some experience as a farmer. In fact, it does the very thing the old scheme failed to do, namely, put the right man on the right farm.
There are also the' compulsory reemployment regulations. These were introduced by the government during the last war. It may be difficult to figure out just how effective they will be in the solution of the unemployment problem, but they will help to solve that problem. There is also the Unemployment Insurance Act, a remedial measure to provide for our unemployed. Without doubt the coffers will be full after this war is over, and at least some temporary relief will be provided for the unemployment situation.
All these things go to show that the government has been planning from the inception of the war for the aftermath of the war. We who have faith in our Prime Minister, we who have faith in our government are happy to learn of this splendid forecast of future planning. We hear a great deal about planning for the future and about planning for social and economic security. In the flood of literature which the post-war economic problem has engendered there is some that is constructive and far-reaching in scope, but if we examine it all closely we find that much of it is doctrinaire and speculative.
If we are going to talk about economic security we should know what it means. There is a great difference, and we must differentiate between what is government regulation and what is cramping and regimentation. Judicious regulation is splendid, but rigid regimentation which cramps and stultifies is quite different, and I would say that the government in taking charge of matters which will be conducive to economic security had better limit itself to doing the things that private enterprise cannot do and leave private enterprise free to do what the government itself cannot do. There is no doubt, and I think we have a good example of it in our own government, that a government can create
The Address-Mr. McGarry

an environment in which economic progress can be accelerated; but, on the other hand, regimentation stultifies the whole process of economy. What we want is a balance between the two; and if ever we needed a balance in this Canada of ours, if ever it was needed in this world, it is now when the ship of state is riding on such a stormy sea. I have every confidence that the government, which has carried on its war programme in such a splendid and commendable way and made such a success of it, even while planning for the problems of the post-war period, will see to it that in its planning for social and economic security a proper balance will be maintained between government enterprise and private enterprise. I have every faith that after this "red" reign is over, our democracies will become much stronger as a result of their common experience, and that when they enter the council chamber of the world Canada will take a prominent part and will cooperate with her allies in regard to peace measures just as splendidly as she has cooperated with them in the prosecution of the war to victory.
I do not wish to be considered too regional, but I have a few local matters which I wish to submit to the government, and I will cite them now so that if the ministers directly concerned are not at the moment in the house they will be able to read my remarks in Hansard. On several occasions I have brought these local matters to the attention of the various ministers.
First, I would ask the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) to consider a matter which I have brought to his attention before. I refer to the establishment of an airport in the vicinity of Port Hawkesbury. We have there a large tract of land, and the topography and soil make it in every way suitable for an air base. It is on the direct route of the Trans-Canada airway. In the last couple of months there have been incidents which might cause the minister to look upon this suggestion favourably. Within one month four planes have crashed in that neighbourhood, and on each occasion the planes hoverpd over that area attempting to find a landing place. An emergency landing field at Port Hawkesbury not only would be of benefit to war planes, but after the war would be a splendid emergency landing field for commercial planes.
I would ask the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) to consider seriously the establishment of a naval port at Port Hawkesbury in the strait of Canso. I have before me a resolution from the town of Port Hawkesbury pointing out what must appeal at least to the Minister

of National Defence for Naval Services. The whereases in the resolution are as follows:
1.	Our harbour is such that ships of all sizes are afforded safe anchorage.
2.	The property already surveyed has already a sea wall established which gives a sufficient frontage and depth of water that will enable ships to lay to in safety.
3.	Railway facilities adjoin the property, a siding being already established.
4.	Fresh water for supplying ships easily available from an artesian w'ell already established.
5.	Gas, fuel oil as well as aviation gas storage tanks also established near the property operated by the Imperial Oil Company.
6.	Grounds surrounding site could easily be made available for drill, etc.
7.	Marine railway with machine shop available here which should be of priceless value during the present crisis.
8.	The serious economic situation prevailing in our county and considering the fact that no benefits have accrued on account of war activities should, we think, be a deciding factor.
9.	We as a committee offer our services in any way we could be of assistance in helping during these trying times.
10.	The old-established firm of boat builders is situated close by, where any necessary repairs could be effected.
We submit these facts with the hope that your decision will result in our having established here a base that will be practicable from every point of view.
I have on several occasions spoken to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) about the development of a magnetic iron ore deposit in the district of Glencoe in my constituency, and I would again ask him now to give this matter a little more consideration. We have also a deposit of tungsten in the northeastern end of Mar-garee district. I hope the house will pardon me for trespassing on its time in bringing these matters to the attention of the various ministers, but it is difficult at times to consult them in their offices. I would ask them to give these projects further consideration because I believe they would all be of great value in our war effort and, further, I think some recognition should be given of the splendid contribution which has been made to the war effort by the people of my constituency who, proportionately, have contributed as much as, if not more than, the people of any other constituency.


Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to congratulate the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) upon the splendid recovery he has made from his recent serious accident. I am sure it is a great testimony to the skilful services which he has received from members of my profession in the city of Ottawa.

The Address-Mr. Bruce
May I also congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon his selection of a distinguished soldier to fill the position of Minister of National War Services (Mr. LaFleche).
The minister has made a number of patriotic speeches which have appealed to a large number of Canadians and with which I am personally heartily in accord. I am sure he will bring to this house a great deal of valuable assistance in the carrying out of our work.
I was pleased to note in the speech from the throne that some form of health insurance is forecast to be dealt with during the present session. It will be recalled by many hon. members that on several occasions during 1941 and 1942 I brought in an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act with the object of securing information upon which the government could base a national health insurance bill. I believe they have benefited by the suggestions I made, in that they have gathered a great deal of information which I understand is now ready to be presented to the select committee which has been appointed, and from which I hope a suitable measure of health insurance will emerge.
Might I recall to the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Graham) the circumstances under which that great statesman Sir John A. Macdonald adopted the name "Progressive Conservative." There were in Upper Canada the High Tories, under Sir Allan Napier MacNab, and the Moderate Conservatives under Mr. Macdonald; and then there were the Moderates and the Clear Grits. The Clear Grits were so called by their leader Mr. George Brown because, he said, they were all sand and no dirt-clear giit all the way through. The continual uncertainty of government with so many parties led Sir John Macdonald, on February 9, 1854, to attempt an enlargement of his party, when he stated:
Our aim should be to enlarge the bounds of our party so as to embrace every person desirous of being counted as a Progressive Conservative.
He succeeded speedily in his objective. Almost the only opposition in Upper Canada was from George Brown's Clear Grits, who later on changed their name to the "Reform" party; but a few of that party were dissatisfied with Mr. Brown, and they became the Baldwin Reformers, and ultimately emerged the Liberals. To-day we have the Hepburn Liberals and the King Liberals, and in this house we have been watching the gradual disintegration of the Liberal party. The first to break away was the Canada party in the southeast corner, formed by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe).
Then there was formed the Bloc Populaire, headed by the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond). There is still a rump of this party who have not as yet crossed the floor of the house but who broke away from the Prime Minister on Bill No. 80 of last session, to amend the National Mobilization Resources Act, 1940. Then there is the group of some forty Liberals led by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), to whom the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) referred this afternoon. We are not quite certain as to the present position of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres. Is he still a follower of the Prime Minister or not, and where do these other forty men who joined him stand now?
According to the Prime Minister, however, the Progressive Conservatives have still another crime to answer for, namely, that of having frequently changed our leader. I say to him that this is the best proof that we are a truly democratic party, whereas the only way in which the members of his party can register their dissatisfaction with his leadership is by breaking away and forming the new groups to which I have just referred.
May I remind the Prime Minister that the choice of Mr. John Bracken as our leader was the logical outcome of the policies adopted at the Winnipeg convention, which were perhaps partly inspired by the meeting at Port Hope. What better proof could the Canadian people have of the sincerity of our intentions to put these progressive policies into effect than the selection as our leader of a man whose very name is symbolic of all that we stand for. What he has accomplished over a period of twenty years in the way of progressive legislation and good government in Manitoba, those who know him believe he will succeed in doing in a larger field for the good of all.
I wish to speak for a moment about the seriousness of the farmers' plight. It has already been emphasized by a number of hon. members during the last few days. In my opinion the farmers are the backbone of the country and they have certainly had a raw deal. One-third of the total cost of living is for the food which the farmer produces. Although there is a demand, on account of the war, for all he can produce, he is prevented from making a fair profit which would enable him to pay some of his accumulated debts-perhaps the mortgage on his farm-to improve his equipment and repair his buildings. Farmers work longer hours and receive less return for their labours than anyone else. The increased difficulty they are finding in securing labour, even at a cost two or three times as much as
The Address-Mr. Bruce

it was at the beginning of the war, makes it hai'd for them to carry on even without a profit, and has forced a great many farmers in Ontario, and I am sure elsewhere, to abandon their farms. Old-established herds of dairy cattle have been dispersed, and the farmers have had to sell their implements, often at a loss, and abandon their farms because they cannot possibly carry on as a result of lack of labour, and in addition, through lack of ability to make both ends meet. All of this would have been avoided had the government courageously adopted compulsory selective service in 1940. Thirty-one per cent of Canada's population consists of farmers whose average annual income in the fifteen years prior to 1940 was one thousand dollars. To-day the farmer's least experienced helper can leave him and get work in a munitions factory for double the wages which the farmer can afford to pay.
In this country, the primary industry of which has been farming, we have had bacon, beef and butter shortages. These shortages have been explained by the necessity of sending large quantities of these products to England. This, in my opinion, is a very unfair excuse. Surely, in a great agricultural country like Canada, if we had had proper planning there would have been ample supplies, not only for Great Britain but for ourselves, without rationing.
I wish to say a word about nutrition. In a letter from the Prime Minister, published as an advertisement in the press under the heading "Canada's nutrition programme", we are told that every effort has been made by the government to ensure that, despite war conditions, there shall be an adequate supply of essential foods for all our people. But the speech from the throne speaks only of exploring the farm situation. These two statements do not tally. Exploring will not give the working man a lunch-pail with good beef sandwiches made with buttered bread, or a good rasher of bacon for his breakfast. These things he is at present unable to get in spite of the nutrition programme heralded by the Prime Minister. What use is it to tell people what nutritious food they should eat when they are unable to procure this food? It is on a par with another government advertisement from the salvage department asking housewives to save fats, and thereby assist in providing forty million pounds of needed fat, when they cannot buy bacon or pork and only a limited amount of beef from which they could secure such fat. It does not quite make sense.
Since bread is still the staff of life, it is highly desirable in these days, particularly

when there is a food shortage, that we should see that all our citizens get bread, but bread of the highest nutritional value, especially in so far as essential vitamins are concerned. May I suggest to the government that they establish still another control, and make it illegal for bakeries to offer for sale more than the two types of bread which meet this requirement, namely, first, vitamin B, white bread, Canada approved, and second, whole wheat bread. As to the respective food values of different kinds of bread, the public are hopelessly at sea, and since it is in the national interest that our citizenry maintain a high standard of health and efficiency by eating the most nutritious foods, this can be assured them only by making it impossible for them to purchase any other kind. The most nutritious breakfast cereal is the old-fashioned coarse oatmeal upon which our Scottish ancestors were brought up, and yet it seems a strange circumstance that one cannot buy coarse oatmeal in any grocery store in Ottawa or Toronto, so I am informed. One can, however, secure this oatmeal in feed stores at six cents a pound, and it is not only a nutritious food but the most palatable of all breakfast cereals.
There are a great many prepared foods made and put on the market. Many emanate from Battle Creek and other places, and the only value in them is that they act as a vehicle to convey real food in the form of cream or milk to the individual who eats them. Nevertheless, on account of the tremendous amount of advertising, they have not only fooled the public into purchasing them as beneficial food but have made huge fortunes for those who invented them.
Growing dissatisfaction about food shortage has resulted in a demand made in this house by several members for a ministry of food. While I agree that something should be done in this regard, I do not agree with the suggestion of the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck), or the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) should fill this post. Shortage of food for civilian consumption in this great agricultural country constitutes a national emergency of the first magnitude. It has been emphasized over and over again that one of our greatest contributions to the war should be supplying foods to Great Britain and our allies as well as to the countries of Europe and Africa which will soon, I hope, be liberated from nazi domination. It is hardly necessary to say that this food scarcity is the result of a shortage of farm labour, and this in turn has been caused by the muddling of man-power

The Address-Mr. Bruce
by a government which I fear thought more of its political future than of the welfare of the country, and refused to face the issue of compulsory selective service. This manpower muddle called forth from Mr. Elliott Little, the former director of selective service, the statement to which the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) referred this afternoon, namely, that in the fourth year of war we find ourselves with no clear direction from the government on man-power policy, and with quite inadequate organization to achieve a total and balanced war-power effort.
The resignation of Mr. Charles Yining from the wartime information board causes one to reflect upon the type of information which would be of the greatest value to us in the United States. Most of us recall that after the last war the question of war debts owing to the United States was used as a reason for isolationism. We know there is a great deal of criticism of Canada in the United States owing to the refusal of our government to send draftees for service wherever the enemy is to be found, whereas in the United States, after Pearl Harbor, this was immediately put into effect. This criticism has been accentuated as the war goes on and will place Caanda in an unfavourable position at the peace table if it continues.
Is it fair to our war industries, to our farmers, or to our forces to continue this vacillating policy of political expediency when our very existence is imperilled? Farmers are asked to produce more food this year than they did last year; yet they have more difficulty with labour this year than they had last, and therefore, I fear, they will be able to produce much less. One cannot turn farm production on and off like an electric current by turning a switch. No amount of manpower can produce sides of bacon in less than a year. Although operating a farm I speak for a city constituency, which will be the first to suffer from a food shortage. The city consumer therefore is vitally interested in the farm labour problem. The city consumer includes workers in our industries, and they as well as the soldiers and airmen need an abundance of food. Does not the cutting of the army ration by twenty-five per cent recently indicate that we are close to a serious shortage of food? This problem must be met and met immediately if the situation is not to deteriorate still further and if we are not to let Great Britain and our allies down. It gets back to the problem of our having two armies, one overseas and the other of ho,me defence draftees, which again is the result of the government's unwillingness to impose compulsory selective service.
I therefore suggest as an emergency measure that all those draftees in the home defence army who will not go active be put into a labour battalion, distributed among the farmers on April 1 next and remain on the farms until the crop is harvested in the fall. At the present time they constitute a waste of manpower; they are not helping to win the war; but in a labour battalion, helping in the production of food, they would be usefully employed in a war industry. If by any chance there are more than enough to supply the farm needs, the surplus could be used in some other war industry, but since our farms are said to have been drained of 250,000 men I doubt whether there would be much of a surplus.
The greatest promise that we can hold out to the starving conquered countries of Europe is that of providing them with food as soon as they are liberated. What faith will they have in our promises when they learn that we have had to ration ourselves, that even here there is not enough food to go round?
I have just to-day received an answer to a question I put on the order paper at the beginning of the session, regarding a report which is alleged to have been presented to the government or to some of its key men here in October, 1940, by Mr. Charles Burton, president and general manager of the Robert Simpson Company Limited, Toronto, on the vital question of food supply. I have just received sessional paper No. 146 purporting to reply to my question. It consists of twenty-one pages, and I submit that this is a great waste of material in war time. Each sheet duplicates the same question and has taken up the time of some official, and they are all answered in the same way, "no", or "nil". If we had adopted in this house or adopted now the suggestion made a few days ago by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) that there should be a change in the procedure of the house so that questions could be submitted one evening and the next day ministers would give their answers in the house, this would be much more satisfactory. If they had given this answer to me to-day, I would then have asked them if this plan was not submitted to some of the key men in their departments, and I venture to say that the answer would not have been no, because I think it is a well-known fact that there was such a plan submitted. As a matter of fact I have a copy of that plan and should like to have it put on the record if Mr. Speaker will allow me to do so.
Mr. Burton made this report after wide travelling in western Canada during which he made a study of the whole economic situation
The Address-Mr. Bruce

and all possibilities through the channels open to a company which sells to and buys from all types of Canadians throughout the dominion. Although there are many able men in Canada, it is doubtful if any of them get the clear view of what is happening or will happen economically in every part of the country that is obtained by a man whose managerial ability has placed him at the head of a great institution such, as Simpson's or Eaton's. Such a man has to know, and his advice in keeping Canada solvent cannot be lightly disregarded. President Roosevelt recognized this fact when he conscripted Donald Nelson, one of America's greatest buyers and sellers, to help his government.
Will you call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker? I am now going on to another subject.


Thomas Vien: We are just waiting for the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, who will be here in a moment. Would the hon. gentleman prefer to continue at eight o'clock?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I will say just a few words now and then discontinue.
The munitions industry has been organized single-mindedly for output, and I should like to say, successfully organized. Why cannot we do the same thing for food? When we hear proposals for a ministry of food it should be clear that the matter is urgent. Mr. Burton's plan of wheat disposal was intended to hasten the solution of other problems as well. He suggested using the enormous surplus of wheat to produce animal food. I ask the government why this plan was ignored, even though it was only presented to some of the key men belonging to some of the ministries? It would seem that this country is being run like a big business without a general manager.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the senate.
And having returned.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bill:
An act for granting to His Majesty aid for national defence and security.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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.
Herbert Alexander Bruce: In Canadian War Orders and Regulations, volume 1, number 4, of February 1. 1943, will be found the announcement of the reappointment of a board of civil servants headed by Doctor W. C. Clark, over which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) presides, to consider questions of rehabilitation.
Are we to understand that this board is to supersede the committee on rehabilitation and post-war problems headed by Professor James of McGill university? This newly appointed board appears to consist of the same group of civil servants who imposed upon the country the economic bureaucracy and price and wage control principles which have been subjected to so much criticism. It is the same group of men, very worthy, no doubt, who were in the same position of influence during the depression, men who then said that we could not afford large-scale undertakings on account of lack of credit. Will there be a greater amount of credit available after the war? The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) was right when he said that parliament was being side-stepped, for here we have another example of an important committee being appointed upon which there is not one member of parliament.
If this means that business is to be subjected to the control of these professional theorists, I fear it will have the effect of drying up all business enterprise and that the post-war reconstruction period will get no help from business. Is it not time that the government made plans for large-scale public works to be undertaken as soon as the need arises after the war? If the government has no plans, it is surely high time they made them. I submit, however, that instead of economists from the finance department and the Bank of Canada, the men who are best qualified for such a job are experts from the departments of Public Works and Trade and Commerce, and like departments, who should be able to bring forward large-scale plans which should form a

The Address-Mr. Hansell
foundation for reestablishment and reemployment. I have no doubt that provincial and municipal governments could be interested also in the development of plans of their own for public works, if assured of assistance by way of subsidies from the dominion government.
If the government takes the lead in matters of this kind, private business will automatically and speedily make its own contribution. The ultimate result would probably be that for every dollar spent by the government on public works, private enterprise would spend ten. If, on the other hand, these economic "high-brows" are to tell business what it is to do, I venture to say that not ten per cent of private enterprise will cooperate.
The principal trouble with Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930's was that, instead of confining his efforts strictly to public works, which were out of the field of private endeavour, he entered into all kinds of projects, which had the effect of destroying the confidence of business people. I fear that the appointment of this committee, while well-intentioned, no doubt, will be inimical to the best interests of our war effort-certainly a detriment to labour and the farmer.
After the disturbance of the public mind caused by strikes in some of our steel plants, which strikes must have interfered with our war production, it was refreshing and encouraging to read the advertisement in the Hamilton Spectator of January 23 last, published by the employees of the Steel Company of Canada at their own expense. It was a fine expression of independent labour. The C.I.O. unions have become notorious as trouble-makers in war industries. We all remember the strike of C.I.O. workers in the automobile plant at Oshawa in 1937. It is an organization which came into Windsor fresh from acts of violence in the United States, and there began at once defiance of constituted authority. In spite of this, the Prime Minister has appointed its solicitor and sponsor, Mr. J. L. Cohen, as the representative of labour on an industrial court. I wonder whether the labour unions will accept this without a protest and, as the Globe and Mail said in an editorial yesterday:
If C.I.O. methods are to be reproduced in this code, industry in Canada may as well prepare for the end of stability and the people for the sort of chaos introduced in the United States.
No one, I am sure, would quarrel with unionism in this enlightened age, but those of us who have watched the policies and tactics of the C.I.O., will not confuse this organization with any real honest labour movement. I do not believe that the cause of the worker will ever be permanently advanced by such dishonest practices and low ideals of fairness and decency as those which seem to guide the C.I.O. effort.
I should like to pay a tribute of respect to the employees in the plant of the Steel Company of Canada for this evidence of their loyalty, for in these days of strikes and unrest one is apt to forget that there are many workers who wish to be let alone to do a good job of work to help our war effort, and who object to being pushed around by C.I.O. organizers.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I read somewhere recently that a ceiling should be placed upon platitudes. I think it was the Ottawa Journal, which said editorially that the growing propensity of our political leaders to use all sorts of vague, high-sounding words and phrases without attempting to define what they mean has become a pest. The speech from the throne delivered in 1943 at the commencement of this session differs very little in this regard from any other which his excellency has read during previous sessions in which this country found itself under Liberal party administration. I fail to see in the speech from the throne anything that will positively guarantee security to our armed forces when they return after the battle is over. In fact, there is very little mention at all of the returned soldier. I read merely these few lines from that part of the speech which seems to deal specifically with the returned soldier:
Every effort must be made to ensure, after the close of hostilities, the establishment, in useful and remunerative employment, of the men and women in our armed forces and in war industries.
It stops there. It seems as though this is the very best that the government can put into his excellency's mouth to tell the people's representatives in parliament what the government will do for those who spill their blood, or offer to spill their blood on the battlefields of Europe or in some other theatre of war. These young men who, we have often said, are the cream of the land, offer their all. I ask through you, Mr. Speaker, what are we now offering them? A noted journalist has written a book entitled, "The Time to Act is Now." The time is now. If we are to do anything for our returned men, the time to act is now. Yet what are we doing for them? When a young man returns he is offered the magnificent sum of nine dollars a week until he can find some remunerative employment. It is about time that we should be ashamed of ourselves to offer a man who has offered his life a sum of money which is not equal to the wages of. an office boy.
The Address-Mr. Hansell

While the speech from the throne was being read there was an elderly lady in my office. Her husband fought in the last war, and she has been living on charity and relief ever since. We are asked to discuss this speech from the throne which offers nothing to the returned men, but we have the audacity to say that we are giving them nine dollars a week. The startling thing is that parliament seems to be powerless to do anything about the matter. We have not come to the place where we in parliament can positively guarantee, without any uncertainties whatsoever, that when the boys return they will be given absolute security.
I wish to remind the house of what the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) said the other day in this particular debate when he was speaking on the same subject. He was pleading for better treatment of the widows of those who had fought in the last war and had since died. He said, as reported in Hansard, at page 141:
I think I can speak for every private member on this side of the house . . .
He could have said he spoke for every private member in this assembly, but he said:
I think I can speak for every private member on this side of the house, when I say that the dire necessities of these soldiers' widows should be relieved, and relieved immediately. *
There he was voicing the sentiments of the private members on the government side of the house; yet there they sit, helpless, powerless, impotent to move their own government on behalf of the widows of returned soldiers I felt like asking him at the time, Do you mean to say that although all the members of the opposition, combined with the members on the government side of the house, want something which is most reasonable and most desirable, they cannot get it from the government? That is just the position. I wonder what has become of our parliamentary institution. Instead of being a parliament of the people which represents the views of the people and asking the government to put those views into practice, we find that it is the parliament of a party, where the government of that party says, "This is the legislation which parliament must accept and pass. You must do it because we say so." Instead of parliament telling the government what legislation should be passed, the government tells parliament what legislation it must or must not pass.
To come back to the problem of the returned men, we are not yet feeling the full impact of these returned men because there

are very few of them returning. The former leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) said this afternoon that our soldiers had not yet seen the action which they will see. But if we can read correctly I am certain, and every hon. member will agree with me, that before nazism is destroyed from the earth there will be a terrible and tremendous slaughter somewhere; and the time will come when hundreds and thousands of our soldiers will return, and are we going to say to them, "We will give you a little bit of a hand-out, nine dollars a week"?
Not so long ago I was at a convention in Edmonton where this group ihad a part and where the Social Credit members of the Alberta legislature also participated. There we drew up a number of resolutions which should form a basis upon which we could discuss post-war reconstruction. In respect of the return of our fighting forces this clause appears in that resolution:
Therefore be it resolved that the minimum measures for the rehabilitation of tbe men of our fighting forces and their dependents shall be:
1. (a) On demobilization, persons who have served in the Canadian armed forces or merchant marine shall, while domiciled in Canada, receive a monthly income equivalent to not less than the full pay and all allowances, including subsistence, for a private in the army, for a period of not less than three years, to enable the individual to become established in the economic life of the country.
I heard some remarks, after this resolution reached the press and the public, that this, of course, was far too big a promise. Let us see if it is. Let me ask this question: How much money are we spending every year for war purposes? I think it is reasonable to say that in round figures we shall spend this year about five billion dollars. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) is not at the moment in his seat; the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is not in his; but if any of those who are present representing the government wish to answer the question, all right. If they do not, all right. Let me ask this question: If we are spending five billion dollars this year on the war, supposing the war lasts for ten years, will the government continue to find at least five billion dollars a year for the next ten years? No reply. I suppose silence gives consent. I will answer the question for them. If the war lasts ten years, certainly we shall find fifty billion dollars with which to fight it-yes, and more. For if this year we are spending five billion dollars and the war lasts ten years, our productive capacity will be greater and we may have to find more than that. Certainly we shall find the money.

The Address-Mr. Hansell
My second question is this:	Suppose the
war lasts only one more year. Oh, well, it will be said, that will be fine; we shall need to find only five billion dollars more. Then would the government say this: Therefore, because these men of our fighting forces have offered their lives, have risked their lives, some coming back maimed, wounded, shellshocked, we will place forty-five billion dollars at the disposal of the armed forces of Canada to guarantee them security just as long as any of that amount of forty-five billion dollars remains. I do not think anyone will dispute my logic there. But instead, what does the government do? They write a speech, to be delivered by his excellency, and they say:
Every effort must he made to ensure, after the close of hostilities-
Who says that every effort must not be made? Does anybody question that?
Every effort must be made to ensure, after the close of hostilities, the establishment, in useful and remunerative employment, of the men and women in our armed forces and in war industries.
That is quite a document, is it not? Anybody would say that. There is nothing startling about it. Why cannot the government stand up and say, without any uncertainty whatsoever: We will absolutely see that no soldier, no dependent of any soldier, be she widow or child, will ever, ever, ever go in want, but will be given the highest possible standard of living which our administration is able to give. But they do not make any such assertion. That is the sort of thing that is causing people to lose confidence in political parties. That is the sort of thing that is causing people to lose their respect, or the respect they should have, for this institution known as parliament.
The speech from the throne suggests some plan of social insurance. Let us not permit ourselves to be fooled by terminology. Social insurance is a nice phrase to use, but social insurance does not mean social security. It does not even mean social assurance. I happened to refresh my memory to-day on the meanings of these two words, "assurance" and "insurance", and those meanings are not identical. They are sometimes used interchangeably, but there is a difference between the two. The dictionary I happened to pick up said that ""insurance is an act or system by which pecuniary indemnity is guaranteed by one party, as a company, to another party in certain contingencies, as of accident or loss, upon specified terms." Sometimes in Great Britain the term "assurance" is used for that, but when I turn in the dictionaiy to the meaning of the word assurance, this is the
definition it gives: " the act of assuring; any encouraging declaration; a promise; full confidence; undoubting conviction."
Let us not be fooled by the terminology that is used in the speech from the throne. The speech from the throne deals with a proposed plan of social insurance, and then it glides off and tells of certain little things we have done over the years to bring about a certain type of social security. There is all the difference in the world between the two terms. Why does the government not say outright: Here is the guarantee we will give, a guarantee of economic security for those who return after the battle is won.
Then the speech from the throne moves on to the platitudes of the Atlantic charter. I must beware lest I commit sacrilege in speaking of such an important document. I do not know particularly what makes it so important. I do not see that there is anything new about it. The other day I picked up a little bit of a poem-I regret that I am unable to give credit to the paper from which I cut it. Evidently it was printed not long after the signing of the Atlantic charter. It is entitled, "Footnotes to the Four Freedoms":
"Freedom of speech"; well, even slaves may chatter
So long as they're unarmed it doesn't matter.
"Religious freedom"; well, what are the odds?
So long as Mammon heads the list of gods!
"Freedom from want"; no breeder would deprive
Good cattle of the means to keep alive.
"Freedom from Fear": a counsel of perfection?
Not if there's always ample police protection.
Freedom to act, to choose or to refuse?
Ah that's a "very different pair of shoes!"
I have often wondered what is so particularly startling about the terms of the Atlantic charter. There is nothing new about it. I wonder what makes it famous. What makes it famous is that the president of the great democracy to the south and the Prime Minister of Great Britain met in the middle of the Atlantic ocean, secretly, but on the other hand perhaps with all the pomp that such dignitaries deserve, and drew up the charter under these circumstances. All they did was simply to assemble a number of words together to explain a principle with which everyone agrees and has agreed for years. The Atlantic charter of course will go down in history; it will go down in United States history, it will go down in British history. I do not know so much about Canadian history, because the Prime Minister of Canada was not at the meeting. The Atlantic charter will go down in history nevertheless, in spite of the fact that it enunciates no new principle. If it did, then the Atlantic charter becomes a condemnation of every pre-war
The Address-Mr. Hansell

government that has existed in those two great democracies. I repeat that; if the Atlantic charter does enunciate some new principle, that charter becomes the condemnation of every pre-war government that has existed in this dominion. Why? What have previous governments been aiming to do? Have they not been aiming to bring about freedom from want, freedom from fear? The answer is obvious; of course they have. Then there has been no new principle enunciated in the Atlantic charter.
While the representative heads of those two great democracies got together and returned to their countries with this that has come to be known as the Atlantic charter, have we any reason to believe that existing governments can do next year what they were unable to do the year before? Have we any reason to believe that existing governments can do in post-war days what they were unable to do in pre-war days? That is a question which bothers me. Personally I have no confidence that they can; I have no confidence that they will, unless they change the present system. I do not wish to become too satirical at this point. The other day when the Prime Minister was speaking he gave us to understand that he was very careful when he chose men for his cabinet, men who had to work with him in the administration of the affairs of this country. He said. There are three rules that I follow; I choose them first because they have character; second, because they have ability; and, third, because they have brains. That is very wise. I hope the Prime Minister did not forget that we must conclude that it takes brains to choose brains. I suppose he took that for granted.
I am not going to question for one moment the character, intellect and ability of those who sit on the treasury benches. We all agree that they are capable men. But even if we recognize that, there are yet some things that I cannot understand. A few years ago the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) gave a very simple illustration here, and I am going to use it again. I have not his words; I do not know whether he read it, but he gave this illustration. He said, Here are ten men; their clothes are worn out, they have no money, and they are hungry. And over here are ten loaves of bread. Yet the government cannot get those ten loaves of bread over to those ten hungry men. In pre-war days that illustration was a very apt one. Even the Prime Minister, who had the brains to choose the brains, could pool all the brains and yet there were not enough

brains there to devise a way by which those ten loaves of bread and those ten suits of clothes could be given to those ten hungry men, when they had no money. If we use that illustration, one of two things is true: either that pool did not have any brains, or there were more powerful brains influencing them not to do the thing they should have done.
While I am dwelling on that point, things do bother us a little sometimes. I recall in March, 1938, we had, I think I may say, a very intelligent gentleman as finance minister of this country in the Hon. Mr. Dunning. In the course of debate the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) suggested that there should be an expansion of credit in order to end unemployment and take men off the relief rolls. He was interrupted by an hon. member on the government side, and I should like to read what happened in that little discussion as recorded at page 1125 of Hansard of March 8, 1939:
Mr. Martin: I have followed the hon. gentleman very carefully and sincerely, and I should like to ask him a question, because he has given this matter a great deal of study. To what extent would he advocate that we should go? . . .
Mr. Blackmore:	In the first place we must
not enter into too many technicalities here.
Some hon. Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Blackmore: It is all right to laugh, but the details I have given here this afternoon are quite sufficient. At another time I shall go into those details along that very line, if I am required to do so. In the first place we can say this: No one would be afraid if the banks throughout this country were to take a notion to lend $300,000,000.
Mr. Dunning: I would.
Mr. Blackmore:	Would the minister be
afraid?
Mr. Dunning:	Yes; I am afraid of notions
like that. I would want to know what was back of it.
Mr. Blackmore: Would the minister be afraid that $300,000,000 loaned to farmers and various other producers throughout the country would cause inflation?
Mr. Dunning: I would want to know precisely what was back of it.
Those are the words of a Minister of Finance in this government, the words of a man who had intelligence. Those words were spoken just a year before the beginning of the war. What do we find now? Well, the war broke out; and over night half a billion dollars sprang into existence. We are now spending every year in the neighbourhood of five billion dollars. Did somebody say something about brains?
Those are the things that bother us. I say once more I cannot help thinking personally that the Minister of Finance and

The Address-Mr. Weir
perhaps other responsible ministers of the government are ill-informed by their advisers. When I read statements such as that of the Minister of Finance of that day I feel like saying, "Hast thou said it of thyself, or did some other tell it to thee?" I am suggesting that somewhere in the picture there is the personification of elements more powerful than governments. Somewhere there is a powerful government which governs government.
The other day, having an interest in postwar reconstruction, I read from a newspaper where, by order in council, a committee of men had ben chosen to examine matters pertaining to post-war reconstruction. This is a Canadian press dispatch dated at Ottawa, and is headed, "Ottawa men will plan for post-war." I do not wish to be too harsh, nor do I wish to be mistaken. Certainly I do not want anyone to mistake my meaning. I have every respect for any man who is doing his best to solve the problems of this country. But what do I find about this post-war committee? Evidently it is a departmental committee. Doctor W. C. Clark, deputy minister of finance, is to be chairman. One of the members of the committee is Donald Gordon, chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, and one time deputy governor of the Bank of Canada. I find also on the committee Mr. Graham F. Towers, governor of the Bank of Canada, and Mr. R. B. Bryce, of the Department of Finance, is to act as secretary.
These are honoured gentlemen, and I am not being sarcastic when I bring their names ' to the attention of the house. But when we come to the terms of reference we find that the committee is to prepare reports and recommendations respecting measures to deal' with post-war problems. The thing bothering me is this. The same honoured gentlemen were advisers to the government in the pre-war depression days. Have we any confidence that those men, who could not solve pre-war problems, are any better fitted to solve post-war problems? That is the difficulty in which I find myself. Those same advisers have been advising the government for many years. They were the men who were advising the Hon. Mr. Dunning when we challenged the ability of Canada to absorb 8300,000,000 of bank credit, something which the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) said could be done. His words have become true, because we have issued amounts far greater than that.
It seems to me that the present situation might be compared with an old and patched pair of trousers. The trousers are patched
from top to bottom, and we are now choosing a post-war interdepartmental brain trust and delegating them by order in council to sew a few more patches on the same old trousers and, as one of my colleagues suggests, in the same old place.
Why can we not tackle the post-war problem as it should be tackled? Why can we not tackle the problem of the returned soldier as it should be tackled? We have a land settlement scheme, and we have now had suggested a scheme of social insurance. Last year a committee of the house discussed postwar reconstruction. They did good work at the beginning of their discussions, but before they had completed their work they turned their attention to the subject of nutrition. They did not seek to find ways and means of finding the fundamental wrongs in the system, but ended up by trying to mea-sure the size of each other's belts. Let us get right down to business and find out, first of all, the fundamental cause of the failure in pre-war days. When we have found the cause let us look for a solution.
I notice Mr. Speaker is indicating that my time is up and, although I have a raft of notes before me, I shall have to deal with them at a later time. Let us really get down to the fundamental principles of giving real security to the boys when they return from the war.
W. G. WEIR (Macdonald): Mr. Speaker, in rising to-night to contribute a few observations to this debate I wish my first words to be of appreciation of the two hon. members who respectively moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I do so not only on account of the splendid contribution they made, but also on account of what they represent in the house. It is gratifying to the country and particularly to hon. members on the government side of the house to hear the comments now being made with respect to Canada's war effort. Listening to the observations thus far made, I think it can be taken for granted that on the whole the country is magnificently impressed by the effort which has been made. We are hearing little criticism to-day with regard to developments which have taken place along those lines.
The contributions of the mover (Mr. Harris) and the seconder (Mr. Halle) of the address remind us that the war is still going on, and that the end is far from sight. We are reminded that our first and real job still to be done is that of cariying out the war effort to its successful conclusion.
The Address-Mr. Weir

Having said that, I should like to discuss one or two other matters. Perhaps it will not be considered out of place if I remind the house that, since last we met, a national convention has been held in my native province, and that from that convention emanated a brand new political party under the title of the Progressive Conservative party. Sometimes I take a little amusement from the attempts of hon. gentlemen opposite to become familiar with their new title.
It reminds one of the new bride and her attempt to become accustomed to her new name. I should like to go one step further with respect to the development that has taken place in connection with our hon. friends across the floor of this house. I took the liberty of looking up a dictionary in order to ascertain just what these two names had in common so that they could be tacked on to the same political organization. The dictionary that I have gives the following meaning to the word "Progressive":
One who believes in and works for changes and reforms, especially in political matters.
With respect to the word "Conservative", this definition is given:
One opposed to hasty changes in political, religious or civil institutions as the Conservative is seldom progressive. A member of a political party in Great Britain opposed to radical reform as distinguished from Liberal and Labourite.
I mention these definitions merely to indicate the contrast. To me it is comparable with that between water and gasoline, and I fear that as enthusiasm cools off, the one will likely freeze to the extent of clogging the mechanism, so that the other will not work. Perhaps it is not out of place to say a word or two with regard td the early development of the Progressive movement, upon which our hon. friends opposite are attempting to capitalize. May I say that the Progressive movement of 1921 originated many long years before. It originated in the little red school-houses all over western Canada; it originated in the farm homes; it developed into community and district conventions and then into provincial conventions which became known in western Canada as the farmers' parliament. It finally was headed up in the Canadian council of agriculture as far as national issues were concerned.
Contrary to what many people think, the success of the Progressive movement in 1921 hinged largely on two matters of policy. First, there was the reinstitution of the Canadian wheat board and, second, the fact that candidates were nominated at properly held conventions and that their election

expenses were paid by the electors. Those were the two things that appealed to the electorate of western Canada and other parts of the country as well during that election campaign. May I say here that whatever else history may say with respect to the development of the Progressive movement, it did more to purify politics in this country and to develop and further the true spirit of our democratic institutions than anything else ever did. Unfortunately that fundamental principle of our electoral system has been departed from to some extent in the meantime. My point, however, in commenting as I have so far is to show that the Progressive movement as it has been known had developed over a period of thirty years. It was rooted deeply in the soil. It had fundamentally far-reaching principles, and its development came from the bottom up, not as an organization already existing having that name attached to it.
I should like to say a word with respect to one matter referred to in the speech from the throne, namely, redistribution. If redistribution is gone ahead with, two of the western provinces will lose seven of their members in this House of Commons. These members will be lost through no fault of those provinces. The drouth condition which prevailed in western Canada did its part in moving the population. On top of that, those provinces have contributed in a magnificent way to Canada's war effort, both in the armed forces and in all forms of industrial and agricultural production. It seems to me most unfortunate, after having made the contribution in the manner they have, that they should be penalized to the extent of seven members in the Canadian parliament. I hope the government will decide not to proceed with redistribution at this session of parliament. Conditions will change in the course of a few years, particularly when the war is over, which we hope will be soon, and then those two western provinces can again gather up their population and be entitled to full representation in this house.
Coming as I do from a rural constituency, I should like to point out that the representation affected will be rural representation. This only goes to show how we are tending to further the representation of our industrial centres and larger towns and cities at the expense of our rural representation. I merely wish to impress upon the government my hope that they will not proceed with redistribution at this session.
I am constrained to say a word or two largely on account of the remarks made a few days ago by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton). I

The Address-Mr. Weir
think one of the things we are all desirous of having in this House of Commons is as true a representation of the Canadian people as it is possible to secure. As far as elections are concerned, if I may refer to them, there are two main difficulties. First, elections are too expensive-I do not think anyone disagrees with me on that point-and, second, too few of the people go out to vote. What I am saying in this regard does not refer only to the federal parliament; it applies also to our municipal and provincial governments as well as to school boards and so forth all down the line. I am afraid that this apathy toward our political institutions may lead to our people being prepared to accept some other form of government less representative and certainly not as democratic as the one we have.
Something must be done, although I do not know what it is. This institution, both in its own interests and for the preservation of democracy, must do something. Perhaps our political organizations could do more than has been done. At the present t-ime there are people who recognize this difficulty and who suggest that we should adopt a system of proportional representation or the single transferable vote. They claim that these methods of voting give a truer representation of the people. My fear with respect to either one of these systems is that it would lead to group government with a consequent lack of stability which is necessary if a government is to carry on. I do not know wrhat the solution is, but something more is necessary.
I can see a place for proportional representation and the single transferable vote in our municipal and in our provincial governments where the work and duties are largely administrative, but I doubt the wisdom of their application in the national field. In the larger fields of national and international policy I am afraid that we must rely on the philosophy of a government supported by a political party.
It was gratifying last night to hear my hon. friend the member for Regina City (Mr. McNiven) refer to a resolution which the Liberal organization of Saskatchewan had put on record. I am not referring to its contents, but it indicated to me a degree of activity on the part of a political organization that was doing its duty and keeping its organization intact, preparing to do its part in making democracy function. That is a responsibility which should attach to all political organizations in the country. On one occasion I had the pleasure of doing something along that line, by way of promoting an essay-writing competition. It is neither here nor there what use was to be made of the essay, but the title of it was, " Our Canadian democracy, what it
is and what it demands." I emphasize "what it demands." We were attempting to bring home to those who took part in the competition the demands that democracy makes upon the citizen and how he should endeavour to prepare himself to make his contribution under our democratic system of government. Something more along that line is probably necessary. Some have advocated compulsory voting. I recall that a committee of this house dealt with that question a few years ago, but decided that it was not practical, particularly in a country like Canada, and I am inclined to agree. Nevertheless something of that sort is necessary. I have often wondered whether we could not institute a system whereby political organizations would be obliged to incorporate themselves, and be required to hold annual meetings called in a proper manner, and along with that there might be a campaign directed by the state itself to impress upon the people what a democratic system of government means and what their obligations are with respect to it.
There are two or three matters to which I wish to refer and which the debate on the address affords about the only opportunity of doing so. The first reference I wish to make is with respect to our control boards. One of the first criticisms I would make with regard to these control boards as a general principle is that for the most part they are not composed of trained civil servants and therefore in many instances they are very poor public relations people. I say that from some experience. I do not know who they are or how they got their appointments, but that is a general observation which I think can justly be made with respect to many of these control boards.
Second, I believe the authority of these boards is too much centralized. In a country such as Canada with its wide diversity of conditions, I do not think one can satisfactorily centralize control in any one place and have one policy applicable in the same degree throughout the whole country. I suggest that these boards should recognize the difference between different parts of Canada and give greater power or direction and authority to provincial and local boards. Let me give two illustrations, two experiences that actually came to my notice.
A farmer's stock-watering pump went out of order. The repair for it was in the neighbouring town, but when he went to purchase it he was informed that he would have to get a priority which must be secured from a town 150 miles away. It would take at the very
The Address-Mr. Weir

least three days to get that priority, and there was that farmer with all his live stock waiting for drinking water! Surely conditions like that were never intended under this control system.
The second case is that of a hospital which had its pumping equipment break down. The hospital authorities knew perfectly well that the repair was available, but they could not get it because they could not secure a priority rating.
These two cases illustrate the point I wish to make, that the authority of these boards should not be so much centralized that the system breaks down and people condemn it out of all reason.
I do not want to be considered provincial or local or anything of that kind, but there are one or two things which should be said with respect to rationing. I refer first to tea, coffee, sugar, butter, of which in the main I think we have enough for our needs. But I point this out, that the town or city dweller has an advantage over the rural dweller in that some member of the family in a town or city, if not all of them, is able to go to a restaurant or hotel for one or two meals a day. That applies scarcely at all to the farm population. The townspeople can go to a hotel or restaurant and save on their sugar and tea, but the country person cannot do so. Again, we know that if a man goes out into the country to repair some farm equipment, he seldom brings his ration card with him, and the consequence is that he has to be fed out of the farm family's rations. Therefore I am suggesting that there might be a little more leniency for the people in the country who are thus situated.
I wish to make a plea with regard to beef, which from present indications is to be rationed. If there is to be rationing of beef, the authorities in charge of the matter should have regard to the fact that people doing heavy manual labour require a heavier meal than people who are doing lighter kinds of work. Farmers, bushmen and coal miners, in fact all those engaged in heavy active work, should receive special consideration when a product such as beef is being rationed. I do not want to be misunderstood and have people think I am making a plea for rural people as against city people. Personally, I think I am simply making a request that is logical.
There is another regulation which does not work well in view of our western conditions. I refer to the fifty-mile limit on bus travel. Anyone who has been in the west and also in the east knows that the situation in the west is entirely different, and a regulation provid-
FMr. Weir.l
ing for a fifty-mile limit on bus travel in western Canada simply does not get one anywhere.
With regard to gasoline rationing-I am not pressing this at the moment-there is, nevertheless, a good argument, I believe, in support of western people being allowed a larger gasoline ration .than people in the more thickly populated parts of the country. The distances are greater in the west; the towns are farther apart, and for that reason the people are entitled to additional consideration. I have mentioned these items largely for the purpose of supporting my argument that there should be more localized control.
Another matter to which I wish to refer is the payment of income tax by farmers. I do not wish to be misunderstood in my argument. The farmers are willing to pay income tax when they are taxable; but here I want to make a distinction between a farmer and a business man. The farmer is not only in business, but his business is his home, in contrast with the ordinary business man. We have heard arguments on all sides of the house regarding the plight in which the agriculturist finds himself. Perhaps up to now he has not been obliged to pay income tax to any great extent, but many farmers are now going to be called upon to do so. When we look back over last year and the year before, when the quota system of delivery applied to grain, many farmers were obliged to market most of two years' crops in one year, which brought them into the higher income ratio and made them taxable.
In the period from 1930 on, farmers all over the country, and particularly in western Canada, took a terrible licking. With the personal income tax in operation they are not going to be able to recoup very much of the losses they sustained at that time. Moreover, we know that a farmer can suffer a substantial loss in one year and have a bumper income the next year, but he cannot recoup himself for the losses of the previous year, and the result is that all he makes is taken up in taxation. My suggestion is that the income tax as applied to real farmers should be applied on an average of three or five years, so that they will not be taxed for everything they make if they happen to have a good year. I know that some farmers were shrewd enough to delay the marketing of some of their products this last year until after the close of the calendar year. Hogs, for example, were held back, and marketed overweight. I know of a man who would not sell his flax until after the new year. That is indicative of what the

The Address-Mr. Weir
situation is with respect to the application of the income tax. We cannot blame the farmers for that, because this year the same men may have no income at all. I think the suggestion I have made is worthy of consideration.
The next reference I wish to make relates to the income tax as it applies to our cooperative marketing institutions, and what I have to say in this regard applies equally well to our credit unions. In the main these institutions have been established in this country for years. So far they have considered themselves not liable to pay income tax. Recently two or three of them in our province have been assessed income tax, and the matter has been taken to the courts and still remains there. My contention is that a cooperative, a true cooperative, should not be required to pay income tax. Such institutions are established by the farmers themselves. Their capital set-up is built largely on a revolving plan. It is savings which they make on the type of business they are doing.	It is not a profit. They
have simply banded 'together in order either to sell or to purchase collectively some of their necessary requirements, and any saving they make is, I repeat, not a profit. They are associated without any thought of profit, interest or dividends. If the present situation is such that this cannot be established so that they can be declared to be nontaxable so far as income tax is concerned, I suggest to the government that it is time we should have a cooperative act in this country defining the status of cooperative organizations and requiring them to live up to it, and thus determine whether or not they are taxable. Personally I think most of them will get around the income tax, but they may hurt their own business in doing so and not carry on upon as sound a basis as they are now doing. What they are doing at the present time is simply adding to the wholesale price of the goods which they are buying, not knowing exactly what their handling risks may be. If they have anything left over at the end, they are simply redistributing that saving back to themselves. I contend that a cooperative organization is just as much a part of the farmer's machinery as is his horse and buggy, his tractor, or his automobile.
One other thing, and it is of the nature of a complaint: I refer to the application of the Foreign Exchange Control Act. I have under my hand the serial number of a tractor which was imported into this country in April, 1940, before the foreign exchange control tax was
enacted, and was sold to a customer in August, and in the sales sheet there is an item of war tax, so many dollars. I contend that the company selling that implement had no right whatever to include an item of tax in the case of that implement, for it was a tax which they did not pay to the government. Moreover, the minister, when he introduced that tax, said that it would be done away with at the close of the war. Very well; what is happening? Take the farm implement industry. Their warehouses were full at the time that this tax was applied. To-day they are depleted and certainly not likely to be stocked when the war is over. The result will be that these people have been able to gain materially through the application of that tax. Therefore I suggest that the application of the tax is entirely unfair. I know the minister will say that so far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned the importation complied with regulations and that if there is responsibility beyond that it belongs to someone else. That is hardly a good enough answer, because farmers all over Canada, particularly in western Canada, have been obliged to pay the added amount, which did not come to the state. I am not saying that all implement companies or all other businesses took this procedure, but in the one case I have under my hand that is certainly what has taken place.
A word with respect to the farm labour situation. There is not any doubt that an agricultural labour problem exists. To-day most of the farmers in western Canada, and I assume all over Canada, are short of efficient help. Not only are the farmers short, but there is a shortage in the mines and the woods. At the same time there are reported to be several thousand men and women in Winnipeg who are unemployed. Along with that, we have the newspapers advertising jobs in the woods, in the mines, and on farms; I am told that there are positions for some five hundred domestics in Winnipeg alone, and I venture to say there are thousands of farmers who would gladly accept the services of a domestic. What is the situation? These people want war jobs; they do not want jobs which are on land. What are we going to do about it? Are we going to turn to compulsion and oblige them to go where there is work? I do not know the answer. Moreover, I fear, and I think it is not unreasonable to assume, that these people for the most part would be inexperienced farm help. That being so, I doubt whether their services would add greatly to the productive capacity of any of our farms in western Canada. After all, the chap with
The Address-Mr. Weir

the real knowledge of our western farms is to-day in the army; it is his old dad who is left behind, who does not know much about running a tractor, and is not so able to plough around through the deep snow in the cold weather as he used to be. It is the man to take his place who is required. It is not an easy job, and I doubt whether the suggested women's land army can perform the services needed at the present time.
I wanted to say a word with respect to another matter raised in this house, namely, the question of conscientious objectors. I hold the view that our conscientious objectors in the age groups called for military service should be required to perform some service for the state the same as others. I think it would be for their own good to do so, and moreover I think that they themselves have no objection. I am prompted to make this reference on account of a clipping which appeared a few days ago in one of the Winnipeg newspapers. Unfortunately I do not have it before me, but the report stated that fifty or sixty conscientious objectors were being sent up to Riding Mountain national park, and that was all it said. That bare statement is the most misleading type of statement that can be made. The fact is that these men were sent there to cut wood at fifty cents a day for the people in the surrounding country. That is the contribution they were making. They were not sent there to clear the park for tourist purposes or anything of that sort. These men can and should be used for useful work but not for work that is unnecessary. More than that, I think they could properly be given a little further consideration. I do not think we are going to get full efficiency out of a man doing a day's work at fifty cents a day even if he is getting board and clothing, and while they may be performing some service for the state, I think they would perform a greater service if they were given some further incentive.
I suggest that so far as the man-power situation in the west is concerned, it will depend a good deal upon the season and the size of crop. Last year we had a large crop, and with the assistance of women and childreil and townsfolk and other help we could get, that crop was taken off in a reasonably satisfactory manner, but no extras were taken care of, and the fall work this year is considerably behind. Moreover, the spring season will be approached with a good deal of hesitancy as to what they can do this season. I can go further than that. If it had not been for bringing the Japanese to our province there would not have been any sugar beets produced

this year, so that I submit to the government that steps will have to be taken to see that a more adequate supply of farm labour is provided.
I had hoped to mention two or three other matters, but my time is passing. However, in the few minutes left, I should like to make one further reference, namely, to the Atlantic charter and the declarations made therein. The Atlantic charter and the circumstances that surrounded its presentation to the world are heralded to-day as the ideals of the united nations with respect to the war and what may follow. The question that has occurred to me, looking at these declarations, is this: What part is Canada going to play with regard to these declarations? What interpretation are we going to place on the different sections of these declarations? What is going to be Canada's attitude toward the carrying out of these declarations? I come particularly to clause 4, which declares that 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 raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity.
That, I submit, is where Canada must be concerned. I have listened to and read a few articles with regard to Canada's position at the close of this war, and it seems to me that the whole emphasis is pointed in the direction of what we are going to be able to dispose of to keep up our production. WThat are we going to be able to sell? I suggest that if we are going to sell, if we are going to try to keep up our production, we must be prepared to buy because there is no other way by which we shall sell. I think the government can take a lead and take it immediately in its attitude to the Atlantic charter and should start now to make provision for what we shall buy from those people to whom we hope to sell goods in the future. I think we can give a lead in that direction, and we are in a magnificent position to do so. It comes down to this, that we must determine whether we shall industrialize this country further, or recognize the position of agriculture. If we are to recognize the position of agriculture, the one thing it needs for social rehabilitation, or anything else we wish to attach to it, is an opportunity to produce and market its goods at a reasonable price.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne reveals at last some apprehension on the part of the government

The Address-Mr. Lacombe
concerning fundamental post-war reactions. We have so often warned the government against them that we disclaim any share of responsibility for events which they have prepared quite freely and of their own accord.
In the face of rationing applied to essential goods and food products in a country disposing of a 600 million bushel wheat surplus, have we not a right to doubt the efficiency of the so-called economists guiding our administration?
In the face of homes being abandoned by mothers and the consequent breaking up of families, the very foundation of society, one is at a loss to visualize any possible efficiency connected with the social security plan contained in the speech from the throne.
Our first duty is to safeguard the family, failing which any social legislation is without avail in a moribund society.
May I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to quote from the January issue of this year of Canada at War, on page 6:
There are approximately 3,970,000 women in Canada over the age of 15, and about 1,350,000 of this number are in paying jobs.
There are about 225,000 women working directly or indirectly in war industry, an increase of 45,000 from last September.
The proportion of women thus employed is soaring and Canada looks to women to bring its new and great war industrial machinery to peak output this year.
It. has been estimated that 80 per cent of the jobs in industry can be filled by women. Canada does not expect to reach anything near this proportion in industry as a whole, but in some new war plants the percentage of women employees to total employees is already near this mark.
The number of mothers now at work has increased to such an extent that day nurseries are being opened in every locality of any size.
What will be the effect of this nefarious policy upon future generations? This is a cause for deep worry among more experienced sociologists. I wonder if the government has even any thought for it. Let the government adopt every imaginable social measure; they cannot substitute for education and a mother's care the framework of their secular legislation.
Ever bent on legislating, the government is now proposing to coordinate Canadian and American agricultural production. Why go to so much trouble for the farmer whom the government persist in taking away from the farm and sending to military barracks? Let them first put their house in order before worrying about the neighbours. Some will claim that farmers get postponements. A certain number of them, after all kinds of formalities, after being subjected to every annoyance, have obtained postponements of a few days, weeks
or months. But, Mr. Speaker, I know farmers' sons, farm hands and even married farm owners who, after returning the request for postponement, duly filled, sworn to and addressed to the registrar, received for answer a notice to report to the training camp and a transportation warrant. To support my claims, I could give the names of hundreds of draftees: the Giroux of St. Eustache, the Beaudoins of Ste. Rose, the Ouellettes of St. Augustin, the Laroses of St. Eustache, the Girards of Oka, the Daousts of St. Benoit, the Cyrs of Ste. Scholastique, the Jolys of Ste. Rose.
How can there be coordination of agricultural production while our dairy stocks are [DOT]being thinned out, our farms abandoned, our production reduced through the acts and errors of our own leaders?
Let us keep our farmers on the land; then it will be possible for us to feed our troops and civilian population. Instead of coordinating the production of the United States with our own, let us ensure production at home by granting complete exemption from military service to our farmers.
Since the adoption of the mobilization act, on June 19, 1940, how many times have I requested the government to grant such an exemption? I have never ceased asking for it, in keeping with the firm stand I have always maintained against mobilization, which is and always has been a hypocritical and camouflaged form of conscription. The alleged postponements the farmers are supposed to get are nothing but a ridiculous and cynical kind of deception. It is a new falsehood added to the series of broken promises. Thus spoke the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) a few days ago, in this house. My hon. friend, who is now smiling, the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Dupuis) recalls this perfectly well. He is well aware of this, representing as he does an agricultural constituency. Let him state if this is true or not.
The registrars persist in calling farmers for military training without even using the measure of discernment which we have a right to expect from smart and shameless officials.


Mr. POULIOT:: Quite true.


Liguori Lacombe: Thus, through the fault,
neglect and rank prejudice of a government who accumulate on their shoulders the most formidable responsibilities, the people of the cauntiy are headed toward starvation. And our so-called economists, our would-be statesmen remain impassive witnesses of the
The Address-Mr. Lacombe

I have done everything in my power to prevent our participation in this war. I had previously opposed the increase in our military budget, which I knew was intended for our participation in the war. On September 9, 1939, seconded by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmoreney (Mr. LaCroix), I moved an amendment against our entry into the war; later on, I moved two amendments against the mobilization act, which was nothing other than conscription. In spite of the sole support of my hon. colleague, I never ceased fighting. Now, in order to avoid a greater disaster, I appeal to my colleagues from Quebec in favour of understanding, union and harmony. By all means it is most important to avoid conscription for overseas service. It would be detrimental to the defence of Canada, and it would mean the death of the last remnants of national unity and of the liberties for whose conquest we have had to fight so. stubbornly.
One last word. I would not be fair toward the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy), if I did not express all my gratitude for the generous support he has granted me during the last session of parliament. Together with a few of our colleagues, we have fought for a policy which would be exclusively and honestly Canadian. I shall never forget the memorable day of February 19, 1942, when a dozen members of this house voted with us to oppose the drafting of farmers' sons. Also, I shall never forget the memorable night of July 23, 1942, when a greater number of our colleagues voted in favour of the Roy-Lacombe amendment which opposed the granting of discretionary powers which would have given the cabinet a free hand to impose conscription for overseas service by order in council. Subsequent events justify our position, and the future will prove that we were right.
Before taking my seat, allow me to congratulate the newly-appointed member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) upon the magnificent future which can be forecast from his maiden speech on the floor of the house to-day.
Mr. BERT H. SOPER (Lanark): Mr. Speaker, after listening to the many fine speeches we have heard in this debate in the last two weeks it is with some reluctance that I rise to say a few words. First I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Harris) and the seconder (Mr. Halle) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. These two young men in uniform bore out what has been often told me by men who have returned from overseas, that our armed forces have wonderful equipment and wonderfully trained armies on all the battlefronts.

I also wish to congratulate the new leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) and of the Conservative party in this house. It is a very fine tribute to that young man to be asked to lead his party temporarily. Might I also say a word in tribute to the late leader of the Conservative party. While the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) was critical at times of government policies I think he was always fair, and I know that he had the admiration of a great many members on this side of the house. I am also glad to note that if the Conservative party had to have a new leader they chose one from my native county of Leeds-although the new leader is not really showing the traditional fighting spirit of the people of that county or he would be here in the house.
The constituency which I have the honour to represent in this house is in the rural section, very much of a dairying county, and it is on behalf of the dairy farmers that I wish to say a few words. We have heard a great deal from the farmers of the west, the wheat growers, and we have heard of the difficulties of the raisers of beef cattle in our own province, but really the farmer who is to be pitied is the dairy farmer. He has a job 365 days in the year. Other farmers, I admit, have their busy times, but they do not have the long and arduous hours that the dairy farmer has, and with the present shortage of farm labour I am sorry to say that we are losing some of our best dairy herds. The farmers' sons have joined the armed forces or gone to work in munitions plants, the fathers and mothers are getting older and find it harder to carry on, but in spite of all that we had an improvement in our dairy production last year and the year before. But do not forget that the fathers and mothers are getting older, are more worked out, and cannot be expected to handle the work unless they can get more help. I should like the government to be as considerate as possible regarding the dairy farmer and the price he receives for his goods.
In manufacturing, our county, I think, has been very well used. We have at the present time about fifteen manufacturing plants which are engaged chiefly on war work, probably to the extent of ninety-eight per cent; the people working in them are well paid; and although at times, no doubt, there have been some disagreements, they consider they have been fairly well treated by the Department of Munitions and Supply, and are receiving a reasonable share of raw materials and contracts.
I also have in my county one of the largest line divisional points of the Canadian Pacific

The Address-Mr. Soper
railway. Probably some hon. members are aware of this fact because they spent considerable time with us yesterday when they were snow-bound. The people who make up that vast army of Canadian Pacific workers are very loyal; a great many of them have sons in the army. We never hear of labour troubles; all they seem to think of is, get on with the war effort and win the war. But I often wonder what is the present opinion of those people who a few years ago were advocating the amalgamation of our railroads. I am sure that everyone, whether or not of the same faith of our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), agrees that he was a man of vision when he said, "Amalgamation never, cooperation ever." If a certain number of our lines had been torn up and much of our equipment scrapped, in what position would we be to-day? At the present time we are using every last line and every bit of equipment which both railroads can muster. The car in which I came to Ottawa this morning has been on the Canadian Pacific railway for twenty-five years and is still going strong.
The butter situation has been mentioned in the house two or three times. I must say that I was very sorry that, in a dairy country such as Canada is, it was decided to ration butter. I do not believe that it was necessary. If the wartime prices and trade board or whoever was in authority had not talked so much about it and given so much information to the newspapers, thereby getting the public scared and thinking of hoarding, I believe we would have come through without any such restriction. I am sure we shall get our reserves back to where they should be, and I hope that the order will be cancelled as soon as possible.
A word about potatoes, because the situation has been very bad in the last month in our cities. I do not want anybody to think that I am not in favour of the wartime prices and trade board. I am; I think they are doing and have been doing a wonderful job, and that without them we should have very hard times later on. My county is about half industrial and half farming, and they are the two classes of people that are hurt the most by inflation. However, 1 am afraid that the economists gave the wartime prices and trade board some bad advice with regard to the distribution of potatoes. It looks to me as though they had advised them that they could get along without the middleman. Anybody who knows anything about the distribution of farm products knows that we cannot dispense with the middleman, and had the wartime 72537-31
prices and trade board called in some of the members of this house they would have got better advice. One hon. member I have in mind ho this connection is the hon. gentleman who represents Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Hatfield) on the opposition benches, and who has had a great deal of experience in the distribution of farm products. I know also that there are hon. members on our side who could have given the board good advice along that line.
Another question to which I would briefly refer is, where are we going in the matter of erecting temporary buildings in this city, where living accommodation at the present time is taxed beyond all reason? I understand that in many instances girls who are not in very good circumstances have to live three and four in a room. I do not see why the government could not have moved some of the departments which are less essential to the war effort to some of the fine towns in the surrounding country. We have a number of cities wherein buildings could have been adapted to office use at a reasonable cost, where housing accommodation would have been more adequate, and, no doubt, much cheaper. There are, for example, four fine towns in my own county-Almonte, Carle-ton Place, Perth and Smiths Falls.
I was pleased to see in the speech from! the throne some reference to social security. It is a matter about which I feel very strongly, because I am sure nothing makes for a better feeling among our people than the knowledge that they will have economic security in their old age. I should like to see the allowances raised to old age pensioners, to the blind, and to disabled veterans. A few years ago we thought that forty dollars a month was quite a generous allowance to those entitled to the old age pension-I am sorry that any of them have to draw it-but the situation is quite different to-day and these people are entitled to much more.
I trust that when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) brings down his budget he will have some announcement to make with regard to the Ruml plan. Although I am not very well qualified to speak about it, I have read through the proposal, and I am sure that anyone who has done so will agree with me that it is an advanced step and one that should be taken in this country. Why should we be paying next year on something we have earned this year? It is bound to catch up with us some time. Some people say we are dropping a year's taxes, but we are not. We shall have to pay, and the only time that we shall be dropping a year's taxes is when we die.

The [DOT] Address-Mr. Rickard

We have had a great many controls, but one control which I hope will never be relaxed is the one that stops people from instalment buying. Instalment buying was one of the worst things that our people ever had. A man could go in and with a slight down-payment, practically nothing, buy something, paying an extra carrying charge. He has to keep on paying interest, because no one is selling goods to-day without getting payment for the use of his money, and the bookkeeping which that system involves.


Mr. W. F. RICKARD (Durham):: It is
not my intention to dwell at any length on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. We have listened to-night to two farmer members speaking in this house. While the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Soper) is not perhaps directly a farmer, he is very much interested in farming, having operated a dairy farm. The hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir) is a real farmer. With what these two hon. gentlemen have said I am in total agreement in a great many respects, particularly with the views of the hon. member for Macdonald on the controlling of some of our produce. I am not going to repeat what he has said. I did intend to say a great many of the things that he has said, but as he has said them I will take them as conveying my ideas.
At the risk of repeating what has been stated already, I wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. Harris) and the seconder (Mr. Halle) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, not because these hon. gentlemen did a really good job, as in fact they did, but because they represent the armed forces of this country. They are two men who have served in the forces overseas and who expect to go back and serve there again. They are worthy of our commendation.
The speech from' the throne has given us a summary of our war record during the last year and of what we propose to do in the post-war period, and I believe it has given us, as individual members, something to think about, and has given us a place in the economy of the country. That is very necessary because the ordinary member of parliament has been, perhaps, too much forgotten in the past. The ordinary member of parliament, no matter how humble he may be, can offer the government some suggestions which would be of some assistance, and I often think governments, if they paid more attention to some of the things which ordinary members of parliament say, would not get into so many difficulties. There are

many people to-day who think we have too much government by order in council and too much government by those who are outside the administration, and I am inclined to believe that they are not very far wrong. I hope the day will soon come when we shall get away from this kind of thing and get back to a little more democratic government by the members themselves. I can understand that it is necessary, in war time, to pass orders in council and have legislation of this kind, but when the house is sitting, and when we have an opportunity to say what we have in mind, we should be given that opportunity.	*
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has given us a fine record of the war effort during the past year, and to my mind it is a record of which we can well be proud. When we think of a country with a population of less than twelve millions and compare our war effort with that of any other country in the world in this war, it is nothing less than a miracle. When we think that in 1939 we had practically no army, no navy, no air force, and that to-day, in less than four years, we have in the active army about
420,000	men, in the air force about 160,000, in the navy about 47,000, and 500 ships, as well as at the present time nearly 95,000 men on active service who have been called up under the mobilization act, it is a wonderful achievement. In the first five months of 1942, we had enlistments in the army of over 10,500, in the air force of over 3,900, and in the navy of over 1,350, and in the second five months, in the army something over 12,000, in the air force over 7,500, and in the navy, something over 2,000, or nearly double that of the first five months of 1942. This speaks well for the plan that has been adopted by this government.
The house leader of the Progressive Conservative party (Mr. Graydon), in his splendid speech-and I wish to congratulate him upon his promotion to that important position- spoke for nearly two hours and enunciated the policies of that party, what took place at Winnipeg and what took place at Port Hope. To my mind the winning of the war is the most important thing. That is what we should centre our attention on to-day, and not on the political ambitions or policies of any party. He offered some suggestions which I am sure will be received by the government, but for the most part he dwelt on the policies of the party. The leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party (Mr. Coldwell) and the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Blackmore) did the same. That is all right so far as politics are concerned, but we have

The Address-Mr. Rickard
a more important job. I am not saying that we should not give some consideration to postwar problems, because I think we should. I believe that this country-should be in a position to offer to the men who come back from fighting our battles overseas something worthwhile so far as social security is concerned, but I think we have a long time yet to discuss those problems and put them into shape before the war is over, because I do not think it will be won in a year or two.
What I am most interested in is agriculture. Being a farmer, I know something of the condition of the farmers and particularly of how they feel in the riding which I have the honour to represent. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) made' a very fine speech. I do not think there is any man in this house who can make a better speech. But I think he will have to go into every riding-I was going to say in the dominion, but in Ontario at least-and show the people that what he said is right. I am not disputing that what he said is right, but there are a great many people to-day who think something more might be done than what the Minister of Agriculture told us in his speech. Farmers to-day think we have too much government by men outside the government. They may be good men in their own line but I am afraid that they do not understand the problems of the farmer and the condition of agriculture. For years farmers have not had an even break with industry. They consider that with this war on and their produce in so much demand they should be given a little better deal. I believe that the Minister of Agriculture should be more responsible for the distribution of food and for the prices that the farmers are to get for their produce, now that we have started paying subsidies. To my mind there is no man in Canada who knows agriculture or the problems of the farmer better than does the Minister of Agriculture, and I do not believe there is any man in Canada who is more sympathetic to the farmers than he is. I should like to see him the head of a separate food board.
The farmers feel that they are working more or less in the dark. I mean by this that they have no assurance that when they produce they will get the same price for any length of time. I do not mean, as some have said here, that they have not been given direction by the government or by the Minister of Agriculture and his officials, who I believe have done a wonderful job in that regard. But the farmers consider that they have no assurance that if they produce they will over a period of time get anything like the same price.
72537-31A
Agriculture is a long-range business. We cannot produce cattle, hogs, milk, cheese and eggs overnight. We want reasonable returns over a period of years. We cannot understand why cattle should be fifty cents or seventy-five cents higher one week than the next week when there is a scarcity of beef. The same applies to hogs; why should hogs be twenty-five cents a hundred pounds dearer one week than the next when we are shipping seventy per cent of our bacon overseas and have a good market?'
Much has been said about butter. I do not wish to repeat anything along that line particularly, but I believe there is discrimination' between the farmer who produces butter, whc sells his cream to a creamery, and the farmer who makes butter at home and sells it to the storekeeper if he can. The circumstances must be considered; roads and conditions of different kinds, the distance from centres where cream trucks do not go, all have a bearing on the price that the farmer should get.
Mention has been made of rationing. I have before me a copy of the rationing of the people of Great Britain. There is no comparison between the way we are rationed and the way they are; they are rationed far more than we are in everything. But I think that if there were not so much advertising of shortages, whether it be beef or butter or whatever it be, over the radio and through the press, we would not have so much hoarding and so much scarcity; there would be a more even distribution.
I believe we should have a floor as well as a ceiling for farm produce prices. As far as live cattle are concerned, the farmer to-day would,
I believe, be satisfied with twelve cents a pound live weight for the winter months, perhaps a little less for the summer months, but around twelve cents a pound would, I think, satisfy the farmer. Then the price would not go up and down from week to week.
A board should be established that would take care of any surplus in any of these lines.
I have an instance of a farmer who bought some Plymouth rock pullets. He bought these pullets at SI .40 each, ready to lay. The pullets and feed cost him $720. In October he was selling his eggs at 47J cents for grade A large; the last of January he was selling them at 33 cents, a drop of 14i cents; yet we are told that we want more eggs, that we should' produce all the eggs we can. I know another man who bought six hundred Plymouth rock pullets and sold them to a Jew for $1.60 each for meat, figuring he could make more money in that way than by keeping them for laying.
These are the things that trouble the farmer to-day, no stable prices. We consider that
The Address-Mr. Rickard

we have a good market. Scarcity of labour on the farms is of course an important factor, but I believe that is not so much because the boys from the farms have joined the army. They have done so in goodly numbers, but that is their privilege in a democracy. The reason for the scarcity of labour is that industry has been allowed to pay too high wages, especially when contracts are on a cost-iplus basis. Every farmer wants to see his son do has duty to his country; the boys want to do their duty, and as I have said, have done so in many instances. But a farmer cannot compete with industry so far as wages are concerned. We have about a million men and women in industry to-day, and that is a big drain on agriculture. The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) the other evening said that we should have more men on the farms. But I well remember that in one of his speeches or if not, in the policy of his party at the beginning of this war, they said that we should have a million men overseas. If we have a million men overseas or in the army at home, where will they come from? Some of them must come from agriculture.
Just a word about the selective service board in military district No. 3. I believe the board ;there has been most fair in its consideration [DOT]of farmers' sons. Some mistakes may have '.been made; some boys may have been called -.that should have postponement, but all in all I believe that the board have done a really good job, and where the proper information has been supplied to the board they have in nearly all instances been giving good consideration. I still believe, however, as I said here before, that farmers' sons could very well have been given total exemption, that is, farmers' sons who have always remained on the farm and made their living on the farm. There would not have been nearly as much dissatisfaction or nearly as much interference with agriculture as there has been.
The new regulations brought down by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) should be of some assistance. The minister has said that wages should not be allowed to decline, and on the other hand not allowed to rise unduly, on account of the danger of inflation. With that I entirely agree. Farmers to-day do not want inflation, although through inflation they stand to lose less, perhaps than any other group of men. They are willing to send their boys to fight the battles of this war. They are willing to give their money, if they have any, to victory loans, and to all .charitable organizations-as they have done.
XMr. Rickard.]
They are even willing to pay their income tax, if necessary. But they do want a more definite price, and a more definite programme over a period of years.
I am leaving these few observations with the government, and particularly with the Minister of Agriculture, in the hope that something I have said may be of some assistance to the farmers of Canada.
Mr. L.-PHILIPPE PICARD (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, it is most gratifying to all hon. members that the present debate on the address in reply should, with few exceptions, have been kept on the higher plane of national service and national policy, thereby indicating the sincere belief on the part of most of us that we shall be appreciated according to our realization that our foremost thoughts should be the efficient performance of our share of that effort necessary to ensure the liberation of the world of to-day from oppression, and of the world of tomorrow from fear and from want.
Our discussions have been marked by an apparent desire, whether by praise or constructive criticism, to strengthen the hands of the government in its pursuit of the war effort. With but little petty criticism and untimely recrimination, all the more noticeable by its scarcity, there has been an evident desire by all to serve in the execution of our mandate, in order to remain worthy of those of our compatriots who have the greater and nobler task of serving in a more arduous and meritorious way.
The example given to us by the mover and the seconder of the address in reply, both of whom have had the privilege of serving in the house as well as in the army, has evidently been felt in the debate. They deserve our praise and our congratulation, not only upon the splendid way in which they worded their sentiments and thoughts, but also upon the higher tone which they imparted to this debate.
The care showed by most to cooperate and to render constructive even their criticism is a welcome improvement on some of the bitter exchanges of yesteryear.
In the same spirit I intended to make a study of the speech from the throne. However, at this advanced stage of the discussion, I might even say at this advanced hour of the evening, I have decided to leave for future debates such considerations as I should like to make on the broader aspect of the man-power question as well as on the administrative set-up of Canada's industrial war effort. I shall therefore limit myself to-day to general observations on a few questions.

The Address-Mr. Picard
One of the important references in the speech from the throne is the social security problem, a study of which may well lead one into an analysis of the different possibilities of reshaping the world of to-morrow. This first step toward a full study of necessary social reforms is one in the right direction, and it must be comforting to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that most parties seemed to agree on that, the opposition criticism appearing to be that some part of their programme had been stolen, while we are of opinion that this is but the normal sequence to a number of measures for which the Prime Minister may claim credit. The decision to refer this vast question to a special committee is to be commended in that it will take it, right from the first, away from political controversies in this house and enable anybody, any group or party to refer their plans and their views to the committee for close study and careful consideration, thereby saving precious time for the house to carry on its work.
Another question which has already been the subject of many comments is the lease-lend appropriation advocated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). When a measure of somewhat similar nature was presented to us last year in the form of a grant of one billion to the United Kingdom, I agreed to it because I felt that a country that had been spared the actual sacrifices of war on its own territory, a country that had not been invaded and trampled and massacred as had Russia and China, and a country that had not been subjected to the most horrible aerial warfare, as had Britain, could make further financial sacrifices as a sort of compensation, I may say, to those who had been in the path of the monster and who had delayed so much, as to render it nearly impossible now, his direct assault on us. Those were the motives which made me accept last year's proposal. The way in which it was presented and the poor and insufficient explanations given to the public were such that many still think we took one billion in gold from our treasury and gave it to Britain. What we did was to provide the tools of war for those who were in the front line of defence and could not pay for it. That money was spent in Canada, provided work for Canadians and used Canadian materials. What I did not like about it was the way in which it was done, handing everything to Great Britain, which took the credit for transferring afterwards part of it to China and Russia. If there is truth in what has been published in a Canadian paper lately, to the effect that part of it was directed by Britain
to Australia and New Zealand who paid Britain for it out of their credit balances in Britain, I like it less.
But the way in which the lease-lend appropriation is presented to-day should not provoke the same objections. It appears to be an improved, more dignified and more nationally conscious form of financial help to world freedom.
The motives are the same as last year, but the method of doing it is greatly improved. We thereby take one more step to manifest our complete independence from and equality with Britain. We appear no more as the vassal bringing tribute but as the equal partner who puts his assets in a common pool with those of his partners, the United States and the United Kingdom, so that they may jointly decide where they may be better used for the safeguarding and ultimate victory of the united nations. The deciding voice as to the allotment of the goods produced in Canada by Canadian workers and with Canadian materials will remain in the hands of the Canadian government, and rightly so. This makes me more enthusiastic for the vote I shall give, if needed, in favour of this appropriation.
I did not intend to speak on the man-power question, but I should like to say a few words about agricultural labour. It has been comforting during this debate to hear so many members from all sections of Canada, in all political parties, the opposition as well as the government, urging the necessity of keeping all possible hands on the farm in order to maintain the level of agricultural production as high as possible. In the early days of the war it was not considered to be the right thing to speak about exemptions or deferments for any special class of the population. At that time it seemed to be the monopoly of the Quebec members to remind the house of the urgency of ensuring better farm production by exempting or deferring farmers' sons and farm hands. I did so myself on two occasions, but I was criticized for it. We were told that we were overdoing it. Therefore it is a real pleasure to know that so many members from all parties and from every province have indicated one plan or another to ensure a proper flow of labour to the farms of Canada.
In this regard I wish to commend the director of national selective service and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) for their letter of February 3 to the mobilization boards explaining the future policy of the government with regard to bona fide farmers.. However, much more enlightenment will have
The Address-Mr. Picard

to be given before the situation can become clear and the decisions of the board based entirely, not on certain peculiarities of a case but in the general interest of agricultural production in a given district.
In order to illustrate my point I should like to cite a story of a farmer boy in my own constituency. This boy has worked all his life on the farm; from the time he left school until he reached the age of twenty-four years he had worked on his father's farm. His father had no other sons except some younger children, aged fifteen, thirteen, eleven and nine years of age, respectively. The father operated a farm of 195 acres, of which 185 acres were in cultivation. He had ten cows, four horses, thirteen hogs, and sheep and poultry. Last year he produced 700 bushels of oats, 8,000 bales of hay, fifty bushels of barley and 200 bushels of potatoes. This farm is considered to be quite a large farm in that part of Quebec.
The boy was called up on July 15, 1941, under the mobilization act, and he reported for medical examination. He was classified as B2 and received a nice letter from the registrar stating that since he was in a class not yet callable, he was at liberty in the meantime to engage in any other pursuit. During all that year of 1941, when he had been classified B2, he worked on the farm with the exception of six weeks during the winter when he went to a lumber camp.
In 1942, at the end of June or early in July when most of the early work on the farm was done, he met an agent of a shipbuilding company located near Quebec, about thirty miles from the farm. This agent wanted to know why he had not called'on him because they were in need of men. The farm work was finished for the spring and the wages were good, so he went to work for the shipbuilding company near Levis. This company was making corvettes and other ships for the United Kingdom, the United States and other united nations. He worked there except for a week or so during the fall when he went back to the farm to help gather the crop, after which he returned to the factory.
In the meantime he had arranged for a young man to take his place on the farm and help his father, and he paid this young man out of his wages. He remained at the factory until December. Late in December or early in January his category B2 was called, and he reported again. Under the plans entered into between the department and certain industries, about which there seems to be great secrecy, the reason for which I cannot understand, he was con-
[Mr. Picard. 1
sidered to be in a class not essential to the pursuit of the war. Therefore he reported to his mobilization board and asked to be assigned to farm work for the next year. They denied his request because out of his life of twenty-four years, or out of ten years of usefulness, on the farm he had spent less than six months, apart from the week spent gathering the crops, in an industrial plant.
Here is a boy who has spent all his life on the farm except for six months. He is needed on the farm, and the board admits that the farm is of a size that would warrant' the employment of more than one man in order to have it operated efficiently. The board admits that there are no other sons in the family, that the father is alone and that he is, let us say, twenty-five per cent incapacitated by sickness. Yet this board has ruled that because the boy worked six months in an industrial plant he shall not be permitted to go back to the farm where he belongs. That is his punishment for having left the farm for those six months. They decided that he should go back to the army and then in the spring put in a request for six months holidays from the army in the busy season, which request could be vouched for by the father.
On motion of Mr. Picard the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.	[DOT]
Wednesday, February 17, 1943.