1943-06-25

[Stage Direction]
On -the orders of the day:
Mr. NORMAN J. M.	LOCKHART
(Lincoln): I am sorry the Minister of Finance (Mr. Jlsley) is not in the house, but from an answer to a question tabled yesterday by the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Abbott), acting as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, it would appear that the division o-f Westmount was given certain preferences in the matter of the allotment of sugar for canning. I come from the district where much of the fruit is produced, and for days and weeks I have been seeking greater consideration for that district in regard to this matter of sugar. I was wondering if the minister or his assistant could give me any indication as to whether or not the areas in which the fruit is actually produced might receive more favourable consideration, rather than other areas at a distance from the point of production.
Mr. D. C. ABBOTT (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: I could give the explanation now, if it is desired, or it might be better when the estimates covering the wartime prices and trade board are under
Sugar Allotment

consideration. The general position, as my hon. friend .probably knows, is that it was decided that approximately one hundred million pounds of sugar should be made available for canning purposes this year, which was approximately the amount used last year for this purpose. The wartime prices and trade board called for applications from citizens for sugar for canning purposes, and the applications received totalled something over two hundred million pounds, or more than double the available amount. The board then decided to allot to the ration districts into which the country is divided, sugar to the extent of the one hundred million pounds, approximately, that was available; and, as was indicated in the answer given yesterday to which my hon. friend has referred, the allotment to the individual ration areas was on the basis of 11-34 pounds, speaking from memory, for each application received from the district.
In the district to which reference was made in the answer given yesterday a considerable number of applications had been received at the rate of less than ten pounds per person. The sugar was allotted to each ration district on the same basis, and the allocation of the sugar in each district was left to the local ration board. The local ration board, as my hon. friend knows, was made up of citizens from the area covered by the ration district. In respect of the ration district in which the city of Westmount is included, and which comprises not only the city of Westmount but the town of Montreal West, the village of Cote St. Luc and the town of Hampstead, the quota fixed was 11-34 pounds for each person who had filed an application for canning sugar in that area. The same allocation was made to other rationed areas.
The local ration board decided that they would allot to the applicants who had applied for less than ten pounds the amount which was actually applied for. In my own case, for instance, I learned from my wife that for our family of six she had applied for fifty pounds of canning sugar, which is slightly more than eight pounds per head. They allotted to each applicant requiring less than ten pounds the amount actually applied for, which enabled them, out of the quota they had received of 11-34 pounds per applicant, to allot to those who applied for more than ten pounds an additional amount. The maximum which they found they were able to allot in that particular area was thirteen pounds. Then, in addition, over a thousand applications were received late. Those were taken care of without getting any additional quota. That is the position with 
respect to that particular ration area. But I think the point my hon. friend had in mind was this, that the allotment to each ration area was on the same basis throughout the country. The basis of distribution was left to the local ration board.


Mr. LOCKHART:: I do not wish to press the point, but the minute this appeared in the press this morning I received a long-distance call from the growers in my constituency pointing out that on account of the possibility that the fruit may ripen so quickly, and may be unfit to ship to Montreal or elsewhere, housewives in my constituency feel that if consideration can be given to people 400 miles away from the Niagara peninsula where the fruit is produced, then surely some consideration might be given to that very area in which it is produced. Consequently I ask the parliamentary assistant to bring the matter to the attention of the minister with a view to seeing that some consideration is given to these people, or consideration at least equal to that given to people 400 miles away from the base of supply.



SOCIAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Pensions and National Health. A report in the press this morning states it is the intention that a national insurance measure will not be introduced at this session. As this matter has been discussed before the committee on social security for several months, and as great interest has been displayed in the subject, would the minister advise the house as to the correctness of this report?


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: I have not seen the report to which the hon. member has referred. The intention of the government cannot be decided upon until the committee on social security shall have made its report to the house. Of course the progress of that committee is a matter beyond my control. The introduction of any measure would certainly depend largely on the progress made in the committee referred to.


Mr. GRAYDON:: There is the possibility, then, that legislation may be brought down this session?

War Appropriation-Labour


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is the possibility; that is to say, the recommendations made by the committee will be considered by the government when they are presented to this house.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, June 24, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to his majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war- ' Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.

The CHAIRMAN:: The committee is considering item No. 1.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Mr. Chairman, there
are one or two matters in connection with selective service which I should like to discuss. First of all, I noted with a good deal of interest the recent telegram from Hon. J. G. Taggart of Saskatchewan, in which he said:
Clarification of mobilization regulations has greatly assisted agriculture. Postponements granted since February 1, major factor in seeding crops on farm affected. I believe present policy will result in labour being generally available for year round work, but severe shortage at harvest time possible.
I should like to point out to the minister that while in this comparatively slack season of the year there may be no labour problem worth mentioning in Saskatchewan, when harvest rolls round-and that may be earlier than many anticipate, despite the fact that the season at this time looks late-there will be another severe labour problem.
I should like to refer briefly to the situation which existed last August. In July and August of last year, just before the close of the session, I went west. While moving around my constituency I had literally dozens of complaints respecting notices being sent out to men to appear for medical examination. There were so many complaints that when I got to the centre of my constituency, namely Rosetown, I could not even begin to take notes of the cases of those who interviewed me. The result was that on the evening of August 21 I wired the Prime Minister. I shall not read the telegram, although I have it here. To summarize, I said the situation was scandalous, and that because of an indiscriminate summoning of men by the Saskatchewan board, people were being put to great inconvenience.
At that time I heard from Hon. J. T. Thorson, who was then a minister, stating that my information did not tally with his. I came back to Ottawa about September 1 and saw him. I had in my pocket eleven names that I had slipped there indiscriminately. Those I sent to the then Minister of National War Services, who promised that he would make an investigation of the cases and let me know. One can imagine my surprise as a member of the House of Commons when on September 29 a friend of mine forwarded me from Saskatchewan a copy of the Regina Leader Post in which appeared a long article dealing with these eleven cases, and going after me in no unmeasured terms. A report had been made to the press by an organization not responsible to this parliament, and of which two of the members of the board in Regina were honorary officers. I took exception to that, because had I cared to recount the conversation I had with Mr. Thorson-


Mr. MARTIN:: What was the organization?


Major James William Coldwell: The Regina branch of the Canadian Legion. Had I cared to recount the conversation I had with Mr. Thorson at the time it might have been embarrassing both to the Regina board and to certain other people. I wrote Mr. Thorson to that effect, and reminded him of the conversation. I also said that in the December before I had had a somewhat similar experience. When I spoke to Mr. Thorson about this breach of proper and decent procedure-for I should have been afforded an opportunity to see any report which was made, and such report should have been made by an organization responsible to the government-he told me too what he thought of that procedure. I make very strong protest against that sort of thing being done. I have no objection to any member of this house asking for the bringing down in the proper manner of any correspondence that I have had either with the Department of National War Services or with the minister, but I do object to reading in the public press a report which the minister should have first referred to me. I may say that the newspaper report varied considerably in tone from the official report which I received subsequently from the minister, under date of October 6, after I had drawn the matter to his attention.
I am not going over these cases, but I simply point out that I advised these young men, who did not seem to understand that they had to apply for postponement after they had received their medical call, to apply for postponement. The report of the minister shows that most of these young men did apply
War Appropriation-Labour

for and receive postponements subsequent to August 21, the date when I wired the Prime Minister. I do not know who was responsible for this breach of parliamentary etiquette, but the minister gave me a good indication. I want to say to the present Minister of National War Services (Mr. LaFleche), who was deputy at the time, that that kind of procedure is against the rules and privileges of this house. I hope that the Minister of National War Services will bear that in mind.
Mr. LaFLECHE: Was the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar indicating me personally?


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Thorson told me that he had handed to the deputy minister of his department the names I gave him, and I believe the minister was the deputy minister at that time.
Mr. LaFLECHE: Quite right. Is the hon. member indicating that the present Minister of National War Services is the one who gave out this report, to the public for instance?


Major James William Coldwell: All I can say is-
Mr. LaFLECHE: I hope he does not mean that.


Major James William Coldwell: I am glad the minister has said that he hopes I did not mean that, because in effect I did mean something like that. .
Mr. LaFLECHE: In effect you are very much mistaken.


Major James William Coldwell: I am glad to know that, and I shall not say what I intended to say. But I would say to the minister, who was then the deputy, that Mr. Thorson told me that he gave this letter to his responsible deputy, who I believe went west shortly afterward. The inference I drew from that was that it must have got into someone's hands out of the hands of the deputy minister. No one other than the minister himself had a list of these names.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Would the hon. member clarify the charge he is making against the government? My mind is not too clear about it?


Major James William Coldwell: My point is that the minister asked me to give him the names of persons who had been called in the middle of the harvest, and I gave him eleven names. I asked him to investigate them but I said that I could not vouch for all of them. The minister promised he would investigate. On February 21, four weeks later, the Regina Leader-Post contained a long, critical and bitter article concerning me, because I had

requested, so the paper alleged, postponement for these men. The minister having promised to investigate, and naturally to report the result of his investigation to me, as he did subsequently, I should have had the report before it got into the public press.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They used the information for political purposes?


Major James William Coldwell: It looks as though the information was used for political purposes. The records will show that following the Prime Minister's statment in March, 1942, which laid down a policy, whether or not one agreed with it, Saskatchewan was treated in a manner different from the other provinces with regard to call-ups and postponements. I say that the Prime Minister laid down a policy based on an order in council. I do not care whether one agrees with that policy; once it has been laid down it should be carried out fairly in every province. That is the point I wish to make. A writer who I presume is friendly to the	government-the	Regina
Leader-Post is certainly a friendly newspaper -wrote this article in that paper on Monday, February 15, 1943. One of the members of the board, Mr. Stewart, had commented on an analysis of farm deferments, and Mr. Burton Richardson replied to Mr. Stewart and showed that he had spoken too soon. I quote:
Farm worker deferments from April to November, 1942, in the three prairie provinces have been:
Deferment Not
asked granted Per cent
Winnipeg	4,312	422	9'8Regina	
3,974	916	23-05Edmonton	2,101	96	4-5
There was a slight improvement after the Prime Minister made his speech in the house. From October 9, 1940, to March 12, 1942, the Saskatchewan board received 2,218 applications for farm worker deferments, granted 1,370 and denied 848, or 39 per cent. From April to November, 1942, both inclusive, this board received 3,974 applications for farm worker deferment, granted 3,058 and denied1 916, or 23 per cent. Over the whole period its rate for refusing farm worker deferments has been 28 per cent.
In Manitoba the board was granting farm workers deferments before the change in policy in March at the rate of 61 per cent, but since then it has been granting them at the rate of 90 per cent. In the Quebec district the rate for granting such deferments was 67 per cent, and it rose to 95 per cent after the government changed its policy, or issued a clarification of its policy, whichever way you want to put it. The Ontario figures are the most interesting of all. The rate of farm

TFar Appropriation-Labour
worker deferment granted was 93 per cent, and after the clarification it rose to 96 per cent. Practically everyone who applied in Ontario was granted a postponement, but in Saskatchewan we find an entirely different picture.
I do not want to pursue this further now. Those of us who come from Saskatchewan ask only for the same treatment as is given to the ' other provinces and the other military districts. We want no favours. While there may be a slack period for a month or six weeks, when this period is over the harvest will be upon us. Unless something is done we may see a repetition of what happened last autumn, when, because of a shortage of labour, hundreds of thousands of acres were either not harvested-


Mr. MITCHELL:: And the weather.


Major James William Coldwell: I was going to add, or cut. The weather had something to do with it, but the weather did not have everything to do with it. Fortunately we had a remarkable winter, in Saskatchewan this year which seemed to make some amends for the shortage of labour last autumn. When I was out there in April I saw the most extraordinary sight I have seen in the thirty-four springs I have been in western Canada. There were the combines working in the fields, and the crops were turning out moderately well, having stood out all winter. The crops that had to be threshed from the stook were not in quite as good shape; those swathed were largely spoiled.
Owing to the growing shortage of food, western Canada has gone into the production of high protein foods, meats and fats. If we did not know it before, we ought to know it now, that the shortage of high protein foods and meats and fats to-day in Great Britain is causing a great deal of anxiety; and yet I have known of farmers who have had to sell their brood sows and their milch cattle this spring because they could not see how they could attend to their stock with their inability to get labour.
I know perfectly well that we are at war, and let me add that while I may not have agreed w'ith the policy which the government laid down for the sending of large numbers of men overseas as we know have been sent overseas, yet parliament having approved -what Canada is to do, we must keep up the reinforcements for our troops in order that they may be effective on the field of battle. I recognize that necessity fully. To-day we are reading in the newspapers items from London and North Africa foreshadowing an early invasion of Europe. Where that invasion will take place we do not know, but it is pretty certain that some attempt is to be made, and we hope successfully, to invade the European continent. It is said further that at this very time units of the navy and of the air force as well as of the army are in position to strike and that in all probability the Canadian army will form one of the spearheads of the invasion. Such reports are of unusual significance to this committee and to the house at the present time. We know that the venture when it is made will be very costly in human lives. If we did not know that before Dieppe, we knew it afterwards. What I would like to ask the committee is this: What is the situation which Canada will face when that time comes, possibly in the near future?


Richard Burpee Hanson: With
respect to reinforcements?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes; we have to reinforce our army and keep it up to strength, whether we agree or not with the policy originally laid down.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, what is the position with respect to reinforcements?


Major James William Coldwell: You will hear in a moment.	-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I want to hear from the government.


Major James William Coldwell: I understood the hon. gentleman was addressing his question to me.
The Minister of National Defence told us -if I am wrong I would like to be corrected, but I got these figures from Hansard-that we have some 190,000 in the armed forces overseas, the bulk of whom are well equipped and well trained soldiers ready to strike. He told us that we have in addition 250,000 general service personnel who could be sent overseas at any time. But this figure includes, as I understand it, a good many recent recruits who are yet insufficiently trained in the arts of modern war. Besides these there is the home establishment personnel of some 80,000 men. These, I understand, are engaged in instructional and other duties within this country. They are men who for various reasons are not fit to be sent overseas or are considered more important to be kept in the field of training here in Canada. We also have a part-time reserve army, a volunteer army of about 120,000 men. Then there is the home defence personnel who have been called up for service under the National Resources Mobilization Act. The Minister of National Defence told us, as I recall it, that
War Appropriation-Labour

these men number about 68,000, and that they could be placed on duty under various orders in council anywhere in Canada, Newfoundland, Labrador or Alaska. The Minister of National Defence also told us that at the moment reinforcements are adequate. But in the light of the casualties that might be sustained in an invasion of the continent of Europe a pressing need might suddenly arise for all the reinforcements we can muster during the next few months. Again, let me repeat, this afternoon I am not going into the question of the wisdom of the government's military undertakings in the light of the needs of agriculture and industry. But I do think that consideration should be given now to what the government's policy should be if the need for heavy reinforcements arises. I venture to say that never since the war began has the government or this house, for that matter, faced the problem of devising a plan that would best serve the common cause or ensure our maximum contribution in the direction in which it can be most useful.
Now the time has come when our allies are crying aloud for more food from this country and we face a fuel shortage. The army at the same time is likely to need heavy reinforcements. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we should make our decision now as to what we are going to do in the light of all the circumstances of which we have knowledge.
I have said that should an invasion of the continent of Europe occur our casualty lists would, I fear, be very heavy. Under those circumstances it would be difficult for this house to give proper consideration to the problem of man-power amid the pressure of an urgent war situation. The government must surely realize this, but I fear that it hopes to relieve itself once again of the necessity of giving calm consideration to the question and of making up its mind. I believe that it is hoping to rely on the pressure of public opinion to deliver it from having to make its own decision. That is not responsible government. In the long run it will be bad for the government, bad for parliament, bad for this country. That is a policy of drift which this house should protest vehemently against while there is yet time.
The story of the government's man-power policy has been one of opportunism rather than of calm consideration of the needs of the country as the war developed. Never have we had a clear-cut policy laid out for any length of time. I realize that as the war has developed, and as the government has committed this country to various plans with, or more often without, the consent of this parlia-
ment, or rather without prior consultation with parliament, all parties in this house have had to reconsider their policies in the light of circumstances and the needs of the country. Now we have surely reached the point, with the immediate prospect of heavy casualties and calls for increased food and other supplies, when this house should be fully apprised of the government plans to meet the situation. A year ago we discussed the amendment of the mobilization act, a measure which, incidentally, we criticized when it was passed in 1940, because we said at that time that the government would not use that act to do aught else than mobilize man-power, and time has shown that we were correct in that position. I have only to refer in a few brief words to the story of the Aluminum Company of Canada. When our people were being frozen in their jobs and wages, when farm prices were being frozen at a level too low to give a decent and adequate return, these people were not only paid a high price for their product but they were given an escalator clause in their contracts-not with Canada, because we have not even got a contract with them; we are following somebody's else's contract-so that during this quarter of the year 1943 these people are receiving five and a half cents a pound more for their aluminum because, it is said, the costs of transportation and so on have gone up. I said in this house on July 7, 1942, as reported in Hansard, page 3997:
What should this house do? In our opinion, this house should decide now, at once, without further delay, for total mobilization of industry, of wealth and of man-power. But what are we doing under this bill that we are discussing?
That was the bill to amend the mobilization act following the plebiscite.
We are merely allowing the government once more to postpone its decision on one phase of the mobilization that I have mentioned, and that not the most important. This, it seems to me, is distinctly an abdication of the responsibility of this parliament; it is undemocratic, it is unworthy of our tradition. This is the place where these grave decisions should be taken; this is the place where the policy should be laid down; this is the place where every regulation to be used under that policy should be carefully scrutinized by members of this house.
When, fourteen months ago, the people of Canada voted to free all the parties in this house from pledges given not to impose conscription for overseas service, they expected us to put into effect a policy of total mobilization for total war. I want to make it very clear that when I appealed for an affirmative vote on that plebiscite I did not do so on the ground that we should, mobilize manpower only; I said that as far as we were

War Appropriation-Labour
concerned we would demand, and continue to demand, that if we were to compel young men to join the army as we were already doing, we should use the same means to mobilize in the national service giant corporations like the Aluminum company, Consolidated Smelters, and Falcon-bridge Nickel. It will be recalled that the letter of the president of Faliconbridge Nickel was tabled here the day before yesterday, and I shall have something to say about it on a more appropriate occasion. I thought with it would be included a letter from the Prime Minister saying what he thought of the statement made by Mr. J. Gordon Hardy, when he expressed satisfaction that their plant over in Norway had been preserved and used by the Germans. I thought the Prime Minister would have conveyed to Mr. Hardy, as he should have done-because although the Prime Minister said something in the house, Mr. Hardy may not have read Hansard or the reports in the newspapers-what the government and this house thought of a man who would say that kind of thing in the midst of this great struggle.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but I think there is another time and place for discussing that matter.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: That is what I said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The whole thing is out of order.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am just calling the Chairman's attention to- it.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say to. the minister that that was just an aside, and I have finished what I intended to say as an illustration.
I said that our party stood for the total mobilization of industry and wealth as well as manpower. We expected that a policy of total mobilization would be put into effect. This has not been done. On the contrary, as I think I was able to show conclusively recently and as I have remarked already this afternoon, the government in the last twelve or eighteen months or two. years has delivered this country more completely into the hands of powerful corporations .than the country was before the war broke out.
When the offensive against nazi Europe opens and the demand for reinforcements comes, the government may take advantage again of a war necessity to enlarge the conscription of man-power, and rely on this house being compelled to support, it because of the extremity of the situation. Speaking on July 7, 1942, just after I had spoken that day, the
Prime Minister said, as reported in Hansard, page 4015:
I wish, however, to leave no doubt in the mind of any hon. member that, if I am at the head of the administration when such a decision is reached,-
That is to say, to send men mobilized under the National Resources Mobilization Act overseas.	[DOT]
-I shall ask to be assured of the confidence of the House of Commons before the government proceeds to enforce the decision.
In other words, we in the opposition, who may have little or no confidence in the government, are going to be compelled not to vote certain reinforcements to the men overseas, but to vote confidence in the government as the price which this house must pay for the reinforcement of our men in the battle line. That is the way the Prime Minister left it on July 7 of last year. Now on many occasions we of this group have voted against the government's economic and social policies, and I may say that if the rules of the house would have permitted, and it did not involve a reduction in the appropriation, I would have moved during this debate a vote of want of confidence in the government on account of the deal with Aluminum Limited, and I shall seek an opportunity yet to bring that matter before the house in a proper way. But, should the war situation require it, the government proposes to put me, my colleagues and other opposition members, including I take it hon. members to my right and to my left who are dissatisfied with the government's lack of policy or wrong policies-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Or no
policy.


Major James William Coldwell: -or no policy, as we regard it, in the position of having to vote confidence in it, or it will be said that we refused to vote reinforcements to the hard-pressed men overseas. I say there was never a more reprehensible proposal made in this house. I repeat that we of this party are prepared to do all that should be done to ensure adequate reinforcements and supplies for our men wherever they may be called upon to serve. As I said before, even in this war time, in the midst of war, we will fight a proposed war policy of which we disapprove; but once this house has laid down a war policy in the midst of war, then we will support that policy. That is all that we can do in the midst of war, reserving the right to criticize that policy.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Whether you approve it or not?
War Appropriation-Labour


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Often the member for York-Sunbury rises and criticizes the policy proposed by the government in connection with the war, and so do I. But once this parliament as a democratic institution approves that policy and it is required by the government for winning the war, we have no alternative but to support such a policy even if we proposed a better one. That is sd in the raising of loans, for example. I do not like the manner in which loans are raised, but that is the policy laid down. I am quite glad to go on the air and support the policy approved by parliament for the raising of loans, although I think that compulsory loans on a graduated scale ought to be imposed rather than the kind of voluntary arrangement which we have at the present time.
What we demand is that mobilization of our resources, wealth, industry as well as man-power, shall be considered as total mobilization and shall be considered apart from any attempt to stampede this parliament in a crisis. That is what I object to. I am therefore urging the government now, during this debate-for this is where it should be done- to place before the house at this time any proposals which it may have, and not to wait until perhaps, with long casualty lists coming in, and the country filled with alarm, we are called here-what for? For reinforcements? No. The Prime Minister would tell us that we were called together to vote confidence in a government in whom we may have no confidence. And if we vote against it, as the hon. member for Maple Creek says we can do, what will be said? It will be said that the opposition in the house refuses to vote reinforcements in a time of crisis. That is the position we shall be placed in, and I say that if the government is honest with this house it can clear up this situation now by coming before parliament and telling us exactly what it intends to do and asking the support of the house for the policy which it has for carrying out its intention.
What we are urging, what I am trying to urge as I sit down, is simply that the government shall present to the house now a clear-cut policy telling us the number required in industry, the number required in agriculture, and so on, to keep up the supplies we need, and the number we shall require to maintain the armed forces in the face of what might possibly occur. The government may say, "We do not know." Well, they made a survey of the man-power situation.


Humphrey Mitchell: Can the hon. member
tell us how many casualties there are going to be?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: No. But any government in power to-day, with its military authorities giving it advice, who does not know any more about that question than I do -for no such advice is available to me-is not fit to govern the country. So that the minister should not ask me but should ask his colleagues. Having made a survey of the resources of the country from time to time, and having the knowledge that the government has, and having also its military advisers who can tell it more or less what is in prospect, the government should come before us with a policy so that we can make a decision now without having to vote confidence in the government at some later stage. For, as I say, so far as we are concerned, we have no confidence in the economic, financial, labour, agricultural and social policies of the government-because, as we saw in this morning's paper, the measure of social policy contemplated by the government is again to be deferred.


Gordon Graydon: You do not seem to
think much of them in any department.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: No, I do not. I have
been here long enough to form an opinion and I have given the government support in all its war measures, but I must confess that the longer I stay here the less confidence I have in its policies. I have a good deal of respect personally for some of the men who comprise the government, but I have no respect and no confidence in the policies of the government, which is a very different thing. And so, I say to the minister


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


Major James William Coldwell: Now is the time for
the government to come before the house and place its man-power policy before us, asking us to support that policy, apart altogether from any question of confidence in the government itself.


Mr. POULIOT:: The more discussion we have the more I regret that a parliamentary committee was not instituted for each war department, and especially for the Department of Labour, at the beginning of the session. Then members would have had an excellent opportunity to discuss fully matters that are of such importance to the country.
I listened yesterday to a part of the speech made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. JUNE 25, 1943
War Appropriation-Labour
Graydon) and I think he spoke very well, but I do not think that he was clear enough. As the government has been acting according to what the member for Riehelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) said, through fear of a vote of censure from the opposition, on the question of man-power, it is of some importance to know exactly what the leader of the opposition meant by some of the sentences which he uttered and which were the less clear parts of his speech yesterday.
On March 3, at page 938, of Hansard, he said:
May I point out however that there is a feeling throughout Canada, one which will show itself in any movements which lie ahead, that when the war is over we shall have a higher sense of human values and shall give lesser emphasis to material things than we have done heretofore.
The question of human values cannot be included in a post-war policy; it must be considered right now. It must always be considered at the time such questions have to be dealt with and should not be deferred until every man has fallen on the battlefield or everybody has died of hunger. That is not the time to discuss questions of human value. We must discuss them now. I regret that so many young men with promising brains have lost their lives or have been injured since the beginning of the war, and now I come again to the question of national selective service. And here the name of Mr. Little has been brought into the discussion. Some hon. members are familiar with his plan, but I wonder if all have read his memorandum and the correspondence exchanged between Mr. Little and the minister.
I fully sympathize with the minister in the difficulties with which he has to deal in connection with labour matters, particularly because of the fact that he has not a free hand in respect to the man-power problem. To make this point clear, my point is that he has to fill the requisitions of the national defence department; and the old men there, as well as the younger men who have not served in any theatre of war though they have been wearing the uniform for some time, devise policies and sign requisitions for certain numbers of men, just in the same way that they sign requisitions for war material which they obtain from the Department of Munitions and Supply. They do not attach any more importance to human values than to material things. We need not only the arms and physical strength of these young men who are in the army; we need also their brains, their intelligence and their education in the various fields in which they have acquired experience.
Turning once more to what was said yesterday by the leader of the opposition, at page 3999 of Hansard I find this:
... the responsibility for the man-pow'er problem, so far as the Minister of Labour personally is concerned, is an inheritance. . . .
That is true; but on the other hand, Mr. Chairman, the leader of the opposition also had a legacy from his predecessor the hon. member for York-Sunbury, what we may call in law an onerous legacy. I have no grudge against the hon. member for York-Sunbury, though at times I have argued bitterly with him; the only reason I rose each time he advocated a national or union government- the letters N.G. being inscribed upon his political banner during the last election-was because every man with a free mind foresaw the disastrous results of the policies he was advocating, which were followed to a certain degree by the new government. I remember distinctly the day in 1940 when the mobilization act was passed; I recall the hon. gentleman's beaming face. He was feeling so happy because his suggestions had been accepted at least in part. But though the present leader of the opposition said yesterday that the policy of the government from the beginning of the war to the middle of 1940 had been rather complacent, I foresaw then the disastrous results of the policies being advocated by hon. gentlemen opposite. If to-day we have trouble in regard to man-power for agriculture; if we have trouble in regard to the fuel wood industry and in many other ways, it is precisely because the question of man-power has been considered only from the angle of sending ablebodied men of military age into the armed forces. This was a mistake. No one should be too proud to admit having made a mistake; it is always time to correct it. What is wrong is not to change the policy when we realize that what we are doing is having harmful results. That is my point. How can an hon. member still advocate conscription for overseas, either directly or indirectly, now when we have so much trouble in various other fields of human activity? Again at page 3999 of Hansard of yesterday the leader of the opposition said:
The measure of efficiency of a nation effectively to plan in a time of war may properly be regarded also as the yardstick by which we may measure w'hat this nation, or for that matter other nations, may be able to do in the time of peace that will follow the cessation of hostilities.
This fits in with what the hon. gentleman said on March 3 with regard to human values. We must consider the question now in order to have at least some assurance that the future will be brighter than the present. We need a
War Appropriation-Labour

plan, and it is difficult to make one. There are prejudices, so many that I could not mention them all, but there is one to which I must refer. It is that in time of war the Minister of National Defence should rank first after the Prime Minister. In other wars that may have been true, but in this war the minister who has power in hand, if he wants to use it, is not any one of the ministers of defence but the Minister of Labour. Perhaps I shall be the only hon. member to tell the minister that, but I want him to be a free minister as he is a free man. I want him to make decisions based on his own judgment, after obtaining full knowledge-decisions that will bind his colleagues and the war departments. This is my view of national selective service, if such a name should be applied to a system or policy in force in this country during the war. In my humble view immediately after the Prime Minister the Minister of Labour is the one who has in hand1 control of every field of activity in this country. He has control over agriculture, over the army and so on; he can even say to young men who want to enlist voluntarily in the air force or the navy that it is their duty to stay on the job on the farm, in the munitions factory or some place else where their presence is urgently needed. This is my understanding, and I cannot see the Minister of Labour acting as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Defence or any of the war ministers. This may sound new; no one has said it before, but I believe in it very firmly and that is why I say it. This is the only place to express oneself with respect to those important matters. If headquarters at Ottawa come along with a requisition for a number of men, and say, "We need 5,000 men" or 10,000, as the case may be, the minister must be in a position to say, "Agriculture needs a certain number of men." Then it will be up to the minister to decide whether the gaps in farming will be filled by those men. The same would apply to the Department of Munitions and Supply. I do not want the minister to have more power, but I want him to exercise the power he has to the best of his ability, whether or not it pleases the brass hats.
Of course other ministers may complain, and may say that we have made engagements to Great Britain. We may be told that the Minister of National Defence went to London in the winter of 1940 and made engagements. This was mentioned in a committee room in this house, after the session was over; but he never told us what his commitments had been.
If the government has been released from pledges given to the people, surely there is one pledge from which it cannot be released,

and that is to see that we have sound government, and that no class suffers from policies enacted by the government. That is my humble view.
I come again to what was said yesterday by the leader of the opposition. I regret that he is not in his seat at the moment, although while he was still in the committee I said I was going to refer to that speech. He spoke about the registration in 1940, and is reported in this way at page 4001.
As the months rolled on, from August, 1940, until March, 1942-and I believe one might properly take in that space of time-in my opinion there was not to be found in government policy a forthright desire or effort to carry out what that registration actually should have meant; because, if the registration was to be useful, so far as our man-power situation was concerned, it should have been used right away.
What did he mean by that, I want to know? Any hon. member should be flattered when one of his colleagues takes the trouble to read his speech and asks enlightenment with respect to the darker comers. The leader of the opposition used the expression "what that registration actually should have meant"; what did he mean by that? And at another point he used this expression: "So far as our man-power situation was concerned, it should have been used right away." Mr. Little was not with selective service at that time, and all the hon. member said about Mr. Little had no bearing on this matter. It was before Mr. Little came. Therefore we want to know what the leader of the Progressive Conservative party meant by that, and if he is still boosting the obsolete policy so dear to the heart of the hon. member for York-Sunbury. Then he went on to say:
While it may be urged that in some respects moves were made to place in position men and women who had registered especially in respect of certain skilled operations, nevertheless I think no one in Canada would sav that there was any real attempt on the basis of that registration to allocate man-power in an efficient or effective way. having regard to the conditions existing in those years.
I want to know if this was said in such a way that it could not hurt the feelings of those who suffer from the application of the mobilization act, and also to appeal to a larger number of supporters in the coming Ontario provincial election. I know the leader of the opposition well enough to presume that not for one moment would he say something in this house only to promote the interests of the Conservative opposition in Ontario.
At page 4002 he goes on to say:
In November, 1942, the government had reached another fork in the road. Having reached that fork, they took the turn which led, shall I say, to a more delicate and a more

War Appropriation-Labour
pleasant political climate. I do not intend to find any special fault with the government for taking that action, hut they did fail to take the turn in the road to which the elongated finger of necessity and the elongated finger of national interest pointed.
What is the road to which the "elongated finger of necessity" and the "elongated finger of national interest" pointed? I have never seen an elongated finger, but I should like to know about it. It is a fine figure of speech, but I do not understand it very well, -and I confess that humbly.
Then he proceeds to discuss the plank in the Winnipeg convention and at page 4003 he quotes from that convention as follows:
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.
It is the old story of conscription for overseas.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Jean-François Pouliot: No.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Thank you.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is courtesy for you.


Jean-François Pouliot: And, sir, this is the way they are acting. They are afraid to say boldly, after the disastrous effects of the disguised conscription of which they complain, "Let us go straight forward to conscription for overseas, for the armed forces". What logic is there in what they say? They complain of the results of the policy adopted-adopted to a large extent on their recommendation or supplication. They complain of those results, and suggest that the government go on in a more vigorous fashion with the same policy. The leader of the opposition continues:
To hear the Minister of Labour talk, one would think that had been done, but what are the facts? On the general advisory board for national selective service there is but one farmer. That is not good enough. The people engaged in agriculture in Canada will not be satisfied with that.
Is that all the leader of the opposition had to say on behalf of the farmers? When I rose in my place to move the adjournment of the house, to remind the government that farmers are existing in this country, and that they are in distress, the leader of the opposition prevented hon. members in his party from rising in their places. I was informed afterward by the press that those who inspire the Progressive Conservative party had decided that that was not -the time to discuss such matters. With the assistance of a few of my Liberal colleagues and of the former leader of the opposition, whom I thank; with the assistance of the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling), the hon. member for York East (Mr. McGregor), the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group, the New Democracy and the independents, we obtained an opportunity to discuss the matter. There are some draftees who come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour and there are others who come under the Department of National Defence. As the rules governing discussion are rather strict it would'have been impossible to discuss both cases at the same time. That is why we took a whole day for the farmers.
The leader of the opiposition is reported on page 4004 of Hansard as follows:
-but I think he will have to revise his remarks because, if there was one idea behind national selective service, it was to take out of nonessential industry and put into essential wartime activities the maximum of our man-power.
Now we come to Alexander Gunn. I desire information about this man. I gave an interview to the local press and I sent the article to all members. In that interview reference was made to Mr. Gunn who had been brought from England to decide what was essential and what was non-essential industry. I am very much surprised that the minister has not said a word about Gunn. The soldiers need guns, but I do not think the minister needs a Gunn. But what astounds me is the admission that a man who knows nothing about Canadian business has been brought from Great Britain to decide what industries are essential and what are non-essential. I am surprised that this man has been given so much power. I have every respect for Canadians who have been born outside this country'. I have said before in the house that there are some Canadians who were bom outside of Canada who are better Canadians than some who have been born in the country. On the other hand, it is only fair that complete information should be given about this man Gunn so that we may know whether he has had sufficient experience. To a large extent he is responsible for the trouble we are now having in various fields of industry. I hope the minister will be able to attend to this.
Then the leader of the opposition mentioned a dispatch by Mr. Grant Dexter to the Regina Leader-Post, and quoted him as follows:
The failure of the government to use men and women effectively has meant that they have been allowed to remain at non-essential work.
War Appropriation-Labour

What is essential work? What is nonessential work? What does Mr. Dexter know about essential and non-essential work? Does the leader of the opposition mean that conscription should be applied, not only to men but to women? That would be a good thing to know. The leader of the opposition goes on to comment upon the increase in employment in the making of furs. Furs are needed in our winter climate. He referred also to the increase in employment in beverage making and in personal trades, which includes laundries and so on. He is comparing the figures for 1938 with those of 1942, when there was no rationing. The figure for laundries for 1938 is 141-5, and it increased to 194-6 in 1942. All that means that we have more dirty linen to wash. Does the leader of the opposition mean that laundries are not performing essential work?
Then he asks for a sweeping inquiry. We could have had a sweeping inquiry if a parliamentary committee had been in charge of the expenditures of the Department of Labour from the beginning of the session. Witnesses could have been called and we would have been able to obtain information. This committee would have been of great help to the minister from time to time. I want to tell the minister that he will make a success of national selective service-I have not given up hope that it will be a success- just the moment he begins to act as the boss, in the Canadian spirit and not in any imperialistic spirit..
I do not want to be hard on the leader of the opposition because he is one of my best friends and I have great regard for him. He speaks as the leader of a party that was once great, and his words have more weight than those of any other member of the party. I say that without meaning offence to anyone. The leader of the opposition should act as the leader of his party. They should not have a wandering Jew as the leader of the party enjoying the beautiful climate of Prince Edward Island when we are sweating here just because, he is afraid to run for the House of Commons.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, sit
down.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, I will not sit down.
The hon. member for York-Sunbury does not seem to realize that what I am saying is the truth. This man John Bracken has a different policy for every parish he goes into. We do not hear any statements of his coming from the house, but he goes along preaching a different gospel in every town,
[Mr. Pouliot.j
city or village. He should be here. The leader should be with his army, and the army is here, not in Prince Edward Island. He should be acting as leader and the Conservative party should not be led in caucus by a former secretary of R. B. Bennett.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, what has this to do with the resolution?


Jean-François Pouliot: Now that the leader of
the opposition has come into the chamber I will tell him what I have said. He will see in Hansard that I have criticized some of his utterances, and I think justly so. I said that he should be the leader of his party, that the Conservative members should have the courage to elect him and not to pass over all-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, what has this to do with the resolution before the committee? Not a thing in the world.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not want to be
interrupted by the dead.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
rising to a point of order. These remarks are entirely out of order. The hon. member for Temiscouata will take his seat if he is a gentleman when I raise a point of order. What has this to do with the resolution before the committee? How long have we to suffer this sort of thing?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: On the point of order,
I think the hon. member for Temiscouata must realize that it is difficult for the Chairman to keep speakers within the limits of the item before us. All I can do is to ask hon. members to keep their discussion within the limits.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have nearly concluded my remarks, but I have just one word to say to the leader of the opposition. He does not realize that when I speak as I do I am avenging him for the fate which he suffered at the hands of his former supporters. Although I disagreed entirely with him I preferred to hear him advocating conscription as official leader of the opposition or leader of the Conservative or the Progressive Conservative party or the N. G. party-call it what you will-to reading the rosewater speeches of his present leader. At least I knew where he stood, and I fought him on that ground. But I will tell him another thing. I never rose to interrupt him except when he was interrupting me. I have given all members the opportunity to say what they wanted, and I

War Appropriation-Labour
will tell the former leader of the opposition that he did not help his cause by speaking as he did. I tell him further that I regret that the Progressive Conservative party did not choose a pure Conservative as their leader. Instead they went out to find a man who had been able to form a small scale union government in Manitoba and they brought him here for the same purpose, thinking that with John Bracken as their leader they would have a union government at Ottawa. That is why I am opposed to John Bracken, because a union government would destroy the freedom of opposition in this house. It would prevent an opposition from expressing fair and just criticism of the actions of the government. That is why I am opposed to union government.
I think the hon. member for York-Sunbury is still for it, and if he thinks that John Bracken is the man in Canada who can do it he is making a great mistake. I do not want to discuss conscription, I do not want to discuss national government, but I will fight John Bracken, and as he is the chosen leader he must be strong enough to defend himself. But he goes away all the time. He is a wandering Jew-an Isaac Laquedem.


Mr. GLADSTONE:: He is a good Canadian, anyway.


Jean-François Pouliot: A good Canadian wandering Jew.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Surely the Chairman should do something about this.


Gordon Graydon: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I am quite sure that the hon. member for Temiscouata on reflection will not want to cast aspersion upon the leader of our party. I am quite sure that he has gone a little further than he intended. It is not very often, Mr. Chairman, that it is necessary for me to rise in my place and defend the good name and reputation of a man who has been chosen the leader of a great party in Canada, the Hon. John Bracken. But I do so here with a great deal of pride and pleasure. I would ask the hon. member for Temiscouata not to follow his present line of argument; for at a time like this especially he should not cast reflections on a good Canadian who is trying to do his duty as Mr. Bracken is.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is it unparliamentary, Mr. Chairman, to call a man a wandering Jew?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I think the point of order is well taken. It is not in order in committee of the whole house to cast reflections on leaders or members of any party.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I ask a question of the Minister of Labour? I wanted to ask the hon. member for Temiscouata but I was not permitted. But first of all I would like to associate myself with the leader of the Progressive Conservative party. I have never found it necessary to lower myself by making personal remarks about the leader or prospective leader of a party in the house. I just wanted to help the hon. member for Temiscouata. As I understand it, the Minister of Labour has complete charge of all labour in all parts of this dominion. I do not want any unfairness done to any member of this house, particularly to the hon. member for Temiscouata, so I appeal to the minister, as head of the selective service, to see that the hon. member for Temiscouata is properly and adequately served. I notice that the Chronicle of June 23, 1943, has this heading: "Extra stenographers called in to handle Pouliot's mail".


Mr. ESLING:: Mr. Chairman, in the manpower discussions in this house nothing has been emphasized more than the need for farm labour. Perhaps there is not a district in this dominion in which there will be found a greater number of husky robust men, farmers too, of military age than in the district of West Kootenay. I refer to the Doulchobors. They were born and brought up on the land; they are natural farmers, but they are leaving the farm for the older members of the family to work while they drift into the community centres to exploit the labour market, to take advantage in every way of positions which have been vacated by men who have joined the armed services.
The hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) yesterday repeated the story of the admission of the Doukhobors to Canada. They were admitted and given the fullest immunity from military service. But that order also provided that they must present a certificate from the authorities in their own community, that was forty-four years ago. I am going to ask, what happens when the Doukhobor community no longer exists and when there is no authority to grant the certificate? The question also arises, does that immunity from military service extend to the descendants of the original Doukhobors? The 'Minister of Justice has ruled that it does, and under the mobilization act the same ruling has been followed. The fact remains that the government-not this particular government but every government both federal and provincial -are afraid to enforce the law in connection with this religious sect.
War Appropriation-Labour

I have in my district some 3,500 Doukhobors. That is an approximate estimate. A national registration was taken about a year after the war was declared. The registrar sent capable and responsible men into that community to register the Doukhobors, and they did the best thej' could. But the one purpose of the Doukhobors was to evade registration. It will take a good strong armed force of ex-service men or mounted policemen to register these Doukhobors, and a half dozen of them should go into that community and register every one of them. More than that, they should see to it that these Doukhobors are not allowed to continue to drift into West Kootenay district from Saskatchewan for the purpose of hiding their identity. For many years I attempted to bring to the attention of the government the defiance of the law by this sect, and I have to say that about the only time one could secure the interest of hon. members was when they were visualizing a description of a nude parade. Then they all sat to attention. If some of them had to experience the continued bombing and firing of schools, of which there were twenty-two or twenty-three cases within a few years, while teachers were sleeping in the living apartments of the school and were able to escape only because those apartments were on the ground floor; and perhaps if hon. members had to suffer the humiliation of their wives and daughters who had to witness these nude parades, they would look at these things in a different manner. But you can never interest any government. Whether it be present or previous federal governments or provincial governments, all are afraid to enforce the law. It is a humiliation which this dominion must endure. A great nation which raises an army of 500,000 men, which looks after several thousands of prisoners of war, which can move 25,000 Japanese, has not the ability, has not the______


Richard Burpee Hanson: Intestinal fortitude.


William Kemble Esling: 
Mr. LACOMBE (Translation):: I have followed with a keen interest the speeches delivered this afternoon by hon. members of this house. Whether they belong to the Progressive Conservative party, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation or the Social Credit party, we can rightly put them in the same class. They are in perfect agreement with the government. They complain about the farm labour shortage, but all of them, one after the other, have voted against the amendments and the resolutions I moved in favour of the exemption of farmers. How inconsistent and hypocritical is such an action, Mr. Chairman! Certain statements are long overdue in this house and we are prepared to make them to-day.
The discussion on the estimates of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) has been await-

War Appropriation-Labour
ed with much concern for many weeks. All is not well as regards man-power. In connection with war industries, agriculture, commerce or civilian industries, we are witnessing the dismal failure of the organization of manpower in Canada. Agriculture is facing a shortage of experienced men through the action and by the fault of the government, who have always denied the farmers complete and definite exemption from compulsory military service. Indeed, they have through their huge majority in parliament and in collusion with all opposition groups with the exception of ten members of this house, invariably voted down all the resolutions and amendments I have moved along that line. It would seem that the government's single purpose is to bring about a shortage of agricultural products. Their first duty was to stimulate by every possible means the production of foodstuffs that are indispensable to the army and the civilian population of Canada. What have they done? They have called for military service thousands of farmers. They are still doing it in spite of our constant protests. On the one hand, they advocate agricultural overproduction and on the other hand they subsidize the western farmers so that the latter may reduce their production. That is the government's policy. On the one hand, they request the farmers to produce as much as they can, and on the other hand, they deprive them of every means whereby they could do it, in taking away from them their best workers. What conclusion is to be drawn from such an attitude? What must we think of such an administration? If we consider that seeding is not yet completed in many provinces of eastern Canada, and that thousands of farmers are still kept in military camps notwithstanding all requests and in spite of our protests, we cannot condemn too strongly the disastrous policy of this government. Who will restore to farmers the dairy herds that have been slaughtered for the lack of help, the farms sold for a mere song or left uncultivated. Who will set on its feet again our agricultural economy so thoroughly shaken by a most unwise policy? Who will return to the farm the numerous farmers who have moved to the cities under the incentive of remunerative but uncertain jobs? We can never be too insistent in reproaching the government for having destroyed our first line of defence in the country, agriculture. However, the day when they will be called to account is approaching. Those who are responsible for the present sorry state of affairs may be convinced of one thing: the Canadian people will have their revenge and treat according to their desserts 
those politicians whose blind obstinacy will have ruined our agriculture and given a mortal blow to our economic and financial set-up.
And the government set forth as an excuse the so-called postponements granted to farmers. Mr. Chairman, I shall say a few words about them. Let us be frank. How much trouble and bother, how many attestations before a notary public, and visits to their members of parliament and how much loss of time do these precious postponements occasion. What a joke! On the other hand, how many requests have had no other answer than a railway or bus ticket accompanied by a notice to report at a military camp. Let us stop being hypocrites. The government have deceived us long enough. We are now witnessing, in this country, the worst example of hypocrisy and lying of all ages. Never before have so many promises been broken when their fulfilment was known to be an impossibility from the beginning. Never have so many sacred undertakings been trampled, underfoot by a government who climbed into power by promising to adopt a programme the exact opposite of that which is implemented. This government has been guilty of the worst breach of trust ever. Is it surprising that dissatisfaction is apparent in every section of the country? Is it surprising that strikes are breaking out all over Canada? The people, whom the government themselves have 60 often let down, are rightfully mistrustful and alarmed. They groan under burdensome taxes brought about by the extravagance and the shameful waste of a government so thriftless that our money will remain devaluated for a long time to come. Our dollar is now worth 10 cents less than the American dollar whereas, before the outbreak of the war, in 1939, it was worth 17 cents more. Our whole resources are mobilized, not only for war purposes, but for the enrichment of a flock of vultures wrangling over the last scraps of our economy. Witness the Lynches, in Montreal, the Engineering Works, that stole $250,000 from the government who took two and a half years to find it out. In the space of a few months, the government purchase close to a million dollars' worth of luxurious furniture for military camps. The same hypocrisy and deceit are always in evidence. The government recklessly spend the taxpayers' money. Scandals multiply. Our war expenditures committee is made up of eighteen Liberals and six members of the opposition. Can you see any fairness and equity in such a set up? We have here in the cabinet three new millionaires who have made their money since the war's outbreak. We shall denounce them at the proper time and

War Appropriation-Labour
place. Fortunes are being built up. I say to the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) that the minions of the regime are having a wonderful time and that those war profiteers all fondly hope that the war may last forever. They don't care a fig for our soldiers. They scoop up money by the handful out of our revenue and, as we shall prove in due course, they celebrate on behalf of those who work, who suffer and who toll. This shameful situation besmirches the fair name and spells the ruin of a country which, but yesterday, was proud and free! Not only that but, in the very name of freedom, liberties are now being despoiled which were dearly bought after centuries of struggle and include the most precious and sacred of them all-the freedom of speech. I appeal now to the Minister of Justice in the case of Mr. Camillien Houde, former mayor of Montreal, who is being shamefully persecuted. Why did the minister withdraw the charges against Colonel Drew? Yes, why did he?


Mr. LALONDE (Translation):: Order, Mr. Chairman!	.


Liguori Lacombe: Just a moment, we know all about you.


Maurice Lalonde: I suggest the hon. member is out of order when he refers to the case of Mr. Camillien Houde while the house is discussing the estimates of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). He will probably have full opportunity to do so later. I submit the hon. member is out of order.


Liguori Lacombe: This is possibly the most elaborate work we can undertake and the work of greatest national import I can tackle.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I would ask the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains to remain within the limits of the matter before the house. He surely has no right to deal with this matter now, but he may do so when the house considers in committee the estimates pertaining to the Department of Justice.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that we are discussing general estimates, war estimates under a motion which appears on the order paper, and that I have a perfect right to deal with the case of Mr. Camillien Houde.


Maurice Lalonde: The hon. member has no right to broach that subject.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I have expressed my opinion.


Liguori Lacombe: I know the Liberal member is too skittish, he who defeated Mr. Bourassa, the most independent and truly Canadian man who ever lived.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Orderl I would request the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains to abide by the decision I have just given. With his parliamentary experience, the hon. member should realize that this is not the time to discuss the estimates of the Minister of Justice. I do hope he will obey this ruling. Otherwise, I shall be compelled to resort to other means.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Chairman, I admire your sense of equity and of justice. I realize that your decision does not reflect your personal feelings and I know full well that there are members here who are interested in preventing me from having my say. It was not the Minister of Justice who raised the point of order.


Maurice Lalonde: The last words of the hon. member might convey the impression that I am one of those who are interested in seeing that certain things should not be revealed in parliament, in connection with Mr. Camillien Houde.


Liguori Lacombe: I submit the hon. member has no right to interrupt me without my permission. I shall pay a visit to the hon. member for Labelle the next time elections will take place in his riding.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains has said that the Chair may be influenced in its rulings some way or another. I will tell the hon. member that the rulings of the Chair have never been subject to any influence whatever on any occasion or at any time, and I ask him to withdraw his statement.


Liguori Lacombe: What must I withdraw, Mr. Chairman?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that the Chair was influenced in its rulings. I wish to say to the hon. member that he must withdraw the remarks he has made in this connection. Never, under any circumstances, has the Chair been influenced in any way when giving its ruling.


Liguori Lacombe: I have never said you had been subjected to any form of influence. I said you wrere just and equitable. You may ask the Clerk of the House and those who have heard me. They know what I said. I have nothing to withdraw. I will say what I have to say in this house; I have already been ordered out of this chamber; if it is necessary I will suffer to be turned out once more, and I don't care a rap.


Maurice Lalonde: Good riddance !

War Appropriation-Labour


Liguori Lacombe: As I said a while ago, these individuals are digging into our revenues with their tw7o hands; they are celebrating in the name of those who toil and labour, nay in the name of liberty itself. Here, those liberties for which we have fought so hard during centuries are thrown overboard. The most sacred of these liberties is done away with, namely, freedom of speech in this British country of ours.
I now wish to call the attention, of the house- to the abuses which are taking place in our war industries. I have already called the labour minister's attention to all these irregularities and injustices which have been brought to light in these plants. Bribery is still a common practice. Labourers are laid off while ipersons who are financially independent are being given the best .positions. It is currently repeated,-and I think I ought to know since more than 2,000 of my voters are engaged in war work in the Bouchard plant,- that one must pay ten or twenty dollars in order to obtain and to keep one's job. It is a shame in a country where our workers are overburdened with taxes. As I did more than two years ago, I suggest again to the government that all war industries should be placed under the supervision of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Let us now speak of the labour in those industries. Through lack of materials the workmen employed in the war industries have been out of work most of the time.


Mr. LEDUC (Translation):: That is not true.


Liguori Lacombe: If it is not true, prove it. I ask the hon. member for Wright to rise from his seat and to prove his assertion if he can do it, and I invite him not to stand behind the curtains. Name those industries.


Rodolphe Leduc: About those industries, no workmen have been out of work for lack of material. The hon. member is saying those things. Let him prove them.


Mr LACOMBE (Translation):: In reply to the hon. member for AAr right I state once more that the workmen were out of work for lack of material. Hundreds of workmen were sleeping on the job at the Bouchard plant, at Ste. Therese, fifteen miles from my own town. They had no lumber, no nickel, nothing to work on. Let the hon. member pay a visit to my beautiful county. I shall be glad to show him round the lovely touristic region. Then, we shall go to the Bouchard plant where he will see for himself all the extravagance going on in that war industry. I once said to the hon. member for Wright that he would sooner
LMr. Lacombe.]
or later be appointed to the senate-he would not get a judgeship because he does not belong to the legal profession as does the hon. member for Labelle before whom I might perhaps be fortunate enough to appear.


Maurice Lalonde: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has no right to impute motives.


Liguori Lacombe: I am not insinuating anything. I hope he may be appointed a judge in the Terrebonne district.


Maurice Lalonde: I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to order the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains to confine his remarks to the matter before the committee.


Liguori Lacombe: It is an indiscretion, Mr. Chairman,. possibly because judges are appointed by the Minister of Justice, not by me. I am the leader of a small party, the only leader-


Maurice Lalonde: Very small.


Liguori Lacombe: Very small, but also very great. .


Maurice Lalonde: Tiny.


Liguori Lacombe: Great oaks from little acorns grow. I hope that my good friend from Labelle may get a judgeship as soon as possible because otherwise he will take a good licking in his own constituency and I would not get much satisfaction in ensuring his defeat for he is a good friend of mine, but we will have to stick to our principles and fight him.


Maurice Lalonde: The hon.
member is welcome to it.


Liguori Lacombe: Is it a
challenge?


Maurice Lalonde: Yes.


Liguori Lacombe: I am delighted to accept the challenge.


Rodolphe Leduc: The hon. member has been so successful in some by-elections that he must be right.
Mr. LACOMBE (Translation) AVe shall see. The hon. member should not raise the question of by-elections, because that would hurt the Minister of Justice, his leader. We will have the opportunity to talk about it later. I have raised in this house the question of fake voters' lists used in the constituencies of Quebec East and Montreal-Saint Mary and I was prevented from arguing the point.
Mr. ST. LAURENT (Translation):	I ask
that the rules be applied, Mr. Chairman. The hon, member is absolutely out of order in mak-

War Appropriation-Labour
ing these innuendoes which he knows as well as I do to be false, wrhile the estimates of the Minister of Labour are before the committee. I ask you to call him to order.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: On the point of order raised by the hon. Minister of Justice, I again remind the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains that he must confine his remarks to the question before the house and I hope that he will abide by my ruling. Otherwise I shall have to name him.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Chairman, if I said anything displeasing to the Minister of Justice, it is because his friends have raised a point of order. At the opportune moment we will discuss all that and we will talk about the elections held on February 9, 1942, in Quebec East and Montreal-Saint Mary. It is a long time since that happened, but we have kept the voters' lists as well as the telegrams.
Mr. Chairman, what about the useless cuts of lumber and construction waste which are prevalent in those war plants? At a time when there is such a shortage of fuel wood and lumber, the government takes no notice of such disgraceful abuses. Therefore, it is our duty to expose those prodigalities, all of which are detrimental to Canada. Next winter, needy families will freeze because of the government's lack of foresight. I can see the hon. Minister of Labour smiling, his sympathetic face is just beaming. The poor people of the country will not be smiling then. The hon. member for Labelle will not be smiling either, he who, together with two other French-Canadian members of the House of Commons, has applauded the statement of the Minister of Justice to the effect that Houde should remain in the internment camp. What kindness of heart! That afforded pleasure to the hon. member for Labelle.


Maurice Lalonde: Certainly.
I hope that he will remain there for a long time.
Mr. ST. LAURENT (Translation):	Mr. Chairman, does your task consist in merely expressing a wish that hon. members confine their remarks to the matter under discussion, or should it imply that hon. members cannot everlastingly revert to it despite your ruling?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The chairman of the committee is in a rather delicate position. There are some rules which the chairman is bound to enforce under penalty of losing the confidence of the committee. I hope the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains will find it possible, under the present circumstances, to confine his remarks to relevant matters. This is the last time I appeal to the good will of the hon. member.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Chairman, we are now debating a resolution appearing in the orders of the day. This is all I have in front of me. As a lawyer, and the hon. Minister of Justice is a very brilliant lawyer, he knows that I have to confine myself to the terms of the resolution. This is what I am doing. I shall read it to the committee:
Resolved,-that it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide, inter alia,
Among other things, I might say, for the benefit of those who do not know Latin.
1. That sums not exceeding $2,593,333,333.34 (being two-thirds of $3,890,000,000) be granted to His Majesty towards defraying any expenses or making any advances or loans that may be incurred or granted by or under authority of the governor in council during the year ending March 31, 1944, for-
(a)	the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada;
Here is a very broad paragraph; however, I see nothing in it of a nature to protect agriculture.
(b)	the conduct of naval, military and air operations in or beyond Canada;
(c)	promoting the continuance of trade, industry and business communications.
Am I not entitled to discuss what is taking place in the war industries? Am I not entitled, Mr. Chairman, to discuss public order and Canadian legislation; am I not entitled to speak of the internment of Mr. Camillien Houde, under such an item as this?
Mr. ST. LAURENT (Translation): Order!


Liguori Lacombe: The Minister of Justice is a great lawyer.
Mr. ST. LAURENT (Translation): I understood a while ago, that you had given a ruling, Mr. Chairman, and that the hon member was not entitled, at this stage, to discuss the internment of Mr. Houde.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I request the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains to resume his seat.
Mr. ST. LAURENT (Translation)':	The
hon. member is dealing again with the matter and his whole argument purports to show that your ruling was unwarranted. On a point of order, I submit to you that once you have given a ruling, it is not in order for an hon. member to question it. He must simply abide by it.


Liguori Lacombe: I realize
that the hon. the Minister of Justice, while he is- an outstanding barrister, acting as he does as solicitor for the bank of Montreal, the Canadian Pacific, and every monoply and trust, has not much parliamentary experience. He ought to know that I am entitled to discuss here a
War Appropriation-Labour

matter of public concern, a legislation of a public character, under which a Canadian citizen has been interned. He ought to know that. In any case, Mr. Chairman, if I am prevented from speaking, that is all right, but I know that the Minister of Justice wishes to withhold something.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Liguori Lacombe: For my part, I will not withhold it. I will disclose it. I will produce the document if he refuses to bring it down.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: May I ask the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains to resume his seat so that I can give my ruling. The hon. member was to a certain extent within his rights in speaking on the resolution that is now before the committee, but I do not know whether he was in the house when, during the discussion on the four preceding departments, the committee unanimously decided that each item be taken up separately. The estimates of the Department of Labour are now before the committee. The chair must follow the directions given by the majority or unanimously decided upon by the committee of the whole. That is why I earnestly request the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains to confine his remarks to the items of the Department of Labour. When the estimates of the Department of Justice are again before the committee, he will have every opportunity to discuss all matters pertaining to the administration of justice.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Chairman, while I duly respect the ruling of the chair, I am quite surprised that you should deny me the opportunity to discuss this matter, in view of the fact that the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation has been allowed to deal with matters of general policy this afternoon.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Order.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order.


Liguori Lacombe: There are two standards of justice here.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. I would ask the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains to postpone this discussion until the estimates of the Department of Justice are before the committee. He may be sure that every opportunity will then be afforded him. Rules are absolutely necessary and must be applied, if our work is to proceed in a practical and logical maimer. I know that the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains would be the first to support such a course.


Liguori Lacombe: The hon. member'for St. Mary (Mr. Fauteux), who is in

agreement with the hon. member for Labelle and with my fellow-member for Wright, has attacked members of the Progressive Conservative party, charging them with having demanded conscription and with being themselves responsible for the present labour shortage. Let us set the facts in their true light, Mr. Chairman. On February 19, 1942, I moved in this house an amendment to the address, wherein I demanded the exemption of farmers and fishermen and workers in war industries. The hon. members for Wright and for Labelle were the first to vote against it, and on the very day he entered parliament, together with the hon. Minister of Justice, the hon. member for St. Mary also voted against my amendment. A year ago to the day, the hon. member for Riehelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) moved another amendment calling for the exemption of farmers, and the hon. members all voted against it. Let there be an end of this tragic game, Mr. Chairman. Let the hon. members be sincere once for all. Actions only are important. Let there be no more great speeches. Let the government help the farmers, because they know quite well that our armies could not live without food. Seeding is scarcely completed in many provinces of eastern Canada.


Maurice Lalonde: Due to bad weather.


Liguori Lacombe: Due to bad government. Once again the Liberal government will not be in a position to say that Providence is with them. They used to say: We have a bountiful harvest; Providence is with us. Providence has forsaken them for very good reasons.


Maurice Lalonde: For the
Canadian party.


Liguori Lacombe: As we,
ourselves, have forsaken them for similar reasons. As for my young friend the hon. member for Labelle, I wish him a long parliamentary career.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Order!
(Text) Mr. MITCHELL: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. This is a war appropriation


Liguori Lacombe: Louder
please. Do not speak to the Chairman. I want to hear something too.


Humphrey Mitchell: This is a war appropriation, and if my hon. friend wants to fight a private war across the floor of this house with one of his fellow members I suggest

War Appropriation-Labour
it would be better if he would settle it out in the lobby and let us get on with the business of the house.


Liguori Lacombe: I will answer the minister. I have the resolution before me. Perhaps I may not be required to read it because it is very long, but I submit, Mr. Chairman, that I am justified in discussing this resolution.


Humphrey Mitchell: I ask for a ruling on the point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains has still five minutes to go. A fairly wide latitude has been allowed the previous speakers in this debate, and I must allow the same latitude to the hon. member.


Humphrey Mitchell: That may be true, Mr. Chairman, but I do not think there is any justification for a ruling that a man can be out of order for another five minutes. That does not add up to me.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The minister cannot criticize the Chairman's ruling. He may appeal. I have followed the debate closely; when a point of order was raised before, I tried to keep the hon. member in order, and for the last few minutes of his speech he has been in order.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Chairman, I shall not take up the full five minutes to which I am still entitled, but, with your permission, I would like to relate to the committee a very bewildering anecdote. It is not a product of the hon. member for Labelle's imagination; it was thought out by the hon. member for Montreal-St. Mary. He has claimed that Progressive Conservatives, the Cooperative Commonweath Federation members and the Social Crediters alike had demanded the implementation of conscription by the government. The hon. member for Montreal-St. Mary must have known that conscription was already on our statute books.


Maurice Lalonde: It has not been enforced.


Liguori Lacombe: It is being enforced since June 19. What does the hon. member for Labelle think of our contingents posted in Newfoundland, the Caribbean and Jamaica. Let us not delude ourselves; it is being enforced. The hon. member for Montreal-St. Mary condemns conscription after having voted for it when section 3 of the mobilization act was dropped and he still approves of it when he supports the policies of the present government. Let those who have deprived our farmers of their help bear their own responsibility. I shall have done my duty in this house; that is all.
(Text). Mr. MacNICOL:	Mr. Chairman,
after listening to what I may describe as a burlesque if that is parliamentary, for almost forty minutes, I wonder if those who listen to us believe that we really know there is a war on and that a great many of our brothers and kin are dying or at least fighting for us overseas, offering their lives to save civilization and Canada besides. The Minister of Labour has a most arduous and difficult task in trying to obtain the men to provide the munitions for our boys overseas, and I for one want to help him get on with this work.
I shall speak only briefly. I have no apologies for speaking in this debate. I represent no fewer than 45,000 to 50,000 honest-to-goodness industrious, harcLworking men and women engaged in the great factories in the riding of Davenport, and I would feel that I was not doing my duty if I did not say a word or two on this subject.
I want to help the minister as much as I can. When he was appointed Minister of Labour I expressed my strong approval, for whatever faults he may have-I am not going to talk about his faults-he is at least a labour man. He has served in the ranks of labour and in industry and ought to be as well qualified as any man to hold the position he occupies.
There is a great man-power problem; there is no question about that, and the Minister of Labour knows that better than any other member of the house. The Minister of Munitions and Supply said just a few days ago that he could place 40,000 men in industry. That was an arbitrary figure. He might have meant 60,000 more or less. In any event there is a man-power problem. I should like to make it easier for the minister. I have been in industry and labour most of my working life and know something about operating industry and about working in plants. There are several ways in which industry can be speeded up, and I shall speak only of industry. Others have spoken of other callings in which our citizens are engaged and have advanced arguments as to why more men should be made available in those callings. But I confine myself to industry.
Production can be increased in four ways. First, by speeding up the machinery in the plants. I do not know whether that would be advisable under present conditions because many of the folks working in industry are elderly and many others are young. The most experienced men and the more physically fit are not all in industry, but countless thousands have joined the armed forces, so that I doubt very much whether speeding up the machines

War Appropriation-Labour

would increase production. It would probably do an>
injury to the two classes I have mentioned.
The second way to speed up would be for man-power to speed up, but I doubt whether you can do much there. The youths working in the plants are not experienced enough to speed up, and the elderly men are past their day for speeding up. I am afraid that an endeavour to speed up man-power would mean more accidents, and one can see by reading the papers and looking over the lists of those drawing compensation that there are too many accidents now.
The third method by which we can increase production is by reducing absenteeism. This is a much greater problem than perhaps many of us realize. The minister is not to blame for absenteeism. I do not know that he can do anything to reduce it. But there is altogether too much absenteeism. A gentleman told me when I was home last, and he is a man who should know, that in the plant where he was, at least 10 per cent of the possible productivity of the plant was lost through absenteeism. I asked him for the reason, and he said that if the workmen worked six days a week or put in a full week they received so much pay and had to pay so much income tax. But if they worked only four or five days a week no tax was deducted from their pay cheques, and they felt, "We might better take a holiday than work because we shall be just as far ahead. If we work another day we shall have the tax to pay." How that is to be overcome I do not know. I see the minister nods his head; he recognizes that it is a problem, and he deserves the sympathy and advice of anyone who can give him advice on how to reduce absenteeism. Perhaps the Minister of Finance could so adjust workmen's tax matters that the Minister of Labour would have a chance to work his whole labour organization to the limit. That is one way by which productivity can be increased.
The fourth method is to get more workers. I do not know how that can be done. I assume the government is trying to obtain all the workers it can. If every riding in Canada had enrolled as great a percentage as has Davenport in the army and industry there might be another million available. Why are they not enrolled everywhere? I do not offer any comment. It is not my duty to say where workers can be got. But the fact is that nearly everybody in my riding has been enrolled in one form or another, including many who should not have been called upon. When I was home last I went to see a young man 
who has flat feet, a weak back, and is otherwise physically unfit; yet he had a paper- the second one-summoning him to appear for enrolment.


Humphrey Mitchell: Would that be for medical examination?


Mr. MacNICOL:: Well, he had been down and was classed as C2, but he told me that they were calling him again, even though he had formerly been classified in a non-military category. This man operates with his mother a pressing and cleaning parlour. For the life of me I cannot understand why such men are called to serve either in the army or anywhere else. Even if the pressing and cleaning business is a non-war work, somebody has to look after the mother and somebody has to pay taxes to keep the war machine going. This man is only one of several with whom I have come in contact, and whom I could name, who are in a like situation. It is a big problem, and I know that, under the circumstances in which they are working, the department have their hands full to deal with it.
I read last evening in one of the newspapers a dispatch from Fredericton of June 22, which is in part as follows:
Claims knot in man-power Ottawa fault Could have avoided muddle by adopting total war plan years ago, says legion head
Fredericton, June 22-If the dominion government had accepted the Canadian Legion's plan for "total war" three years ago, Canada would not be handicapped at present by a "terrible man-power muddle," declared Alex Walker, national president of the legion, in addressing the annual convention of the legion's New Brunswick command to-day.
I am not so conversant with the situation as to know all that President Walker knows. He is only one of a number, including my own leader, who have stated that there is a manpower muddle. This has been denied by hon. members on the other side. Anyway the problem is of major magnitude, and I feel it my duty not to throw fuel on the fire or cause any trouble that I can avoid. I would rather help in some way or another to solve the difficulty.
I have thought a long time that some way should be found of eliminating strikes. I am not finding fault with those who strike, or with the employers of the strikers. There must be faults on both sides. Labour is not wholly to blame; industry, certainly, is not all to blame. I have been wondering whether the minister during the recess, when the rest of us are away, would call a parliament of industry and labour. Perhaps if it were brought together in this chamber, it could

War Appropriation-Labour
help to solve the problem. Let leaders of industry and labour talk back and forth across the floor, and let the minister, his officers and his departmental heads try to bring these two great classes together, at least until the termination of the war. The winning of the war is so huge a task that not an hour should be lost in any factory, mine, or elsewhere; every man or woman should be working to the extent of his or her capabilities. How are we to get them to do that unless we eliminate the causes of trouble between them? I regard with considerable admiration Senator Wagner, of the United States, a great representative of labour who did an outstanding job in that country. I like particularly the preamble of the so-called Wagner act, which reads:
An act to diminish the causes of labour disputes burdening or obstructing interstate and foreign commerce, to create a national labour relations board and for other purposes.
I have heard, although I am not familiar with the facts, that a national labour board has been set up in this country; if not, perhaps a board of this kind on the United States model might be helpful to us. That is not to say that the United States is free from strikes. But it is well to remember that, with their vast population, they have difficulties which we in Canada do not have to meet. We have our own problems; they have theirs. Perhaps all of us, working together, might succeed in removing causes of friction at any rate until the war ends.
Section 1 of the Wagner act reads:
The denial by employers of the right of employees to organize and the refusal of employers to accept the procedure of collective bargaining lead to strikes and other forms of industrial strife and unrest, which have the intent or necessary effect of burdening or obstructing commerce.
These words are absolutely true. We have not a collective bargaining act applicable to all Canada. Some of the provinces, I understand, are enacting such legislation. But would it not be a great deal better if the federal labour department provided a form of collective bargaining act which would be suitable to all the provinces? I cannot see any objection to collective bargaining, and I worked for many years in a big industry. Certainly the grievances of the employees would be voiced a little more emphatically. Apparently labour is stirred with the desire for collective bargaining. It is enforced in the United States and elsewhere; the Ontario government has passed a collective bargaining act; why should we not have similar legislation applicable to all Canada? If industry is not freed from the threat of strikes and workmen are not freed
72537-256J
from the necessity of going on strike, I cannot see much hope that this country will increase its productivity.
An increased productivity should be the main objective. Certainly when men are contented there are fewer accidents in factories, and when they are discontented there are more. I ought to know because I have spent many years in association with workers in factories. When men are receiving a fair return for a fair day's work and adequate rest periods they are not likely to cause trouble. Many factories, recognizing this fact, have such rest periods, and I suggest that it should be the practice throughout the country. There should be a rest period in the forenoon and again in the afternoon. Some factories serve tea to their workers and there are no labour difficulties there. Everyone is satisfied. Naturally the workmen in other factories, observing this, and not enjoying the same privilege themselves, become dissatisfied.
I urge the Minister of Labour to take this point seriously into consideration. I have confidence in him, and I may tell him that I have not had confidence in some other Ministers of Labour. I have confidence in men who know about labour at first hand, but I have little confidence in those whose knowledge of labour and labour conditions is purely theoretical, because there is a great deal of difference between knowing something as a result of reading it in a book and knowing the same thing as a result of practical experience. I suggest to the minister that it would be a very good thing if he would try to bring about throughout the country such conditions as I have mentioned.
Why should there not be a rest period, morning and afternoon? Experience shows that men and women who enjoy such a period do better work. Employers who give their employees rest periods assure me that the workers, both men and women, produce more. But it seems to take some people a long time to learn the importance of fair and honest treatment of men and women working in industry. Just as the management would like to be treated if positions were reversed, so should the people working under them be treated. That is one suggestion I offer the minister.
And now one further word before I conclude. I do not know whether there is a man-power muddle, but all the authorities seem to say that there is. Boards here and there, annual meetings, conventions and so on are all discussing the man-power problem
<
4050	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Labour
^and talking about the muddle. But that [DOT]'does not help the minister at all. What is wanted is something practical that will give him real assistance. That is imperative, and I will close with this remark about the threatening coal emergency. Do the Canadian people realize what will be staring them in the face three or four months hence? The weather is hot now and it will be for two or three months more, but about the middle of September people will [DOT]certainly want coal, and it is no use telling them that they will have to do without heat. Tf they cannot heat their houses, they will Slave to call in the doctor and health will be impaired all round.
The question of course is, what can we do to help the minister to obtain men to send to the coal mines. In this connection I may remark that the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), in my opinion, made a fair speech the other day. He strikes me as being a sane labour man, the kind I hope I am myself. I have been identified with labour for many years, and the fact that the hon. member and I are of different parties is neither here nor there, so long as our intentions are for the good of the country. We are all Canadians when our lives are threatened, not only overseas but by a shortage of coal.
I wish I knew some way in which I could help the minister to provide men to produce the coal we must have. It certainly is a problem. I notice the following press dispatch dated Winnipeg, June 24, under the heading, "Coal Dealers Plead for Aid-Ask Mitchell Draft Men on Compulsory Basis." This dispatch states:
Labour minister Mitchell has been asked by the coal dealers of Winnipeg to draft men on a compulsory basis to handle deliveries here.
That is merely deliveries, so that it is getting very serious if we have trouble not only in production but at the delivery end. The dispatch states further:
Dealers in greater Winnipeg are reduced to skeleton staffs and utterly unable to make deliveries to thousands of consumers who have ordered fuel.
That does present a grave problem, and I only wish I knew how I could help the minister. I want to see him succeed and overcome the difficulties with which he is now faced. There is a huge man-power problem before us. Whether it is a muddle or anything else, the problem is there, and if I have said anything that will help him in the slightest degree I shall consider myself repaid.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. ISNOR:: The statement which has been distributed shows a total of $21,558,192 as the Department of Labour's portion of the war appropriation, and the first item of $36,882 covers the coordination of ship loading and unloading operations at the port of Halifax. I do not wish to deal with these estimates in a general way; I want to speak to this item alone, as it has to do with that particular activity in the port of Halifax, because I am interested in learning what has taken place in connection with the loading and unloading of supplies for overseas.
I recall that when Mr. Justice Thorson was chairman of the special committee on war expenditures he wrote all members of parliament asking for suggestions as to what might be undertaken by his committee, and on that occasion I replied as follows:
In reply to your letter of March 15 addressed to the members, requesting suggestions as to any subject that might usefully be inquired into by your committee, I feel from perusal of the names of the members composing your committee that careful study will be made from every possible angle as to the expenditures for the defence services and for other services directly connected with the war. But I feel that your reference also extends to the probabilities and possibilities of methods whereby savings can be effected, and with this in view, I wish to place before your committee the question of investigating the most direct and advantageous route from which to ship supplies between Canada and Great Britain.
I believe that, if any moneys are to be expended to increase facilities to handle the supplies in the quickest possible manner, said expenditures should be made at a port which can give full service for the entire 365 days of the year. I think, on investigation, you will find that the port of Halifax is the shortest route both to London and to Liverpool; and, as this port is open the year round, and is considered one of the finest, if not the finest, harbour in the world, every facility should be provided to prevent any bottleneck existing that would slow up shipment of supplies that are so badly needed.
We know of the demand for planes, guns, ammunition and supplies, and we know that the production of all these is being speeded to the highest possible point; but there is a question in the minds of many as to whether as much consideration has been given to the transportation problem, both by rail and -water, as is necessary; and it is because of this that I feel that your committee would be justified in going into the matter quite fully, with a view to recommending to the government that added facilities should be made on both the western side of the harbour as well as the eastern, and that a certain amount of goods should be switched at Waverley junction and brought into the Dartmouth side so as to avoid any congestion which might otherwise exist on the Halifax side of the harbour.

War Appropriation

Labour
I also believe it comes under the jurisdiction of your committee to look into the question of speedy dispatch of ships, and facilities for the repairs of these ships, so as not to unduly delay their departure. You have on your committee men who are familiar with the questions both of ships and repairs and the necessary facilities to expedite speedy handling of goods, and I would respectfully suggest that a subcommittee be set up to inquire into and report on this important phase of our war activities.
That letter is signed by myself. I brought this matter to the attention of the committee because I felt it to' be important, and I considered that it should be given attention in order that supplies to our troops overseas might be speeded up. I also wanted to impress upon the committee that Halifax was the shortest and quickest route for the shipment of our supplies to Britain. I recalled at the time that a question had been placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Hatfield) as to the average sailing time of a sixteen-knot vessel from the port of London to three eastern Canadian ports. In reply, the following information was given. It would take such a vessel 203 hours to go from London to Montreal, 182 hours to go from London to Saint John and 172 hours to go from London to Halifax. So that by shipping goods from Halifax to London there would be a saving of thirty-one hours as compared with the port of Montreal.
I believe the present minister must have had that in mind, because when he took over his duties he visited Halifax where he met the longshoremen and went into the matter of the loading and unloading of goods, the turning of ships and the dispatch of ships in order to bring about speedier handling of goods. As an outcome of his investigation he put through order in council P.C. 3511, dated April 30, 1942, under which he was given authority to appoint a controller of loading operations. The order in council also outlined the duties of the controller and gave him authority to give proper direction as to how the work was tp be carried on; to decide any disputes arising in connection with such action; to conduct a registration of longshoremen, and so on. Then the longshoremen of the port of Halifax, a very fine body of men numbering some 1,500, were requested to take in an additional 600 men. to be known as temporary longshoremen. The order in council also set out the procedure to be followed in making orders for working at night and on holidays. The controller was to recommend to the minister any changes or improvement in shipbuilding methods and facilities which might bring about more speedy or better methods of handling goods.
Another matter which was covered in thi8, and which the minister took up at the time he was in Halifax, was the method of hiring individuals. The new method was set out in the order in council, and it is for that reason that I wish to inquire from the minister as to the results brought about by the order in council, and as to whether the port controller, and the new system which has been inaugurated, are bringing about the results the minister desired in that connection.
I should point out that Halifax is one of those ports which come under the control of the national harbours board, and I believe it is the only port under their control which shows a net operating surplus. For instance, last year the port of Montreal showed a deficit of SI,734,429.42; the port of Quebec showed a deficit of $1,561,53222; Saint John showed a deficit of $243,039.52, while Halifax showed a net operating surplus of $232,436.91.
I believe the size of the port at Halifax is well known. Hon. members will be familiar with the fact that it is a fine harbour, and today it is one of the busiest ports in the world. The safety in which ships can sail in and out of the harbour, and the speedy manner in which ships of any size can dock, are points worthy of consideration. I recall, for instance, that when in 1939 the king and queen were leaving Canada they sailed from the port of Halifax, on the Empress of Britain. Since that time the Empress of Britain has been lost. But that large ship of 36,000 tons was able to leave the dock and make a complete turn in the harbour without the assistance of any tugs whatsoever.
These are points which must be considered not only by the Minister of Labour but by the Minister of Munitions and Supply when they are issuing directions as to how supplies are to be sent overseas. This afternoon the hon, member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) raised the question of invasion. I do not know how quickly that will take place, but it is certainly being talked about at the present time. Undoubtedly when it does take place reinforcements will be needed; added supplies of food will have to be sent overseas, and munitions and other types of supplies will be required in large quantities. These must be handled in the fastest possible way, and that is the reason why I bring to the attention of the Minister of Labour these points respecting Halifax harbour.
Halifax is a very busy seaport. Not only has the population of the city increased by something like 30,000 or 35,000, apart from the armed forces, but industries have shown
War Appropriation-Labour

a marked increase in their number of employees. For instance, the Halifax shipyards, on the Halifax side showed an increase in 1942 over 1941 of 147-93 per cent. Their branch in Dartmouth, on the eastern side of the harbour, showed an increase of 67-71 per cent in the number of employees. The Halifax dockyard, where our ships of war are refitted, has increased the number of employees to such an extent that last year it showed an increase of 148-4 per cent. Clarke Ruse Limited of Dartmouth showed an increase of 102-39 per cent. These four companies alone showed an average increase of something like 91-60 per cent increase in the number of employees.
I was surprised the other evening to hear the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) speak of the railways of Canada in the manner in which he did. We who come from the eastern section of Canada are familiar with the efficient manner in which the Canadian National Railways in particular have handled freight going into Halifax. They have made a wonderful showing ini handling goods, and in having a sufficient number of ships at hand to take care of the goods brought to the port by the railways.
To give some idea of the business carried on in Halifax I would point out that the revenue for that port last year was $1,832,318, as against $1,593,479 in 1941, or an increase in revenue of the national harbours board of $238,839. These figures will serve to show the volume of goods being shipped through that port.
There is one other indication of the amount of business being done at Halifax, namely, the amount of freight handled, as shown in the report of the Canadian National Railways for 1942, under the heading of "operating revenue in respect of freight." For 1942 the figure is $284,427,334.25, as against $236,519,309.12 in 1941, or an increase in handling of freight by the Canadian National Railways of $47,906,025.13. I would not say that this increase is made up entirely in the eastern section of Canada, or the Atlantic region, but a great part of it is. The Atlantic region is particularly busy.
I would ask the minister to outline to the committee just what action he is taking, and the results brought about at the port of Halifax in regard to the handling of supplies, as provided in this particular item. Last year there was an amount of $28,600 set forth for loading and unloading ships. This year the amount is $36,882, or an increase of $8,282. While the minister is giving information as to the steps taken by his depart-

ment since he took over his duties as Minister of Labour, perhaps he would also let us know something about the floating equipment at the port of Halifax, as to who owns it, the manner in which it is rented out, and the revenue derived therefrom. I might say for the benefit of hon. members that prior to 1939 both incoming and outgoing freight was handled over our piers. These are fine and well-equipped piers, and they have the proper facility to handle supplies both incoming and outgoing. But on account of the exceptionally large amount of goods for shipment overseas it was necessary tc bring in certain floating equipment. It is in connection with the floating equipment I would ask the minister to give us some information. How is this new scheme working out? What is the amount of goods handled by it, and the revenue derived therefrom?
I should like the minister to give particulars of the appointment of the port controller which was covered by the order in council. Could the minister give us his name and the name of any assistants who have been brought in to handle freight at Halifax? Are they carrying on their duties satisfactorily?
I said that I did not intend to deal with this general item but rather to confine my remarks to item No. 1. I do this because I want definite information in regard to this item, and I was hoping that we might get started on this one item and then go on to the others in an orderly manner, thus saving considerable time and enabling the minister to answer our questions in an intelligent way. That cannot be done when we jump all around as we have been doing. I would appreciate it if the minister could give me this information in regard to these men and whether they have brought about any improvement in the condition there.


Humphrey Mitchell: In reply to the senior hon. member from Halifax, I would say that just over a year ago when great shipping losses were occurring and there was an urgent need to turn ships around in Halifax as quickly as possible, I visited that port and discussed the whole matter with the longshoremen's organization. Arising out of my visit, arrangements were made for the setting up of a hiring hall and the passing of an order in council regulating the loading and unloading of ships. This has resulted in a tremendous increase in the tonnage handled by the port of Halifax. A controller was appointed, the dean of the law school of Dalhousie university, Mr. Vincent MacDonald, who is now assistant deputy minister of labour, and later Captain R. G. Perchard took over his duties. Mr. JUNE 25, 1943
War Appropriation-Labour
C.	W. Train of Vancouver was engaged as special consultant and Captain W. F. Spring was appointed as loading superintendent. After consultation with the union we appointed
D.	C. Reid, H. W. MacLeod and F. R. Penny as dispatchers in connection with the new set-up.
I have known the heads of the longshoremen's union for many years. I addressed them when I was there in Halifax. I told them that any amendments which it might be found necessary to make to their agreement would be cancelled at the conclusion of the war. In the organization of this undertaking I think tribute should be paid to Mr. Joseph Ryan, international president of the longshoremen's union in New York, which is the parent organization of the longshoremen in Halifax. I do not need to tell the committee that the longshoreman's work is much like that of a miner. It is a hazardous occupation. In some respects it is a highly skilled occupation, because it takes skill to stow a ship so that she will not capsize when she encounters weather in the open sea.
In addition to the arrangements that have been made already, we intend to set up a labour pool of about 750 men in Halifax in addition to the longshoremen who are at present engaged there. This will be a mobile labour pool for use in other vocations or callings and in the loading and unloading of ships in other ports when it is needed. The suggestion was received by the labour department from certain quarters that we should use army labour battalions as is being done in the United States, but we felt it would be better to develop this pool on a civilian basis. The men are to be paid the regular union rates of wages. Housing accommodation will also be provided. I want to make it clear to hon. members that this pool will not be used in the loading and unloading of ships until the men in the organization at Halifax have been given an opportunity to go to work.
As I said, the pool will be used in emergencies, when there are no other men to load and unload ships at Halifax or any other port. These 750 men are to be given a guaranteed work week of forty-eight hours, which I believe is the standard union week in that community. It should be pointed out of course that they will have to be available for work in order to get the forty-eight hour guarantee. This is somewhat similar to the arrangement that exists in Great Britain. I do not need to tell the committee how important it is to turn ships around in Canadian ports under present conditions. A speed-up of your turn-around is equivalent to building ships, and building
them in a much more simple manner than on the slips. The British people have had a similar situation in their country.
Perhaps I could give another instance. When the Germans and Italians were defeated in Tunisia it was estimated that that was equivalent to 2,000,000 tons of shipping. Anyone who has had experience with shipbuilding will appreciate the benefit we have derived from that defeat. By turning ships around faster in our eastern seaports we are in effect build-ihg ships but, what is more important, it will be of untold benefit to the fighting forces of this country on account of the possible developments that are shaping up in Europe.
I believe we will receive the same degree of cooperation from the longshoremen in Halifax in connection with this new undertaking that we received when the original order was passed which made possible the establishment of a hiring hall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour, on the staff of which members of the executive board of the longshoremen's union were appointed to assist in the work.
It is breaking new ground in this dominion, facing up to the labour supply problem in one of our vital industries. Recently in the coal mining situation we made certain guarantees to coal miners who were transferred from their present jobs back to the mines. May I just say in passing that I do not underestimate the magnitude of the problem that confronts us. It is one that would strike fear into the hearts of many men. It is the kind of problem that one cannot solve by running away from it; one has to stay with the ship. I am convinced that if the Department of Labour and selective service are given the chance to organize this thing on a basis on which I think it can be organized, we will amaze this country within the next six months with the progress that we shall be able to make in the allocation of man-power and the solution of the man-power problem generally.
If my hon. friend goes back to Halifax in the near future, I want him to thank the longshoremen of his community for the minister and, I am sure, for the government of this country for the cooperation they have shown in this very important work.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The minister mentioned a pool of 750 men. He did not mention whether they were longshoremen or freight handlers. Will they be paid the standard wage?


Humphrey Mitchell: They are both. They will be paid the longshoremen's wage, which is higher than the freight handlers' wage.
War Appropriation-Labour

Mr. O'NEILL: Mr. Chairman, in rising to take part in this debate on the estimates of the Minister of Labour, my mind goes back to a year and a half ago when the minister was first appointed to his present portfolio. As a labour man I had long advocated that the portfolio of Minister of Labour should be filled by a labour man. All labour men advocated that. A great many of our best industrialists also realized that there would be better conditions if the man who headed the Department of Labour understood labour conditions, and they approved his appointment. As a matter of fact, most of the large industries and newspapers of this country approved the appointment of the Hon. Humphrey Mitchell as Minister of Labour.
But the minister, even before he had been elected, started to run into opposition, and after he was elected the opposition became very acute. We can recall an hon. gentleman rising in his place in this house not so many weeks ago, a man who was supposed to be one of the representatives of labour, and demanding the resignation of the Minister of Labour. I do not know how labour people or any class of people can think that a man is going to be able to give his best in a portfolio under circumstances and conditions of that kind.
Let me say that the present Minister of Labour has the toughest portfolio in the whole government at the present time. In addition to that, I believe that his is the most important portfolio. We have to have finance, certainly, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) is doing a wonderful job in producing the finances to run this war and run the country. But his financing would not be of very much use without labour. The same remark applies to the Department of Defence. All branches of the defence department are doing a magnificent job. I do not think any department of defence in any other country is doing any better job than Canada is doing in proportion to her population and the opportunities which have been given to her in the fighting zone. But what use would her army be if it were not for the great army of labourers who produce the engines of war and the foodstuffs that are required?
The Minister of Labour has been criticized on account of his labour policy, or lack of policy. It seems to me that the strength of the submission that t'he minister has made can best be measured by the criticism that he is receiving. The criticism that he is receiving most since he made his submission is that he used the expression that no better method can be found. I cannot say 
that I agree with that 100 per cent; but if that were the only thing I could find to criticize in his statement, I would not bother criticizing it. We find labour troubles in other countries, shortages of labour, shortages of man-power. Recently in Australia there was a vote of non-confidence in the government. By the way, they have a labour government, and I think it is doing a good job. Labour troubles and labour shortages are the natural consequences of war, and on this issue the government of Australia was saved from defeat by only one vote. If those things can happen over there with a labour government, I do not think we have anything to be ashamed of if people criticize the labour department here on account of shortages.
I wish to congratulate the Minister of Labour upon the excellent report he presented to parliament and upon the able manner in which he presented it. I have been a member of organized labour for over forty years, and I want to say this to the labour men of this country. Labour probably will play the greatest part of any body of our people in this country in the post-war period, provided, of course, that we do not allow the labour organizations to be destroyed, either from without or from within, by listening to selfish men who, by reason of personal ambition, wish to see their own particular labour organization go up to the top. Mind you, Mr. Chairman, that is a creditable ambition, but it should not be carried so far as to destroy the very thing labour organizations are trying to do. Labour organizations, however, can also be destroyed from the outside by selfish industrialists who do not and will not try to understand labour. They may be successful in destroying labour. But before we permit anything like that to be done, I think we should allow our minds to go back to some of the events which occurred prior to this war. Germany, in so far as the organization of labour is concerned, was one of the most highly organized countries in the world just before Hitler's rise to power. Hitler realized that he could not bring about the conditions which exist in Germany to-day unless he could first destroy organized labour. There were in that country industrialists who could not and would not understand labour. Hitler went along with them to destroy the trades unions, and he made a complete job of it. His next move was to destroy his erstwhile friends the industrialists; he called in the armed forces of the country to aid him against the industrialists, and the industrialists as such were completely destroyed. He then made a purge of the army and shot every general who did not agree with him. He thus became the

War Appropriation-Labour
king-pin. Labour in this country, Great Britain and the other democracies is playing the same role to-day as in the years gone by, and if it
is destroyed it will be a bad day for the country.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Labour in this country is not organized.
Mr. O'NEILL: I beg the hon. member's
pardon?


George Hugh Castleden: Did the hon. member say that labour was organized in this country?
Mr. O'NEILL: No, absolutely not. Probably 15 to 20 per cent is organized in this country; I do not think the percentage is higher than that. But I am speaking of the principle of organization, not the extent to which it has gone in this country. I am sorry that it is not organized.


Mr. REID:: Some of the labour is organized.
Mr. O'NEILL: I know, but the great major, ity of the workers are not. However, I do not think that interjections of that kind tend to help a speaker. So far as I am concerned, while other hon. members are speaking I keep my thoughts to myself, much as I would like sometimes to intervene.


George Hugh Castleden: I was trying to be helpful; I am sorry.
Mr. O'NEILL: Very often I do not agree with the speeches of my hon. friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. I say that advisedly, although I think the members of that party are endeavouring, as I am, to help the labour situation in this country. I do not want my hon. friend to think I am resentful, but interruptions do tend to break the trend of thought which one is trying to put across.
The evening before last the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) made a remark which I think is indicative of the viewpoint of a great many people. I do not say this in any unkindly spirit toward the hon. member, but it gives an idea of how some people are thinking. He said, as reported in Hansard, at page 3980:
You cannot fight Hitler with registrations. There are no labour unions in Germany; far from it.
His idea seemed to be that because some strikes are going on in this country to-day, the labour unions are responsible. That is far from being the situation. That there are strikes is very largely owing to the fact that labour is not organized. If there were powerful labour organizations, the leaders of those unions could sit round a conference table with the leaders of industry and probably there would not be any lockouts or strikes.
I have been working for the Canadian Pacific Railway company for over forty years, and in all that time I do not recall any lockouts or strikes among the engineers or the firemen. To say that we never had any differences of opinion would be far from the truth. Yet I do not believe any labour organization in North America has done any more for its membership than the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers has done for the men who are running engines in this country. But let me tell the committee this, that the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers did not achieve that record by militant and revolutionary methods. You cannot do business in this country on a militant and revolutionary system; the only place where that may be tried is in a country which desires revolution, and I do not think we want it here.
In 1939 I had the good fortune, the privilege and the pleasure of being in Geneva at an international labour conference. The building in which it was held, the League of Nations' palace, is one of the finest buildings I ever saw. It took four years to complete. Daily they had 500 men, of different nationalities and languages, working on that project. They worked 550,000 days, and they were never stopped for a fraction of a second on account of strikes, lockouts or any labour differences. That is a wonderful record in any oountry. If that can be achieved in Switzerland-I grant you that the men were well organized-there is no reason why the same thing could not be achieved here.
Having made those remarks, I wish now to call some matters to the attention of the minister. Being himself a trade unionist, he will understand, what I am talking about. It seems to me that the Minister of Labour is the man who has the portfolio with the responsibility of looking after the interests of the working class. I agree, however, that, in a government composed of fifteen, seventeen or maybe nineteen men, policy must be decided by the considered opinion of the group, so that we should not at all times blame the Minister of Labour because things are done with which we as labour men do not agree.
There are some conditions which, I believe, the Minister of Labour might help to correct. If we want to have satisfied labour men, men doing their jobs as such, one of the first things is to have them contented and well satisfied with their jobs. To start with, no man or woman who works for a living can be contented or satisfied if he or she is working for a wage which will not provide the necessities of life. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. McKinnon) in his speech last

War Appropriation-Labour

night called attention to the pay of stenographers of the lower grades, and to the conditions which exist in the new hostel which has been erected here in Ottawa to take care of that class of employees. One or two things are wrong. The first, in my opinion, is the wage; it is too low. Then, the rate charged by that hotel is higher than these stenographers can afford to pay. These are things which in my opinion are more or less the responsibility of the Minister of Labour, and which he should look after and try to straighten out.
Another factor which disturbs labour in this country is the cost of living index. Labour is quite definitely of opinion that the cost of living index is the main concern of the government-not the keeping down of the cost of living, but rather the keeping down of the figures in the cost of living index. In corroboration of that, to-day or yesterday I heard someone speaking on the radio upholding the cost of living index. The speaker was a lady, and she said that many factors enter into the cost of living index besides the necessities of life such as food, clothing and shelter. She went on to state these things. I am speaking from memory, but, as I recall, she said that food represented only twenty per cent of the cost of living, while many other things had to be taken into account. She said that a housewife might go to a grocery store and find that certain articles had gone up in price twenty-five or thirty points, but that she would find that clothing had remained the same, that house rent had practically remained the same; that doctors' fees, hospital bills, life insurance and many other things had remained the same. So that on the whole, she said, the cost of living index was only 17 or 17-5 per cent higher than it had been at the outbreak of the war.
But that is not the way to reckon the cost of living as it affects those who are in the low income brackets. Any family in the low income brackets having a doctor's bill of $100, $150 or $200 will never get out of that debt. They can never pay it off because they are living from hand to mouth all the time, so that to count in what people pay to doctors, so far as those in the low income brackets are concerned, is a fallacy. And as regards life insurance it is an absolute impossibility to the low income bracket people to carry any. They do not carry life insurance.
These are some of the reasons why I say that the labouring classes are dissatisfied with the way in which the figures making up the cost of living index are computed.
Again, there are such commodities as shirts and boots. For instance, take boots for children. Before the prices were fixed, these
Mr. O'Neill.]
boots were made of leather. But to-day in the great majority of cases they are made of pressed paper. The manufacturer does not guarantee them, and while you may not pay more for the same sort of article, the product you get lasts only from one-quarter to one-half of the time that the old product would last, before the wartime prices and trade board was set up. Therefore, instead of buying a pair of shoes for $1.25 for a child and expecting to have them last twelve months, you buy a pair for $1.25, the same price, and at the end of three months you are under the necessity of buying another pair, so that at the end of the year you have really paid $5 for shoes for that child. But it does not appear in that way in the cost-of-living index.
Recently I bought two shirts in Toronto. I paid $2.50 each. They were supposed to be the standard broadcloth type of shirt that would last a year. I regret to say that they are now worn, out; they are gone already. They have lasted only three or four washings. I send them to the best laundry, and I may observe in passing that so far as the laundries in Ottawa are concerned, they are about as good as one can find anywhere. At least, that is my experience. So that the fault cannot be attributed to the laundries.
The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) has brought up on many occasions the question on which I wish to touch just now and I crave the indulgence of the committee for bringing it up again. I refer to the question of the wartime prices and trade board being permitted to put a five-cent tax on coffee or tea. I see some members grinning at this. Well, to the man getting $4,000 it does not matter whether coffee is five cents a cup more than it used to be; but when you come to people who cannot pay any more than twenty-five cents for a meal at any time, for the simple reason that they do not make enough, and you charge them five cents extra for a cup of coffee, I ask, did you ever figure out what the increase means to such people? From their point of view it is the most ridiculous thing in the world, and yet the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway are permitted, when passengers get a meal for $1.50, to charge five cents extra for the coffee. These are the conditions under which the labouring people have to work, and if it is suggested that they will remain docile, happy and contented under such conditions, then I say it does not make sense.

War Appropriation-Labour
Again, take the cost-of-living bonus. I well recall when the order first went out; P.C. 7440 was the order in council, if I remember rightly. About the first thing the Department of Labour did at that time was to call in the heads of certain very strong and well-entrenched labour organizations in the country, and to ask them if they would be agreeable to enter into an arrangement whereby wages would be placed at a certain level-the basic rate would not be increased -and, in consideration of their relinquishing this right to negotiate a new wage agreement, if they would agree to that, they would be paid a certain cost-of-living bonus. That cost-of-living bonus was supposed to be paid, not on a percentage basis but on the basis of a flat rate to all the labour people.
Having in mind the conditions that prevailed in the last war, I agreed to that as an individual, and I went out among the labour organizations with which I was associated and tried to sell the idea to them which I did in good faith. Now, however, we find that many of the highly-paid skilled labourers, and those that are strongly organized, are getting the full cost of living bonus, while there are a great many others, particularly among the low-paid labour people, who do not get the full bonus. I can cite one case in which I am particularly interested. I will not mention any names, but there were three men and one girl working in a plant. They were all getting short-paid on the cost of living bonus, and I took the matter up to see what could be done. I will say for the Department of Labour and for the minister that he went after the case in a thorough way and cleaned it up as far as he could with the restrictions that had been imposed upon him. The result is that the three men are now getting the full cost of living bonus, while the girl, working for $12.75 a week, receives $2.71 cost of living bonus. On the other hand, the men who are getting $25 a week are being paid the full cost of living bonus. Surely, if there should be any difference at all, the people who are receiving $25 a week should get the $2.71 bonus, and the girl, receiving $12.75, ought to be paid the full cost of living bonus, if you want to make a discrimination. But it does not work out in that way.
A great many labour men in this country feel that the government have not played the game. They told us as plainly as possible, if I -can understand the English language, that the full cost of living bonus would be paid to everyone on the basis of a flat rate, and they have not lived up to that.
I have just one other comment to make. I am thoroughly in agreement with the remarks of the -member for Kenora-Rainy River when he said that stenographers in grades 1 and 2 should come under the Department of Labour. I would go farther and say that all those engaged in the civil service, at least those receiving under $3,000, should come under the minister. I am not objecting so much to the treasury board, because one can find out who are the members of that board and it is possible to go and speak to them. But one cannot find out who are their advisers, and those are the men whom I object to. Why do those fellows not come into the open so that we can find out who they are and what they are doing? They are the -men who make -the recommendations to the treasury board; the treasury board passes the recommendations on to council, and then they come out in the form of an order in council without parliament knowing anything about them. I do not think that is good enough, and as a labour -man I object strongly to that sort of thing. For the life of me I cannot see why all these matters should be kept so secret.


Mr. ADAMSON:: In taking part in this discussion on man-power I think certain general basic principles must foe fully understood before we proceed. The first basic principle for total war is that man-power must be totally mobilized for that war. I should like to quote two paragraphs from an article by Eric H. Biddle, entitled., "Manpower; A Summary of the British Experience", published by the Public Administration Service of Chicago:
The question is not what proportion of our man-power shall be devoted to the war effort and what part to other occupations.
It is rather how soon and how efficiently we can allocate to the several military and civilian aspects of the war effort our entire supply or skills.
I want the committee to pay particular attention to the word " skills."
Just as the army must balance the number of men assigned to combat service against the number in administrative andi auxiliary functions, so the entire personnel of the fighting forces must be balanced against the personnel engaged in direct production of essential supplies such as food or munitions. Finally, both these must -be balanced against the man-power for necessary auxiliary services of society.
In total war the civilian population must share with the military the responsibility of national service. If this responsibility is to be properly discharged, civilians must be supplied, housed, and provided with essential services. All these problems, in the interests of the armed forces as well as the civilian population, must take equal place with military
War Appropriation-Labour

needs in national policy and national administration. In a chain, no link is less important than another.
That seemed to me such an excellent -description of man-power needs, Mr. Chairman, that I have read it into the record. It effectively expresses the goal which we must endeavour to approach.
Let us now look at what we have done in 'Canada. From the beginning man-power has been and still is dealt with as a partisan, political problem. It should have transcended that sphere many years ago. I am not going once more into the beginnings of mobilization; the thirty-day call-up; then the four-months call-up; then the conscription for home service; then the conscription for service in Newfoundland, Alaska and the West Indies; then the coercion and possibly if, as we must expect, we have casualties, the definite conscription for overseas service. This is a policy which is not honest and which is not playing fair with the men of this country. I have protested before; I protest again.
In August, 1940, we had the original registration, and hon. members do not need to be told how inefficient it was. Hon. gentlemen may remember that I was able to purchase a blank registration card without much difficulty on the streets of Montreal. They do not need to be told that the registration was practically of no value at all until quite recently. Now, however, with the rationing of beer and liquor, the registration has come to be of some use; one needs his registration card in order to get a permit from the local authorities for the purchase of beer or liquor, so that we are finding some use for the registration after all. I do not know whether the minister will remember the cartoon of the last war with the heading, " What did you do in the Great War, Daddy?" It will be very easy to say what one did in this great war; just hold up your registration card and you will be able to show that you were able to buy liquor all across Canada, and where you did buy it. So far as I am able to see, that is the only use we have been able to make of that farcical national registration.
I should like to mention one other matter, since it was broached this afternoon during the controversy concerning the former mayor of Montreal. I refer to the old bogey that we, the Conservative party, were the conscription-ists, that we were the people with the mentality of 1917, who wanted everybody in the army. Well, I took the responsibility at that time, as I should be willing to take it again, of being the first member of this house to advocate

compulsory national service for anywhere; that was in 1940. Just to keep the record straight, I should like to quote what I said at that time, as it appears at page 162 of Hansard for November 18, 1940.
The training of military personnel must be so arranged as not to conflict with industry. A comprehensive plan must be prepared by all industries engaged in our war effort, indicating the present and future demand in regard to man-power. To-day we have approximately fifty thousand employable unemployed in this country.
That will show how long ago that was, when we actually had fifty thousand employables still unemployed in Canada.
It is estimated that by July of next year-
This is November.
-industry will require a further 500,000 technically trained men. These men are as vital to the defence of Canada at the present time as are the soldiers who enlist in our army. Therefore I suggest that the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner) should go to the registration list and call out for training in our munitions industries all available people between the ages of 18 and 50 in order to make up this apparent deficiency.
And the next paragraph:
This is a total war. Each of us in Canada has a job to do. If we are employed in civilian occupations, and the government needs us for war work, whether as a soldier or in making machine guns, we must be prepared to go and do the country's bidding. Therefore I suggest an immediate recapitulation of the national registration scheme calling out all those who may become useful in our war industries.
That was 1940. Does that sound as if we wanted to drag men from the farms and from industry, merely for the glorification of having a great army? No; we have advocated from the beginning-and I quote again-"the scientific use of man-power in Canada". And I say to the minister that it is still not too late, but the time is running very, very short. This crisis is approaching. A great many industries, including agriculture, have already reached the crisis. I am not a farmer, but I would hate to make an estimate of the amount of foodstuff we shall be needing during the next winter which is not being produced because of insufficient farm help to work the farms.
There is one other thing I wish to mention, something which was manifestly unfair and unscientific in our calling up of man-power. That was with regard to recruiting. The first and second quotas for the armed forces were based not upon the population, not upon the number of males between certain ages, but upon the number of voluntary recruits who had already enlisted from the area. If one area had an enlistment of fifty, and another with the same population, had an enlistment

War Appropriation-Labour
of ten, the area which had already sent fifty was asked for five times the number that had gone from the area which sent ten. That was unscientific, unsound and unfair, and it has caused a great deal of unrest and suffering across Canada.
There are those who have said quite recently in the house that in their opinion, so far as the armed forces are concerned, we had bitten off more than we could chew, and that to have an army of the size we have was greater than our population warranted. Mr. Chairman, I again take a certain amount of responsibility, because in that same year of 1940 I advocated a Canadian army of precisely the size it is to-day. It is not too big, judged by either Australia or New Zealand. We are not biting off more than we can undertake-and that is taking into account all our munition production, the fact that we are an industrial nation and New Zealand is not an industrial nation, and that Australia is not industrialized to the same extent as we are.
I have quoted the figures showing armed forces in Australia. An official dispatch estimates that approximately 850,000 persons were in the armed services of Australia, although she has a population of only slightly over seven million people. At that time I was told that the figures for New Zealand then given to me were most confidential, and under no circumstances was I to use them in the house. I respected that trust until quite recently when in volume 68 of the Commercial Intelligence Journal of June 5, 1943, I came across all the figures from New Zealand. That country, with a population of 1,500,000 has actually 160,000, or nearly twelve per cent of her total population in her armed forces. These are the exact words as they appear in the Commercial Intelligence Journal:
At present out of a total population of just over 1,500,000, 160,000 men are in the armed forces of New Zealand, and overseas. This figure represents a high percentage of the available man-power, and takes no account of the large number of women now serving, or of the thousands of men and women doing part-time service in such organizations as the home guard, emergency fire service, emergency precautions scheme, coast watches, etc. Such a substantial withdrawal of men and women from civilian pursuits at this time last year, when New Zealand was threatened with invasion and air raids, was considered necessary in the circumstances.
I do not say that we in Canada could have recruited for our armed forces on the same proportions as New Zealand, but I do say that what we have done, and what we propose to do, is by no means too much. We are having difficulty; there is a man-power crisis. And yet with the exception of Hong Kong and Dieppe our army -has not been in action.
I admit that they were pretty bad disasters; but even without any action, without any service, we are hard pressed for reinforcements. The man-power situation is much more serious than appears on the surface and we have not yet tackled it in a realistic or total way. We should try to impress upon the people of Canada the seriousness of the situation. Different ministers have endeavoured at different times to awaken the Canadian people from the complacency into which they have been lulled by the government policy-too. little and too late, a nibble here and a nibble there. But that did not do much good.
I should like to give one or two illustrations of the chaos that exists in Canadian industry. A year ago Canadian Car in Fort William came to the end of their contract. They had been building Hurricanes and had built up an organization of skilled aircraft workers. This work requires a considerable degree of skill, but these men were put out on the street. What happened? International Nickel company sent one or two special trains there, picked them up and took them to Sudbury. That is an extremely wasteful way of handling our man-power. That is why I used the word "skill" in my opening remarks to-night. Here we had skilled aircraft men being taken to a nickel mine to be made into miners. Both are skilled operations which require considerable experience and which entail considerable cost to achieve. That is the sort of thing that has been going on.
I was out at Victory Aircraft the other day, and I was told that between now and the end! of the year they will require 7,000 more men in order to fulfil their estimate of production. They had no idea where they would get them. I asked what sort of men were wanted,'and the manager told me that he would take anything as long as it had a pair of hands. They are in a desperate position. I know what some of these industrial plants are up against. We are just beginning to awaken the Canadian people to the fact that this war business is serious, but they do not know it yet.
What the government should have done was to say to the Canadian people four years ago, "We are in this war and it is going to be a tough business; it is everybody's war and it will be hell before we are through." Had the government done that, our man-power picture to-day would have been much brighter. Then the Minister of Labour would be in the same position as the Minister of National Defence for Air. That minister came out early in the war and said that he had a terrific job ahead of him. Month by month, half year by half year and year by year he has reported, either to this house or to the-
War Appropriation-Labour

press. At times he has said, "We have not done as well as we wanted to, we have failed here and there; we have not the aircraft and we have not turned out as many men as we hoped to, but we are trying; we are doing what we can." I do not think anyone will deny that the greatest success achieved in Canada during this war has been the Royal Canadian Air Force and the joint air training plan. Instead of saying, like Candide is reported to have said, that everything is perfect in this most perfect of Liberal worlds, the minister should have said, "We have not the men; we have a lack of skilled wrorkers; we have bad management." But no; everything was perfect.
I have just one more subject with which I should like to deal, industrial disputes and labour unrest. In every plant where there has been labour unrest that I have visited I have found the cause to be inefficient and bad management. Work was being scrapped; men were wasting time because the raw materials were not coming through, and in some instances the plant had not been properly laid out. The government forgets that while the labourer is worthy of his hire, his self-respect demands that he be given something to do. The trouble is that the devil always finds work for idle hands to do.
I should like to mention one or two cases. The first is Victory Aircraft. During the change-over period one management wanted to discharge the present manager, according to the minister's statement made in the house. This manager knew his job; he had come from Fort William where they had been producing Hurricanes; he knew his job better than the company knew theirs, and he told them so. Yet they wanted to get rid of him and immediately there was talk of strikes. In fact, there was the definite liability of a strike by the workers in that plant demanding that the manager be kept on. They wanted to do a job. They did not want to be inefficiently managed. Just so long, Mr. Chairman., as there is inefficient management in a plant producing war equipment in Canada, there will be labour troubles. It is not the unions; it is not organized labour; it is individual human nature. To-day in the Toronto Shipbuilding yard there is trouble ostensibly between one union and another, but basically that trouble is as a result of inefficient management. I understand that since last year, since the plant was taken over from the Dufferin Shipbuilding company, only two out of the promised twelve ships were delivered to tide-water, and when they got there they had virtually to be rebuilt

from stem to stern. I doubt whether any ships have reached tide-water this year and been commissioned, and this is virtually July.
That is the trouble to-day with labour; that is why we have unrest. I do not believe that the situation at the Toronto Shipbuilding company's yards is satisfactory. I do not believe that it is satisfactory either to the Minister of Munitions and Supply or to the Minister of Labour. By reason of the policy of saying, "everything is lovely," you have trouble there, and in my opinion the trouble will continue until labour is given an opportunity to work under management that it respects.


Mr. GILLIS:: I regret to have to detain
the minister a little longer on this general item. I appreciate that he wants to get to the estimates, item by item. But the matter on which I am going to speak, very briefly, would not be applicable to any specific item that I see in the estimates.
I was very much interested in the speech made by the member for Kamloops (Mr. O'Neill), which was a refreshing breeze from that side of the house. He said many things with respect to the problems of labour with which I agree, but one thing I do not agree with was his analysis of labour conditions in Germany and in Canada. He pointed out quite rightly that Hitler was built for certain purposes, and the first organizations to fall under his heel were the labour organizations. But the point which my hon. friend did not make is that there is absolutely no difference between the mentality of those who^ destroy labour unions and the mentality of those who refuse to allow them to be born. One destroys them, and the other does not permit them to be born-and for exactly the same reason.
The hon. member for Kamloops as a member of a section of the trades union movement for forty years eulogized what they had achieved, but pointed out that less than twenty per cent-I think sixteen per cent is correct-of the workers in this country eligible for membership in the trades union movement are permitted to become members of a labour organization. I say "permitted" advisedly, because any member who has sat in this house for the past three years and listened to the discussions that have taken place with respect to labour endeavouring, plant by plant, mine by mine, factory by factory to exercise its right to sit round the conference table and bargain, can easily see what the factors were that were precluding them from joining a labour organization. Those em-

War Appropriation-Labour
ployers who take the position' that they will not permit their employees to ballot on the question, of whether they shall have representatives or not appear to me in exactly the same light as Hitler, except that they are smarter than Hitler. They are not allowing industrial democracy to be given birth, but in Germany it was there and Hitler destroyed it. Let us make no mistake about the employer who will not permit his employees to join a labour organization. The ultimate objective in the mind of a person of that calibre is, in my opinion, the same that is in the minds of those who have built the totalitarianism which we are fighting against in the war to-day, and any of us in this house who are interested in a free parliament, freedom of speech and the right to criticize one another in a constructive manner should be cognizant of that situation if we are to preserve our democracy in the aftermath of this war.
I rose specially to mention two or three matters to the minister. First, I should like to focus his attention on the complete inadequacy of the machinery for settling disputes. There are now in Ontario and Quebec some disputes of major proportions which have been dragging on for a considerable time. I would remind the minister that these disputes are all on the question of taking a vote, on the recognition of a union. There are no wage demands. All that the workers in these disputes want is the right to have one of their elected fellow workers sit in with the boss and sell their labour power to him, the only thing, the workers have to sell. In the Marconi company's plant in Montreal there is a dispute which has lasted a considerable time. I do not wish to tire the minister with the details. I will simply say that a vote is not permitted at that plant because the employer does not want it. This particular company ignored an order issued by the minister with respect to the reemployment of one of its employees and insisted on an order in council being put through empowering him to penalize employers who ignored the instructions given. That was P.C. 4020. This is the company that stands up and says that its employees have not the right to vote. Second, all the nine plants at Galt that are tied up are so tied up on the basis of union recognition. No wage demands are involved, merely the right to go in and negotiate an agreement, as the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. O'Neill) has been doing for forty years, and also the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. McKinnon). The miners and steel workers, of course, have the same rights
That strike in Galt has been dragging on for a considerable time. I have the reports here of a board of conciliation, headed by an eminent judge, which sat in this dispute. In every case, an examination of the record discloses, a majority of the men at the plant expressed their willingness to join a union, and in face of that there is an interruption of nine plants necessary to the war effort. All the employee there is looking for is the right to vote, and this the employer refuses him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is that before the Ontario labour court at the moment?


Clarence Gillis: I will come to that in a minute. Another situation is at Hamilton Bridge; the vote is involved again; they have not the right to express their wishes in accordance with the franchise. The Ingersoll Rand company .in Sherbrooke, Quebec, which is a well equipped plant, is, I believe, at the present time completely idle, and it is the general opinion of the men employed in that plant, numbering perhaps five or six hundred, that the reason for the shut down is that they were exercising the right to express theii opinion through the medium of an organization. Over at Port Colbome, in a very necessary plant, one of the smelters of International Nickel, there is a similar situation, where the men are, I think, at least ninety per cent organized. They have done a very good job of organization; put their machinery together thoroughly, canvassed all the methods provided by the minister month after month with respect to the taking of a vote, and he finally wound up by advising them to hand their case over to the Ontario labour court. I do not know what that court is going to be. It is a one-man body. A judge is appointed for the purpose of adjudicating all matters of this kind. I have read over their act and know it fairly well, and I have not too much hope with respect to the ironing out of the difficulties of the workers on the basis of that act. But what I am complaining about is this, that in war emergency, where the federal government have exercised authority in every field of our war effort by the taking of emergency powers, at this stage of the game, after certain sections of the unions go through all the machinery provided by the federal government, it is a very convenient way of shelving the matter to now pass it back to a court which has not yet started to function. I believe that in the case of the International Nickel smelter at Port Colbome, affecting local No. 637 of the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union, that matter should have been
War Appropriation-Labour

handled and brought to a final determination by the Department of Labour instead of its being passed on to the Ontario labour court.
A few minutes ago the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) mentioned the Toronto Shipbuilding yards. I have a few words to say on that, because the Minister of Munitions and Supply and I had considerable to say about it on Monday of this week. I endorse everything that the hon. member for York West has said. I speak about the matter now to the Minister of Labour because that dispute has been handed over to his department. I understand Mr. Ainsborough has been sent in there for the purpose of looking into the dispute and making his findings to the department. I know the men there are not satisfied; he has gone in there with limitations with respect to his authority to settle that matter; He is not there primarily to take care of the problem as it affects the 2S9 men who were illegally dismissed, by incompetent management, in violation of national selective service regulations: he is not there for the purpose of settling that matter which should have been settled, and settled1 on Monday of this week, because I think the men in that plant have been reasonable and fair. They demanded three things of the Minister of Munitions and Supply: First, that the 289 men dismissed from that plant should be placed back at their work. The minister stated on Monday that there was nothing to stop them from going back to their work, that there would be no discrimination. These men have applied, in many cases, and have been refused employment, and they have been told that they will not be taken back by that company except on a re-hiring basis. That is the old formula for discrimination. It is not new in Ontario; it is not new in Canada; it was developed a good many years ago over in the United States when they were fighting this battle for the formation of unions: "Fire them en bloc, re-hire them, and we will pick them and cull them out and leave on the streets the effective ones who lead the movement." So that it is an old formula which the Toronto Shipbuilding company is applying at the present time. These men should have been back at work. They should have been ordered back to work either by the Minister of Munitions and Supply or by the Minister of Labour on Monday of this week, and they should have been earning a living this week while this matter was being investigated by the department which is now inquiring into it. Second, they asked for remuneration for time lost by virtue of the illegal dismissals, and I think they are perfectly justified in the demand. Third, and most important to this 
house and to the taxpayers of Canada, they demand a complete examination of that yard on the basis of efficiency.
I listened to these men discussing their problems. I heard them draft a memorandum of their grievances and the matters about which they demanded investigation, and they are serious. I saw a copy of that memorandum placed in an envelope and mailed to the Minister of Munitions and Supply. An hon. member on this side of the house questioned the minister this week as to whether he had received that memorandum or not, and he said he had not received it. Well, if he has not, there is something wrong with the postal department or something wrong with his secretary who looks after his mail. I know that the memorandum was mailed. I have a copy of it here. I do not intend to read it, but the fact of the matter is that there is stuff in it that I am ashamed of. I am ashamed that the taxpayers of this country should see how their money is being spent in a necessary war plant. If the Minister of Labour has not a copy of that memorandum, and now, since this dispute is centred in his department, he intends to make a thorough examination of the question, I am prepared to give him this copy of the memorandum and let him make full use of it, seeing that the minister of munitions has evidently lost his.
A commissioner is in there making an investigation, and with the limitations that are imposed on his powers with respect to that dispute, I suggest that those powers should be extended to include an examination of the reasons why these 289 men were thrown out of that yard without any redress from any of the regulations laid down by this government respecting matters of this kind.
There was a serious dispute there last Saturday when 1,200 men walked out of the plant, and it was with considerable persuasion-*


Humphrey Mitchell: Where were those 1,200 men?


Clarence Gillis: They were idle last Saturday, in the Toronto Shipbuilding company. As I say, with considerable persuasion on the part of the steel workers' union officials, at a meeting I sat in on, these 1,200 men went back to work for the one purpose of placing the men so dismissed on a legal footing-


Mr. GOLDING:: What is the total nurnbei employed?


Clarence Gillis: About 2,500. I am not sure of that, but I believe that is the number. The object was that the union officials would leave the door open, not being engaged in the strike, to argue the matter out, to have it

War Appropriation-Labour
arbitrated, and to have the men returned immediately. After listening to the discussion there last Saturday, I heard a telegram read, drafted by C. H. Millard. The telegram was to the minister of munitions. Surely he received this telegram. This is one of the men whom he characterized in the house as a promoter of strife, and Mr. Millard advises him that after considerable difficulty they had finally persuaded the men to go back to work, which opened the door for negotiations, and he suggested that an order should be issued immediately to get the men back to work pending a settlement through the medium of the regulations laid down by the government.
I was reasonably sure that once the minister of munitions had received that telegram and memorandum, and having in mind the background of the whole business, he would issue an order to get the men back to work. This is Friday, and with the exception of about twenty men the rest are still idle, still waiting for some settlement. They are not satisfied with the terms of reference which the conciliation officer, sent there by the Department of Labour, has submitted. It appears that he is restricted to making an examination into the dismissal of one man, which took place a few weeks ago and which has no relationship to the present dispute. They ask for the extension of his terms of reference to^ include an examination of the problem affecting the dismissal of these 289 men and also to go into the charges made against the management of that plant, as set out in the memorandum to which I have referred.
I do not want to take up the time of the committee, but there are five pages on this question, and every page contains certain charges by the employees of that plant with respect to wastage, loss of man-hours, discrimination, lack of building ships and various matters of that kind.
That yard, according to the description I heard from men whom I consider competent to make a criticism in their own departments, leaves much to be desired from the point of view of the public moneys that have been spent there.
My main reason for rising to-night is to focus the minister's attention on that Toronto Shipbuilding dispute, so that he may give Ainsborough-I believe that is his name-sufficient latitude to make his examination impartial and to judge the question on its merits through the medium of his department. I suggest also, in view of the necessity for building ships, an order should be issued immediately to put these men back to work.
That is all they want. But they do not want to go back to work on the terms on which the company would take them back, because they know it will mean that about 20 per cent of the most efficient men in the yard will be left on the street. I think they are fully entitled to return to work, and the whole matter should be investigated.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I will not follow the hon. member who has just spoken, although I think there are some phases of the Toronto Shipbuilding yard matter that should be looked into. I do not understand why the government has not done something in this regard before now. I believe that a great many industrial disputes that have taken place in Canada have occurred on account of a weak policy on the part of the government. I do not blame the present minister to the same extent as I do the government itself.
With regard to the question of man-power as a whole, I read on a previous occasion something from a memorandum issued by General McNaughton when the war started. I quote:
Some trades are vital, others are less important, and others again can be dispensed with under conditions of national emergency; hence a list of "reserved occupations" is needed.
Again he says:
Some industries are important to or for the production of munitions, others for the maintenance of vital services to the civil community; others again, which are active in peace, are of little importance in war. In consequence, a list of "essential industries" is required.
He prepared these lists, and they have been in the hands of the government unless they have lost them. It is only a short while ago that these priority lists, as far as occupations are concerned, were brought down. Why is that? It shows the lack of policy there has been in connection with labour. After four years of war no policy has been laid down that is worth while, and certainly it is not for want of constructive criticism on the part of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition that some policy of this kind has not been adopted by the government. I warn the government, now that they have taken so long to lay down this policy and to get out their list of priorities, that it will be much harder to enforce them. This business of evolution, which the minister spoke about, does not go in war time. In spite of the urging of the opposition for the government to take a strong stand in connection with man-power, nothing has been done, and it is only now that we have had the survey which the minister the other day put on Hansard, showing where people are, what they can do and what they are doing.
War Appropriation-Labour

We are in a total war these days, but the government do not seem to have thought so, judging by their actions. Although they have been urging the people to take the position implied by total war, they have not taken that position themselves, nor have they had strong policies in that direction.
Speaking in the house on January 30, 1942, I said:
So far as man-power is concerned, our problem is this. For a balanced effort there are so many people in this country. Some of them are trained for special jobs, and some are not trained, having, however, the natural strength and ability to become trained. Some are men of military age, while some are too young to fight and others too old. There are so many women, some married with children, others married without children, some young and others old. This is a vast pool of brawn and brain to draw from. On the other hand, there are so many jobs that have to be done. Obviously some of these people must be diverted towards the preservation of those physical amenities of life, the supply of food and shelter and clothing, transport and so on, which cannot further be shrunk or restricted. We have also, huge numbers of men and women for the army, the navy, the air force and the merchant fleet.
It seems to me it would be only common sense to think it over; yet it has taken until this year to have any sort of survey made in that respect. Later, in the course of the same address, I said:
Total mobilization on the basis of equality of sacrifice would knit together the people of this country in closer bonds of brotherhood than ever before. It would be a long step toward the realization of the new and better world which everybody is wishing for after victory. It would show by this act of the government, backed by parliament, sincerity of purpose beyond all shadow of doubt, and our soldiers, sailors and airmen would have renewed confidence.
I was then speaking of the proposed plebiscite. I went on to say, as reported at page 192 of Hansard for the same day:
What good is a government if it will not act according to the needs of the country without seeking the opinion of the people before it acts?
We have crises every day; the government take steps every day without consulting the people of Canada. They decide to ration this, that or the other thing, but they never consult the people about them. The only thing the people were consulted about is the plebiscite. The government has drifted along, without taking any action. There is no strength of purpose, no leadership; there is only indecision. Speaking in the house during the same debate, on January 28, 1942, the Prime Minister realized the necessity for compulsory national selective service. As reported at page 45 of Hansard of that date he said:

It must not be supposed that there are large reserves of idle people leading a leisurely existence who can now be called to the national ranks. The entire adult Canadian population, with very few exceptions, gets up in the morning, works all day, and goes to bed tired out at night.
Surely he realized the seriousness of the situation even then; and if that was the condition of our Canadian people at that time, what must be their condition now? Yet nothing has been done along the line of compulsory national selective service; we have been simply drifting along. On the other hand, perhaps the Prime Minister gave the reason why nothing has been done, when he went on to say:
In our form of society people have been accustomed to find their own jobs to a very large extent, thus saving vast government machinery.
As a matter of fact, at that time we had all the machinery we needed; all that was necessary was to put it into operation, but I think the Prime Minister was afraid to do so. I do not know just why that was not done. Certainly people do not like to be regimented, but in war time they have to be regimented for their own good. If we are to have a total war effort people must have leadership, and to a certain extent they must accept regimentation. When a man joins the army he does not do just as he likes, and during a war the civil population cannot do as they wish, if they want to conduct a total war effort.
To-day we face a crisis overseas. Major events are about to take place, we do not know how soon. What will be our casualties? Have we sufficient reinforcements and, if not, where are we to get the men? Is the amendment to the mobilization act to be forgotten, or what is to be done about it? Speaking in this house on the taking of the plebiscite I said, as reported at page 196 of Hansard for January 30, 1942:
What do the government hope to gain by a plebiscite? At best the government get a respite of two or three months. Meantime there are all kinds of turmoil.
Well, we had all kinds of turmoil while the plebiscite was being taken.
When the three months are up there will be the same pressure for action.
There was.
This proposal of a plebiscite is an affront to the rights of parliament and an undeserved reflection on the people of this country, of whatever race or creed.
I was right.
It will get nowhere.

War Appropriation-Labour
It has not.
If the proposal carries it will not get rid of the controversy-
It has not.
-and it will leave uncertainty as to future .action-
It has.
-if it fails to carry, our troops will be abandoned to the uncertainties of voluntary enlistment. In either case the country is humiliated and disgraced.
Thank heaven it carried; that is all I have to say about it. It would have been a terrible thing if it had not. What disturbs me about the whole situation is the fact that the amendment to the mobilization act has meant nothing; we have continued to enlist men under a so-called voluntary system; that is all. It is just a fraud and a farce and coercion.
Here is something else that worries me at the present time. In January of this year some figures were tabled, showing that 750.611 notices of call-up had been sent out in this country. Apparently 216,791 men received notices, of whom nothing more was heard. Erom March 20, 1941, to December 26, 1942, the army asked for 150,000 men and were able to get only 107,678 from a total of 750,611 who were called. Now we come to the minister's statement. From March 20, 1941, to April 16, 1943, some 988,475 notices were sent out. Of these men, 379,833 were never heard of again; we do not know where they are. There may, of course, be reasons for this in some cases. Some 289,541 were called after being medically examined, but evidently 128,882 of those called after examination disregarded their notices; that is all there was to it. In all, the army got 126,963 after sending out 988,475 notices. In other words, the army got 107,678 from March 20, 1941, to December, 1942; or for the whole period, from March 20, 1941, to April, 1943, they got 126,963 men in all. In other words, they got an increase of 19,285 men from December 26, 1942, to April, 1943. That was the increase they got. What is the government doing about these 128,882 men who were medically examined and who disregarded the summons of the crown? It just shows the laxity of the administration. Does the government feel it is useless to do anything about this? Does it feel that even if the men are called up there will be no necessity to use them in Canada? What will it do with them after it gets them? As a matter of fact, the whole policy of the government can be described as vaporous, vacuous and vacillating; that is about all it is.


An hon. MEMBER:: What?-no more?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That is enough. I could say much more, so far as that is concerned. I would point out to the committee that so far as the enforcement of the national selective service regulations is concerned, the government is so afraid of losing votes that it will not take a strong stand.


Mr. PERLEY:: Let us take a vote now.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: We could do that. The government has all power, but it does not use it. The point is that the government cannot make up its mind. I think I might use in this connection a few words which were used by a famous statesman in the House of Commons of Great Britain. This is what was said on November 12, 1936-and it might be said with equal force about this government at the present time:
The government simply cannot make up their mind, or they cannot get the Prime Minister, to make up his mind. So they go on in a strange paradox, decided to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drifts, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent.
I ask hon. members if that does not fit this government to a T. That great statesman in the British House of Commons was Mr. Winston Churchill. I do not suppose people in Canada will go hungry on account of the government's policy in connection with national selective service. We have the food in this country. But if we do not do something about the matter, so far as our farmers are concerned, we shall be responsible for not doing -as good a job of feeding our allied nations as we should have done.
As a matter of fact, some of our people may have to go cold this winter. That will develop on account of this policy of drift, this procedure of putting things off, this vacillating policy of the government which we have had ever since the war started. We ought to take a leaf out of the book of that little island of Great Britain. They are now proceeding to call up part-time workers to do full-time work. They know they have mopped up all the surpluses from other industries, and men and women in non-essential jobs. They report that each worker is doing a day's work which ranks as a world's record for output per unit. But that is not enough to satisfy them. Norman Crump recently gave details of how they are going further in the use of women for part-time work. However, I have not time to give details of that at the moment.
War Appropriation-Labour

We in Canada are not nearly in the position of the people in Great Britain. The minister's figures show that we have some 743,000 men and women who are actually engaged to-day in low priority occupations. That is shown by the minister's tables. We ought to be able to get all the man-power we require very easily, if we had a proper system of selection. That ought to be done quite simply. If we had some proper and * strong policy pronounced and carried out, we should have no difficulty along these lines. But as I said before, this government never announces a policy; it only pronounces public opinion which it has failed through lack of leadership to create. It just follows public opinion. What we need is leadership. As I said before, it will be necessary to send large reinforcements overseas. We have some in Canada who could be sent anywhere. Our troops must be reinforced. However, some who are enlisted in Canada cannot be sent anywhere, a point which was emphasized today by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. Before these troops can be used, the parliament of Canada must vote confidence in the government. How ridiculous to have the parliament of Canada vote confidence in the government-not just vote confidence by confirmation of an act, but vote confidence in the government itself! That is an entirely different matter.
Then, what will happen? The old Liberal election issue will be trotted out, just as sure as I stand here. We shall hear the old Liberal election issue of "no conscription," the one which they have kept up-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Your party had- that issue, too.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That is the point on which the Liberal party have kept up the racial issue in Canada all these years, with the result that they have brought forth more disunity.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Your leader used that issue.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: If we do not vote "yea" with the government, we shall be accused of refusing reinforcements for overseas troops. If we vote "nay," we shall be accused of supporting the government, and some of the policies we criticize. I do not know what we are going to do.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Hear, hear.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: It is a pretty good trick, if one might call it that-about the neatest trick we ever saw. But after all, I

do not think it is quite fair that any opposition should be placed in a position of that kind. Had it not been for hon. members in the opposition, I doubt very much if the government would have had the great majority in favour of the plebiscite which it had.
May I say at once I think the minister is capable of laying down a policy. I do not know whether he has the support of the government, or support sufficient to enable him to carry out the policy he would like to carry out. But he must take the blame, with the government, for .not carrying out such a policy. Everything is not rosy in .connection with selective service. There are -many things wrong, and many which might be corrected; but I say that unless the government takes steps now, lays down a .policy and enforces it in connection with the crisis we shall, have to face with respect to the reinforcements which will be required, the food which we must produce, the munitions which will have to be made quickly, the transportation which we shall have to furnish, and many matters of that kind, it will be everlastingly condemned by future generations.


Mr. HANSELL:: I do not believe this evening should pass, and the week-end come upon us without our asking the minister to make some statement respecting the fuel situation in Canada, and how the national emergency is to be handled. I asked the minister that question, I believe almost three weeks ago, and he did not know the answer. The day before yesterday I took my full time in trying ito tell the committee the seriousness of the situation as I saw it.
Speaker after speaker has been dealing with general matters, and perhaps the minister has in .mind, when he rises to speak, giving this country the details of the situation as it exists. Can he do that before eleven o'clock? I do not want to take up any time in making a speech. There he sits with three expert advisers sitting in front of him. They have been there for the last couple of days, but I do not know why, because they have not had to advise him about anything. His parliamentary assistant is beside him, and if he need's any .more help there are two ministers of the crown sitting behind him. He seems to be pretty well surrounded with sources of advice. Will he make a definite and comprehensive statement so that this country may know the exact situation with respect to the national coal emergency? Will he tell how the department is dealing with it?


Humphrey Mitchell: For the last three days I have been trying to say something, but

War Appropriation-Labour
this general discussion, has been kept up and the committee has talked about everything from here to Shanghai. This afternoon we had the exhibition, of a private war between two members on the war appropriation measure. I do not think the minister can be blamed. I have been ready and willing to answer any questions that I can. My hon. friend talks about coal. I think he knows, or he should know if he is sufficiently interested, that an order in council was passed and an announcement was made dealing with the man-power side of the government coal policy. The announcement appeared in all the newspapers, and I do not know that the policy has been changed since the announcement was made.
In general terms it provides for the transfer of coal miners not now engaged in mining back to the mining industry. It provides that they shall not be called up for military service, and it even goes so far as to provide that they shall not join the fighting forces on a voluntary basis. It provides for the payment of transportation costs to miners w'ho may have to move their families to new points of occupation. It also guarantees a minimum weekly earning for the men so transferred. It provides also for a separation allowance, if you want to call it that, to be paid to those who are living apart from their dependents. Appointments have already been made of the eastern and western directors of the man-power side of the government's coal mining policy.
The branch of the Department of Labour charged with the responsibility of going through the registration records and getting the names of all men who have been engaged in mining has been actively engaged at its task, and I believe it is completed. Speaking from memory, I understand the figures from the registration are 31,000. Since the policy was announced, over 1,000 miners have been transferred from i their present occupations back to mining. If my hon. friend would like a copy of the order in council to refresh his memory, I can provide him with one.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not want that. The
minister has told us pretty well what we know already. We wish to know if the programme is working out satisfactorily. We wish to know if we are to have coal this winter and if industry is to be kept going.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think the fact that
we have moved 1,000 men in the short time at our disposal is an indication that we are going at the problem in a real way. I do not know whether we shall have coal next winter, and I do not think my hon friend
knows. The same question might be asked about farm crops. It is dependent upon conditions outside this country. The Dominion of Canada is on an import basis as far as coal is concerned. Let us ever remember that. It is estimated that 23,000,000 tons of coal will have to be imported from the United States, and this importation will depend upon the situation that exists in the mining industry ' in that country. That situation has been very difficult in the last few weeks. Arising out of this, may I say that I think it is the duty of every member of this House of Commons and of every responsible citizen of this dominion to give the government every assistance in carrying out the policy that has been laid down.


Ernest George Hansell: I will say "hear, hear"
to that.


Humphrey Mitchell: We think the thing out on paper, and it is much easier to plan than to execute. When we are confronted with what I would term is a grave problem, everybody concerned in the execution of the policy should put forth every ounce of his energy. The government is entitled to the cooperation of every person affected. My hon. friend comes from western Canada and he knows of the situation that existed there last winter. We had an early fall and the thermometer dropped to forty-two degrees below zero in Edmonton. I have a vivid recollection of the telegrams that came to my office in connection with coal supply. I am sure we have a policy, as far as the Department of Labour and selective service are concerned. My hon. friend may rest assured that no stone will be left unturned to see that any mining property that is capable of being operated is supplied with the necessary labour in order that coal may be mined.


Clarence Gillis: Is it not true that representatives of the mining unions and the operators from the east and west are now in Ottawa meeting with the * war labour board for the purpose of developing provincial machinery?


Humphrey Mitchell: I think that is a wage negotiation. My hon. friend is speaking about the war labour board, not the national fuel board.


Clarence Gillis: I understood from those 1 spoke to that they were here making representations in connection with increasing the production of fuel.


Humphrey Mitchell: That may be true, but wages are involved also. It is a joint meeting of the two boards.
War Appropriation-Labour


Mr. WOOD:: The minister has just given us some timely advice, and if we would listen to it and endeavour to live up to it I think we would make a greater effort than we are making at the present time. I listened with considerable interest to the criticism put forth by the opposition with regard to the minister's department and the man-power problem generally.
There is a phrase, "Saying so does not necessarily mean that it is so". Consider the record of production which the Minister of Munitions and Supply brought down a few days ago, showing that Canada is making every week 80 planes; 4,000 motor vehicles; 450 fighting vehicles; 940 heavy guns, barrels or mountings, and that our small arms plants turn out 43,000 smaller weapons. Every week our ammunition factories make 525,000 rounds of heavy ammunition and 25,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition. In view of this huge production, a lot of the criticism we have been listening to seems hardly justified. After all, we have history to light the path of the future. We have learned to recognize the lighthouses on the rocks of disasters, so that we need not fall into the errors of the past.
I should like to say to the leader of the opposition, whose modest, placid way of indulging in biting criticism of the government of the day I admire, that from the impression he has so far made I think he is more likely to be Prime Minister than his leader who is running at large, but I cannot harmonize his actions with some of the views which he has expressed. The other day he championed the cause of the little man. I have sometimes wondered where the little man ever came in on the platform of the Conservative party, with which my hon. friend has been associated for so long. The party has now adopted the hyphenated name Progressive Conservative, but what that means none of us knows. We have heard a great deal about unity in Canada, but I can see no unity, no unified policy which this new hyphenated party-


Gordon Graydon: I do not want to destroy my hon. friend's argument, but there does not happen to be a hyphen in the name.


George Ernest Wood: It is characteristic of the Conservative party that they manufacture a new name, such as National government, or a new programme whenever they think it is expedient to do so, and I will say that the hon. member is just carrying out the record of his party in changing its name.
We are all proud of the development that has taken place in our army, navy and air force since the beginning of this war, but what was the attitude of my hon. friend's party in

1911 when the Liberal government of that day proposed to build a Canadian navy? The Conservative party described it as a tin-pot navy and proposed instead to contribute to-Great Britain $35,000,000 to buy three dreadnoughts for the British navy. They had noconfidence in the Canadian people being able to build up and manage a navy of its own. But, thank goodness, the Liberal party had the courage to set about building a Canadian navy, which to-day is a credit to the Canadian people and to the British empire as a whole.
The same sort of thing happened in connection with our air training scheme. True, this government did not approve the first plan of air training which the British government proposed, but that was because the colonial mind was more or less associated with it. We wanted a larger air training scheme purely under the jurisdiction of Canadian laws and the Canadian parliament, and ultimately our modern air training plan has grown into the greatest in the world. Surely the record of this government is hardly one that justifies the picayune type of criticism to which we have been listening and which does not do credit to our own country. The fact that one-half of our whole economy is devoted to the production of war implements is an indication of what we have accomplished in spite of the man-power shortage. But for that manpower shortage, what might our accomplishments not have been? The leader of the opposition said on June 3:
There is no question that the policy of the government with respect to man-power has been muddled, misconceived and misfitted.
That criticism is hardly characteristic of the leader of the opposition in his genial moments.


Gordon Graydon: It was hard to say, but I had to tell the truth.


George Ernest Wood: I did not think the leader of the opposition would ever come to the point where he would say that he had to tell the truth; I thought he would tell it voluntarily.
I thought better of him.


Gordon Graydon: It was not an unusual situation.


George Ernest Wood: The leader of the opposition also waxed eloquent about the farmer. I admire his legal mind and his solicitude for his farmer friends in Peel county. The Ottawa Journal runs a reprint every day from its corresponding issue of twenty-five years ago, and on May 14, 1918, this appeared in the Ottawa Journal and was reprinted about a month ago:

War Appropriation-Labour
Ottawa in 1918
From the Journal of May 14, 1918
Some 4,000 farmers, largest deputation ever to visit Ottawa, came to try to persuade the government that the draft regulations should not apply to agriculture. Two thousand of them crowded into the Russell theatre, where they presented their case to Prime Minister Borden and his colleagues. Sir Robert told them flatly the government would not change its course.


Gordon Graydon: Was not the Minister of Mines and Resources, whom the hon. member follows, a member of Sir Robert Borden's cabinet at that time?


George Ernest Wood: 
Mr. STIRLING:: A Cadillac cannot be
bought for that.


George Ernest Wood: 
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman,, may I rise to a point of order? I seldom interrupt my hon. friend the member for Brant,, but it does seem to me, in view of what the minister has said, and the commendations the hon. member has made of the minister's statement, that he might get on with the job. Perhaps we are entitled to have some explanation by the hon. gentleman as to how relevant this quotation is to the item of labour.
Mr. MaicNICOL: It has not any relevancy.


Gordon Graydon: It is the Department of Labour which is now being discussed in the committee. It may be there is some connection, but I would like the hon. member's explanation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is perhaps as relevant as the mention yesterday of the Winnipeg convention.


George Ernest Wood: I am prepared to say that what I am quoting is quite relevant to the situation. I qualified my remarks in the beginning by saying that we may learn from experience to plant lighthouses on the rocks of disaster so that we shall not suffer ship-
War Appropriation-Labour

wreck. I bring this quotation before the committee to show that, though the government may have made some errors, a (person's worth must not always be measured by his errors, but sometimes by the temptations he has avoided-which occurs very much more often than the errors. Some credit should be given to the government for its accomplishments, and hon. members should not always be emphasizing its mistakes. Ministers are only human, but I believe the Minister of Labour has made an honest attempt to give efficient direction., and as far as the manpower situation is concerned we have accomplished sufficient to make me willing to take the commendation which Mr. Churchill gave of Canada's contribution. I listened also to the Right Hon. Anthony Eden, and he made complimentary remarks about what our people have done. More recently, an eminent Chinese lady, Madame Chiang Kai-shek, referred to Canada as having given the greatest contribution per capita of any of the united nations. Surely such statements explode all the arguments which have been advanced against the government to-day.
The leader of the opposition interrupted me, but I should have liked to finish this record of evidence before the public accounts committee:
By Mr. Hanson:
Q. Were they worn?
A. Very much worn.
By Mr. Vien:
Q. If I understand rightly your statement, it is that in respect to the mechanical transport the government got from the Imperial government more than they had paid for it?
A. Yes.
Q. And made a profit ?
A. Yes.
Sir Henry Drayton: Fifty per cent?
I draw this to the attention of the committee. I wish also to quote some other comments, emanating from the New York World-Telegram, concerning Canada's contribution. This is a sheet reproducing a series of articles written by William Bloeth. I will just read the headlines:
1.	Canada convoying ships across Atlantic and supplying resources to war effort.
2.	Canada produces both munitions and skilled help.
3.	Canada now ranks as major builder of ocean carriers.
4.	Canada becomes largest exporter of basic metals.
5.	Alcan highway seen reviving interest in development of oil in western Canada.
6.	Canada laying groundwork for bright postwar future. Increasing industrialization expected to trim dependence on other nations.
'Mr. Wood.]
It goes on to say:
Canadian arms are helping the Chinese, and Canadian clothing is warming the Russians. Russia has publicly acknowledged her indebtedness to Canada for some $50,000,000 of tanks that are the "best of our imported tanks."
The country sends some 15,000 tons of wheat to Greece each month as a gift and three-fourths of all hogs, representing a quarter of the total meat supply, was sent to Britain last year.
This writer is far enough away to get a proper focus. I will draw the attention of the leader of the opposition to the old saying that there are those who cannot see the forest for the trees. I think that is the situation with him. Here is another heading:
Canada's example is an inspiration to the United States.
Just think of that.


Gordon Graydon: Just think of it.


George Ernest Wood: Here is what this newspaper says:
In publishing such articles as these by William Bloeth, the New York World-Telegram is doing more than giving due recognition to the great dominion. It is holding up Canada's war record as one that will help the United States to set still higher goals in production and in war loan subscriptions, and to realize its own ability to pay still higher taxes. The United States, in its second year of war, can learn much from Canada as the dominion continues to set new records in this, her fourth war year.
After all, I would rather accept the conclusions of those whose opinions concerning Canada's war effort are not coloured by prejudice or preconception, and1 who try to give the facts as they present themselves in the actual working out of the country's war programme.
There are several matters I should like to comment upon. The fact is that agriculture, in spite of the shortage of help and the hardships which the farmers have had to labour under, produced the largest income last year that we have ever had. The weather conditions this year are such that it is difficult to say what the future may have in store for us, but even with the shortage of labour the farmer will do his best to see that this nation will have an abundance of food. There are some things that we shall probably have to go without, but let us remember that we cannot win wars without sacrifice.
So far as our Cooperative Commonwealth Federation friends are concerned, they wax eloquent about the necessity for farmers receiving higher prices, and in the next breath they urge that the labouring man be given higher wages. They forget that if the farmer receives higher prices, wages will go up, and if

War Appropriation-Labour
wages go up, the things which the farmers buy will also rise in price. In other words, they attempt to ride two horses. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) rather outdid himself in his speech when he referred to some of the actions of this government as reprehensible. I have come to the conclusion that the record of the C.C.F. in this country, the attitude that they have taken when we try to pass a measure in this house for the defence of Canada and their attitude at the present time, are not at all consistent. Their whole policy has been inconsistent from beginning to end, and I would hate to think what the future would have in store for Canada if that element of society were called upon to form a government.
So far as our Social Credit friends are concerned, I give them far more credit for sincerity. They believe that they have a solution for Canada's problems, and that that solution is largely in the direction of monetary reform. While I may not agree with them, at least they are reformers, and since Liberals have always been reformers, I feel at any rate that I have a good deal in common with them. Even if some of the things they advocate are far-fetched, I think they are consistent, because they have stuck to that one particular idea. But the C.C.F. will cater to almost any element or type of society, and as far as playing politics is concerned, they have the Conservatives and the Liberals beaten a long way. I am led to believe that an arrangement has been arrived at in Ontario for collusion between the C.I.O. and Mr. Joliffe in the forthcoming election which it is expected will take place in that province, and the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) and the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) will no doubt play their part in delivering the goods in this House of Commons. It is all arranged. However, I do not believe that the good people of Ontario will fall for that kind of trash. We in Ontario have worked hard to build up one of the best standards of living to be found on the North American continent. Just consider the fact that one in every five people in Ontario can drive an automobile and you will realize what their standard of living is. I do not think, therefore, they will throw caution to the winds and embrace every sort of economic proposal that is submitted to them by hon. members.


Angus MacInnis: There is one thing which the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Wood) said that pleases me, namely, that he has nothing in common with the members of this group, because nothing would convince me that we
were absolutely wrong so much as to have anything in common with the hon. member for Brant, and I say that after listening to him for many years in this house. However, that is not what I rise to say. I hesitate to say anything at this late hour, but we are not likely to do any business this evening apart from a general discussion, and therefore I want to emphasize as strongly as I can some of the points made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) when he spoke earlier in the evening.
Undoubtedly we shall have a certain number of labour disputes no matter what our labour laws and regulations are, and no matter what the policy of the government may be. But there are two kinds of disputes that should not be allowed to develop or to stand in the way of a settlement, and that is, the sort of dispute where one side or the other-and it is usually the employer-refuses to negotiate. Most, or at any rate a great many of our disputes are of that kind, and a dispute of that kind should not be allowed to continue. The Department of Labour has sufficient authority to' deal with it.
Another dispute that should' not be allowed to continue is the dispute that arises because the bargaining agency has not been determined. I have on a previous occasion mentioned to the minister my personal opinion that the moment a dispute arises in an industry as to which group should be the bargaining agency, a vote should be taken to determine that agency, and then the minister should exercise his authority to see that the bargaining is done through that group.
Those are two matters particularly that I wish to impress upon the minister, because it is impossible to resolve disputes if one side refuses to negotiate, or if the bargaining agency is not determined. These are the first essentials to the resolving of labour disputes.
There is another point in connection with the Canadian Ingersoll-Rand company matter. Two weeks ago I asked a question about a lay-off in this plant. The minister replied that he was informed that the reason for the lay-off was union activities. I do not know whether he has ascertained if that was the fact or not, but I tell him that if he has found out that these lay-offs occurred in a war industry where a company had transferred its work to another plant simply because its workers were organizing, because they were carrying out the right guaranteed them by order in council passed by this government,
Privilege-Mr. St. Laurent

then the minister is certainly falling down on his job if he has not brought that to the attention of the company.
I have just one or two words more to say and I shall conclude. We are not only building for the organization that will carry on this war; we are building for what will come after the war, and the government of the *day .can help to build a labour organization that will promote the prosecution of this war, and help the government to organize after the war; or on the other hand it can build up a working-class movement where there will be nothing but bitterness and frustration.
I want the minister to feel that anything I may say at the present time is not said in the way of carping criticism-; it is not said to embarrass him. It is said to help him, because I am convinced that the questions I have mentioned will have to be dealt with and dealt with in no uncertain terms before we can get an orderly arrangement of labour affairs in this country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.	*
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, June 28, 1943