1943-02-04

PROPOSED MINISTRY AND BOARD TO SUPERVISE SHORTAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: I am going to ask the Prime Minister another question, and perhaps I will have better luck with this one.
From communications I have received, the fuel shortage in many parts of Canada continues to be acute. On Friday last the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) directed a question to the Prime Minister on this point. At that time the Prime Minister asked the hon. member to allow his question *to stand as a notice and indicated that a committee had been appointed by the cabinet some little time ago to deal with the problem. Perhaps the Prime Minister is now in a position to indicate to the house and to the country what steps the government has in contemplation to meet this quite serious shortage.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I have in my hand material that was sent to me by the committee to which my hon. friend has referred, but it did not seem to me to be in such form that I would care to present it to parliament. Also I should mention that the committee is associated with the wartime prices and trade board. I think the reply should be made by the Minister of Finance. I have had a word with the deputy minister of finance about the matter, and he indicated that he thought he would be in a position to see that the minister would have a definite statement to give [DOT]to the house to-morrow.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLD WELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Just before I came into the chamber I met a delegation of men from Montreal, and as a result I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply. They are perturbed because reports indicate that a serious lay-off is to be made in the Angus
Labour Conditions

shops, Montreal, where the production of the Valentine tank is to be discontinued. According to their statement some 4,000 men will be affected, of whom only 1,500 may be taken over for the production of other war equipment. The war expenditures committee had this matter before them at one time, and we were given some assurance that when this time came the men would be given other war work to do. I wonder if the minister, either to-day or to-morrow, for he has not had time to look into it, would be prepared to make a statement, because this matter is seriously disturbing a large number of men in Montreal.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply) :: With regard to the position of the Angus shops, I am aware that newspaper reports are current that there will be a suspension of the production of Valentine tanks on April 1. That is by no means a certainty. Discussions are going on at the present moment looking to the continuation of the contract. It depends upon a number of factors, some of which are beyond our immediate control, but I should say there is an even chance that the work may be continued. In any event, if the work is discontinued there is other work to go into the Angus shops. We are short of capacity in certain lines, and it is probable that there will be a transference of part of the capacity, in any event. With regard to t'he transfer of only a portion of the men to other work, I can assure my hon. friend that everyone at present working at the Angus shops will be transferred to employment either in the Angus shops or in other plants in Montreal. Those men are skilled mechanics, and there is and will be I think a real shortage of skilled mechanics.



VISIT TO OTTAWA OP REPRESENTATIVES OF MONTREAL DISTRICT AIRCRAFT WORKERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. The other day a strike delegation from Montreal, representing aircraft workers, was in Ottawa, and asked a certain settlement of difficulties and grievances which were troubling them. I understand that they were given some assurance that their troubles would be looked into, and some adjustment made. Is the Minister of Labour in a position to report to the house the progress made in settling their grievances?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I believe the question the hon. member has just asked was answered yesterday by the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is correct.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. E. Harris (Grey-Rruce) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Graydon, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne this year was one of the most encouraging and reassuring delivered to parliament since the beginning of the war in 1939. Recent successes in Libya, Russia and the Pacific, coupled with the news which has come out from Casablanca to the effect that the allies are now able to maintain the initiative, and will do so this year, has given renewed hope and courage, not only to the Canadian people and their friends across the boundary line, but to all peoples in slavery and under the heel of the nazi and Japanese dictators. Canada's contribution has to a large extent contributed to the initiative wre are about to take. Our contribution has been most effective, both as to the men and women in the services and as to the large quantities of munitions and supplies we have sent to Great Britain and our allies.
While continuation of the war until the unconditional surrender of our enemies must be our first consideration, the proposed measures outlined in the speech from the throne with respect to social security have been well received throughout the entire length and breadth of Canada. Some measure of social security was to be expected. In fact I may go further and say that keen disappointment would have been felt by many of us, especially in view of the Beveridge report, had the government not made certain proposals looking to the establishment of social security, the provision of useful remunerative employment, the removal of fear and want, and the creation of a national system of health insurance.
This is not the time to deal with details of any proposed recommendations in respect of social security, but I would commend to members of the special committee to be set up to deal with the report, and to every member of the house, a study of the Beveridge report. It is my opinion that it is the finest document of its kind in the world to-day. It is published by the Macmillan company, and since only a few copies are available in the parliamentary library I suggest to the govern-

The Address-Mr. Reid
ment that steps be taken to see that this work becomes readily available to members of the House of Commons and to the public generally.
If there be any who fear the introduction of social security measures, may I for a moment refer them to the three guiding principles outlined by Sir William Beveridge. In clause 7, at page 6 of his report, we find this:
The first principle is that any proposals for the future, while they should use to the full the experience gathered in the past, should not he restricted by consideration of sectional interests established in the obtaining of that [DOT]experience. Now, when the war is abolishing landmarks of every kind, is the opportunity for using experience in a clear field. A revolutionary moment in the world's history is a time for revolutions, not for patching.
The second principle is that organization of social insurance should be treated as one part only of a comprehensive policy of social progress. Social insurance fully developed may provide income security; it is an attack upon want. But want is one only of five giants on the road of reconstruction and in some ways the easiest to attack. The others are disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness.
The third principle is that social security must be achieved by cooperation between the [DOT]state and the individual. The state should offer [DOT]security for service and contribution. The state in organizing security should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility; in establishing a national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family.
There are two cogent reasons why Canada must follow the lead given to us by Great Britain. The first is contained in the Atlantic *charter, in which Canada fully concurred. It reads;
To bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing for all improved labour standards, economic advancement and social security.
The second is stated by Sir William Beveridge, as follows;
There will, it may be hoped, come a season when it is profitable to consider the practical relations of social insurance in Britain and of schemes for the same purpose in the dominions, in the colonies and in other countries of the world. On the assumption that once again it will be possible for men to move from one country to another to find the best use for their powers, it will be desirable to consider the making of reciprocal arrangements between the schemes of different countries facilitating transfer from one to the other, that is to say arrangements enabling men on migration to avoid forfeiting security and allowing them to carry with them some of the rights that they have acquired in their former country. That should, in due course, become a practical problem. It is not possible to-day to do more than mention the problem to show that it has .not been forgotten.
The matter of immigration following the war has been mentioned by hon. members who spoke earlier in the debate. I shall make only one comment respecting that matter. Canada must first stabilize her domestic economy for her own people, and especially for her own returned men and women, whose sacrifices must never be forgotten, before she embarks upon any general policy of immigration from Europe. Conditions after the war will not be the same as they were before 1939, and it must not be overlooked that even to-day Great Britain is producing well over fifty per cent of her food requirements.
I commend the government for the steps taken, and particularly do I commend the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), whose activities in this regard have at last borne fruit. I trust that in any legislation that is brought down the guiding principle will be that enunciated by Sir William Beveridge, namely, a national minimum about which prosperity can grow, but with want abolished. We are taking t'he positive rather than the negative side. I believe it is well to emphasize the positive side. On the positive side we are putting work and useful employment ahead of the other measures. There may be opposition to the measures proposed, not perhaps from inside the house but by interests outside. There always has been opposition when measures have been introduced looking to the betterment of the lot of the common people. There may also be the cry, "Where will the money come from?" We have heard that cry many times in this house, especially up to 1939. It must not be forgotten that in no year until 1939 did Canada spend more than $500,000,000 by way of total expenditures, but this year our expenditures will amount to something like $4,000,000,000, just eight times as much. I think that should answer any cry of, "Where will the money come from?"
Travelling eastward for the session I was gratified to hear that the medical profession from one end of the country to the other were one hundred per cent behind the health insurance proposals and had been most helpful in drafting them. This is a splendid beginning and augurs well for the success of the scheme. I am hoping that the special committee which is to be set up will get to work as speedily as possible and that definite action will be taken during the present session. If this is done, the hopes of thousands of our people may be realized, especially the war widows and other widows, and also the aged. Large numbers of these people have almost given up any hope of a better world this side of the resurrection.

The Address-Mr. Reid

Mention is made in the speech from the throne of a joint committee to be set up by the United States and Canada to deal with agriculture. In their speeches both the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) mentioned the food problem. It is a matter which has become of great importance and it is causing grave concern. I believe we have barely tohched upon the food problem which confronts not only the north American continent but all our allies, and the matter warrants more attention than has so far been given to it. All the facts of the situation should be made clear. Many people in this country have not realized that food is required not only for the Canadian people, for our fighting men and women, but for all our fighting allies.
From 1939 up until some time last year the first necessity was for guns, tanks, aeroplanes and other military supplies. The extent to which we have been successful in regard to these was revealed in the speech made by the Prime Minister. I commend to the study of every hon. member of the house the figures which he gave. Sometimes I think that we are not proud enough of the tremendous contribution which is being made by the Canadian people to our allies and to help the bringing about of victory. The important necessity this year is for food. There is a challenge to Canada's fertile plains to provide the food quotas for victory. Although over 100,000 men have left the farms to go into the various services, last year our farmers produced greater crops than in the year previous, and for this some commendation is due them.
I should like to take a moment or two of the time of the house to refer to the great task and the high responsibility which Great Britain has undertaken; it has not been touched upon so far in this debate. First of all Great Britain has her own people and troops to feed and clothe. Her next responsibility is the hundreds of thousands of prisoners of war which were taken in Libya. The people in the Libyan cities which she has taken over must be provided with the necessary food. On top of this, quantities of food have been sent to Russia. I do not think it is generally known that butter left this north American continent last year for the soldiers in Russia. We all know the civilian population of Russia have been denying themselves every possible morsel of food in order that their soldiers may be taken care of. Let us not overlook the fact that many if not all the Russian granaries have been in the hands of the nazis for over a year. Great Britain has also been called upon to 	>
send wheat and other food supplies to the people of India out of her own meagre supply.
I have not the figures of the present food requirements of the Canadian navy, army and air force, but the other day I saw some figures in the press with regard to the food requirements of the United States army. I know it will surprise you, Mr. Speaker, as it did me to learn that it takes over 15,000,000 pounds of food daily to feed the army of the United States. What I have just outlined is a challenging problem of itself; but there is something more: there is the spectre of famine which is haunting every country in Europe. All these peoples are looking to the fertile plains of the north American continent for food.
These facts should be placed more plainly before the people of this country. Tell our people what will be required this, year, and I am sure they will gladly respond. Can we meet this challenge? I say yes, we can meet it, but not in the way we have been endeavoring to meet it in the past year. Questions have been asked regarding a food ministry. I propose that a food ministry be set up, not next week or next year, but right-now. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, to hon. members and particularly to the government that the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) be made the head of that food ministry. But should he be given this power and authority, his efforts would be greatly thwarted did we not also give him the power to fix the prices of farm products.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Page Mr. Donald Gordon.


Thomas Reid: I am not going to make an attack on the wartime prices and trade board at this time. I criticized the board at the last session, and I may have -plenty to say before this session is over. I do not want the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) or any other member to accuse me of attacking Donald Gordon or the wartime prices and trade board, except in this one particular. I object to the method by which they have endeavoured to handle the farmer and farm prices.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that a promise or a threat?


Thomas Reid: ' Both. Everyone realizes that there must be control of prices and rationing, but to place under the wartime prices and trade board the fixing of farm prices is entirely wrong. I can imagine the cry. that would go up from some in this country if farmers were chosen to handle the Bank of Canada and

The Address-Mr. Reid
other banking institutions. And yet the farmers know more about banking institutions and their bookkeeping methods than the banker knows about the farmer and his problems, and I say that without fear of successful contradiction. The control of farm prices under the wartime prices and trade board is hampering the production of farm products. How could it be otherwise? The job of the wartime prices and trade board is to keep down prices, and with them production becomes a secondary consideration. I have witnesses with me to-day who can support that statement, and I am going to quote from a statement of a member of the wartime prices and trade board, Mr. F. S. Grisdale, acting food administrator, who, speaking at Calgary on January 30, is reported as follows:
"The only means available to the food administration for increasing supply was through the price incentive," he said, adding that the prices board might know something about the supply situation but might not know the viewpoint of the producers with regard to ceiling price on various commodities.
The farmers know the attitude towards them which has been adopted by many members of the wartime prices and trade board and they have resented and do resent the approach which has been made to their problems and the manner in which these have been dealt with. I say, Mr. Speaker, that too much power has been put into the hands of many of these men. I am not going into details to-day, but I should like to cite instances of a dictatorial attitude and of threatening by members of the wartime prices and trade board which I believe should not be tolerated.
The potato growers of British Columbia and the milk producers of the Fraser valley have been threatened that if they did not supply the market with potatoes and milk the prices board might take those products from them. I have before me a letter from a prominent farmer in which it is said that one man from the wartime prices and trade board,-Mr. Nadeau I do not know whether he knows anything about farming or about British Columbia - came out to British Columbia and told the farmers this. He said that the milk in the cow might belong to the cow but once you take the milk from the cow "we have the right to take it from you, and we might do so."
There are two ways of getting men to do their best. One is the German method and the other is our own, and we should be careful to see to it that we do. not depart from the democratic standards which we value in this country. Anything in the form of threats 72537-9i
should not be tolerated. Last year I spoke of the power that was given to officials on the wartime prices and trade board. I now find myself in very good company, as I see that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Duff, must have something of the same sort in mind, because in his judgment issued recently he said:
There is always the risk of abuse when wide powers are committed in general terms to any body of men.
Perhaps attention will be paid to his remarks; I know that none was paid to mine when I warned the government last year. I do not wish just to criticize and leave the matter there. I wish to make certain suggestions to the government in regard to the food problem and how I think it should be tackled. First of all, set up a food ministry, to handle food production. Second, remove farm prices entirely from under the wartime prices and trade board. Third, I would have the dominion inaugurate and give leadership to a women's land army. I want to pause here to say a word on behalf of the women of this country.
It was my privilege as a member of the war expenditures committee to visit many aeroplane factories in Canada and I was astounded, first of all, at the large number of women who work in those factories, and secondly at the splendid work they are doing. I want to say to those men who still have old-fashioned ideas about the superiority of men that they had better take note of what these women are doing. They are doing a mighty fine job, and great credit is coming to them for it. Great Britain is employing some seven and a half million women in its war effort; when we talk about the effort of this country let us not forget that in Great Britain, with a population of 46,000,000, there are 23,000,000 persons employed in their war effort, over 7,000,000 of these being women. The question in Great Britain to-day is not what kind of work women can do, but what kind of work a woman cannot do. Women there are employed in almost every class of work. I suggest a women's land army in this country. Let me give a local instance to show how women have risen to the occasion.
When the Japanese were removed from the province of British Columbia some fear was expressed that the British Columbia canneries would lack their usual help. Efforts were made to bring in white girls. Fears were expressed at the outset as to whether they would do the work. There were some difficulties in the beginning, but after the cannery operators had provided proper conditions for the white
The Address-Mr. Reid

girls and paid them decent wages, the employment of White girls in the British Columbia canneries was a success. The employment of women on the land would be a success too if leadership was given from Ottawa. We need not look to the various provincial governments to give leadership in these things. In my opinion the provincial governments today are nothing but glorified municipal councils; when they attempt to do any of these things they find themselves immediately up against officialdom and red tape, and cannot deal directly with members of the government but are referred to officials of some department or other.
My next proposal is this. I would prohibit the various members of the wartime prices and trade board from making statements to the press from time to time as to what articles are to be rationed or not rationed. One day we will read that a certain commodity or article is to be rationed, and the next day that statement will be contradicted. What has been the effect of issuing these statements? It has been to send a rush of people to the stores to buy up the article which the press statement said is likely to be rationed. Why not adopt the system that they have .in Great Britain? There, when an article is to be rationed, an announcement is made over the radio on a Sunday, at a time when all the stores are closed, that the new order will go into effect the following Monday morning.
Next I would develop further the national nutritional scheme. Under the Minister of Pensions and National Health a body has been set up to investigate nutritional schemes, and now would be the time perhaps to make many changes in our diet. The people of Great Britain have found that through the many changes in their diet that 'have been brought about by rationing, and through the eating of essential foods provided them, they are enjoying better health than they ever did before. I was talking to some doctors who have recently returned from Great Britain, and they tell me that various ailments seem to have disappeared over there under rationing and the government's nutritional programme which saw to it that the essential foods were placed before the British people. In this country the Department of Pensions and National Health, under the minister and Doctor Pett, much has been done. But the question of absenteeism is arising. Attention has been drawn in .the press to the number of girls in the civil service at Ottawa who are absent from work through illness. I also came across an article by Marion Harlow, entitled "Canada Fights 'Hidden Hunger' ". Miss

Harlow is assistant director of the Nutrition Services of Canada's Department of Pensions and National Health, and speaking of a survey which. has been made of the health of workers in war industry she has this to say:
Our surveys revealed that many of the younger workers, both girls and men, dash from bed to the plant. Then, by midmorning or earlier they stave off the pangs of hunger by swallowing cake or pastry and soft drinks or coffee bought at the canteen.
That, she claims, is the cause of a great deal of illness and consequent absence from the offices or factories which employ them. Doctors will tell you that more suffering in this country comes from over-eating than from under-eating. The nutrition campaign should be carried further than it has been, though I commend the Minister of Pensions and National Health for having inaugurated a scheme. I am not advocating a lower standard of living.
Then, too, I would add to those who could be employed on the land, the group of conscientious objectors. Something like fifteen hundred in all are so designated. The majority of them are in the province of British Columbia, being given work under a reforestation scheme. The objective is an excellent one, and I am not opposing it, but in these days, when there is so much need of help on our farms, these fifteen hundred men should be sent to the farms and made to work there.
The Prime Minister in his address the other day drew to the attention of the house and the country the great submarine menace and the need for ships. I was not surprised at all as to the need for ships. Last year, when some of us proposed in this chamber that more ships, especially wooden ones, should be built, we were laughed at, although at that time the lack of ships had created a bottleneck; and things are worse to-day. I then proposed to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) that he proceed with a programme of building wooden ships, and was rather rudely turned down. I am going to change the direction of my appeal at the present time, and am going to make it to the three ministers of defence, the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, the Minister of National Defence for Air, and the Minister of National Defence, who we were all sorry to hear had met with an accident and who we hope will soon return to the house. I say to these three ministers that a joint programme should be carried out with the cooperation of the three departments, and a better policy as regards the construction of ships should be put into effect. I do not know what is happening in other parts of Canada, but in British Columbia we are a little worried

The Address-Mr. Reid
about what has taken place there. Instead of building all the ships they want, representatives of the three departments go round and if they see a fine fishing boat they send in a requisition and take it over from the owner. They also go to the various shipyards and if they see a fine commercial boat being built they say, " Oh, we would like that one," and away goes the boat. To-day many commercial owners will not build a boat, realizing that if they give an order to build it they have no guarantee that they will be able to acquire ownership, because the government may step in and take it away from them.
We have shipyards in British Columbia, at Vancouver, New Westminster, Victoria and other points, which are not working to full capacity. I have in mind one now, a shipyard in New Westminster called the Star shipyards, which has eight ways; six of them are idle, and the other two soon will be. That shipyard has been compelled to accept orders for rowboats to keep their men going. We should have a definite programme of building ships, and if we have not the engines to put in wooden ships we should put sails on them. From what I understand, a sailing vessel might pass more easily through the submarine menace than one propelled by engines, because I believe it is the noise and vibration of the engines which conveys the whereabouts of the ship to the submarine.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The
Egyptian Queen did not have quite that history.


Thomas Reid: There is no reason why these shipyards should not be working to full capacity, and every kind and type of ship should be built. Perhaps we shall have to come to it, but why has a programme not been inaugurated and proceeded with? I plead with the three ministers of defence to give attention to this matter and to hand over their orders to the Minister of Munitions and Supply; it may be that we shall then get some action along the lines I have just recommended.
My time is passing, but there is one particular matter I wish to discuss for a moment or two before I close, and that is a recent statement of Mr. G. E. Trueman, a member of the British Columbia placement commission, who, speaking at Toronto on January 6th, had this to say:
The reason for mass evacuation of Japanese from British Columbia coastal areas was not because of the Japanese but because of the white residents. The problem was one of mass hysteria and race prejudice.
Now, sir, I ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) to see to it that Mr. Trueman is called to account for that statement, because
I believe it is an insult to the people of British Columbia and should not be allowed to pass without some note being taken of it.
Mr. O'NEILL: Read the rest of what he said.


Thomas Reid: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is bad enough. If I had time I would. The members for British Columbia and the people of that province who urged the removal of the Japanese from the coastal area did not do so on account of mass hysteria or race prejudice; they did it for the safety of the people of that province, including the Japanese themselves. No one in this country can tell which of the Japanese-or for that matter some other nationalities, but especially the Japanese-is loyal or disloyal, and it was felt to be in the best interests of the people of British Columbia to move them out. So far as I know, no Japanese citizen born in this country or in Japan, has come forward to the authorities and given any information or made any statement against one of his own race. That is significant. Although an inquiry has been held in the matter of the "Black Dragon", I would say that one of the reasons that none of them has come forward is the fear of reprisals.
In a booklet which has just been issued, entitled "Removal of Japanese from Protected Areas", issued by the British Columbia security commission, the statement is made, regarding the removal, at page 5:
The libraries of this continent held no reference to guide the organizers in their initial actions.
Well, if they had investigated a little further they would have discovered that this is not the first occasion on the north American continent when there has been a wholesale removal of people. How many hon. members realize that during the days of the *war of independence the Americans moved the British people back fifty miles inland-and they did not receive the same consideration as we have given the Japanese, because their property and chattels were confiscated. I mention that to refute the statement that there is no precedent for the removal of Japanese from the coastal areas of British Columbia. Much good may come out of it; and one lesson I think this country should take to heart is that it is not in the best national interests to allow, any large group to live away off by themselves and unto themselves. I may be wrong, but I am one of those who believe that difference of language does divide a nation. I point to the amicable relations between the United States and Canada as one outstanding example.
The Address-Mr. Reid

I wish now to deal for a few minutes with the fuel shortage which exists in British Columbia.
We have had one of the most severe fuel shortages that have ever beset our people, as will be seen from the following brief paragraph in this article:
Harassed with cold homes, sick children and frozen water pipes, men and women lined two and three deep before the fuel board office of the Wartime Prices and Trade Board on West Pender Monday afternoon, in a desperate "last hope" to obtain fuel-any kind of fuel just so long as it would burn.
I do not want anyone to think for a moment that I am sniping at the chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, but he went to Vancouver recently and the general statements he made in connection with the fuel situation were in my opinion uncalled for. He wondered what sort of people they were who could not go out and cut fuel for themselves, and he intimated that if he were placed in a similar position he knew what he would do. I need not point out, if he had made the same statement in Ottawa, how foolish it would have seemed, because the people in the city of Vancouver could not go nineteen and twenty miles and cut fuel for themselves and bring it in. As a matter of ' fact, a great many of them did help themselves, because I have pictures of men sawing up their garden fences, parts of their garages and even part of the furniture in their home in order to obtain fuel-and yet all they get is a statement of that sort from the head of the board. I wonder why he did not investigate the closing down of two lumber mills in British Columbia when lumber was in great demand and when the people could not get fuel. I say to the board that if they really want to do the people a service they should find out why these two mills were bought and closed and hundreds of men thrown out of employment.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Private enterprise. That is what the members to my right want. The hon. member should come over here with us.


Thomas Reid: I think I am safer here. I see my time is up, but before I sit down I would ask the government to take special note of the fuel situation, which is really serious, and also the fact that on the coast cargo ships being built for the United1 States government have been changed recently from coal burners to oil burners. We might have had a small tanker to supply our people with fuel. At any rate the conditions are such as to warrant something more definite and satisfactory being done for our people than simply the uttering of a lot of words.
IMr. Reid.l
I am sorry, sir, that my time is up.


Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: I agree with a great many of the remarks which have just been made by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). I have a copy of the Beveridge report, much of which I have read, and I should like to recommend, as he did, that every member of the House of Commons study the report in detail. The hon. member pointed out that Britain is now producing fifty per cent of her foodstuffs. I suggest that her goal for 1943 is a production of over seventy-five per cent of her foodstuff requirements. I agree with the hon. member that the time has come in Canada for the [DOT]appointment of a food ministry; in fact that time is long past. This is very essential.
I was greatly disappointed to find that the speech from the throne does not contain any constructive suggestions for the proper allocation of man-power or for assistance to Canadian agriculture in these distressing times. One paragraph in the speech from the throne states that a joint committee representative of the departments of agriculture of Canada and the United States has been agreed upon to coordinate the efforts of the two countries in the production of food for the united nations. That is all to the good, but there is no mention of bringing about parity prices as between the producers of the two countries. Further on, this statement appears in the speech from the throne:
My ministers have already begun to explore the international agreements and domestic measures which will help to secure adequate incomes for primary producers and full employment after the war.
They have only begun to study these conditions in this the fourth year of the war. Again:
My ministers believe that a comprehensive national scheme of social insurance should be worked out at once which will constitute a charter of social security for the whole of Canada. The government accordingly proposes to recommend the early appointment of a select committee to examine and report on the most practicable measures of social insurance, and the steps which will be required to ensure their inclusion in a national plan.
This charter of social security comes apparently as a result of the convention held in Winnipeg last December. It has all the earmarks of it. In that respect, notwithstanding the views expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) the other evening in this house as to the composition of his cabinet from the point of view of occupational representation, may I say that the election of the Hon. John Bracken to the leadership of the Progressive Conservative party is regarded

The Address-Mr. Ross (Souris)
as an event of extraordinary importance, especially to the agriculturists of Canada, because for the first time in Canada's histery will the chieftainship of one of the great political parties rest in a man who is essentially of the soil, a man moreover who is well versed in the science of government. His sincere conviction is that Canada cannot be prosperous unless all groups within the country enjoy prosperity. Agriculture is Canada's basic industry, and without prosperous basic industries Canada can never prosper.
The greatest asset that any Canadian statesman can possess is a profound knowledge of agriculture and its many serious problems. The Hon. John Bracken qualifies completely in that respect. He has a scientific, technical and practical knowledge of agriculture such as is possessed by few people in this dominion, certainly not by any member of the present House of Commons. At the Rowell-Sirois conference of provincial premiers with the Prime Minister, held in this chamber, in January, 1942, he proved himself a great national figure, having a grasp of national problems throughout the dominion. The platform or peoples' programme adopted by the Progressive Conservative convention affords ample scope for a leader of Mr. Bracken's broad humanitarian convictions.
Any party is as good as its leader and can never be better. The Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) intimated recently that Canada would presently emerge as a great industrial nation and that the basic industries would henceforth be only of secondary importance. His is precisely the point of view which has condemned Canadian agriculture to the role of hewers of wood and drawers of water for the urban communities. Judging by governmental action to date this view is also held by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and others.
To-day Canada's agricultural population, which is over one-third of the total population, is receiving less than one-sixth of the national income. The Prime Minister, speaking in this debate on February 1, as will be found on page 49 of Hansard, said the reason why butter is rationed, with a hint that beef also might be rationed, is that Canada is providing the enormous supplies of food which she is sending to the people of Great Britain, from the supplies of foodstuffs of this country. That statement is untrue with respect to beef. Until the Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Trade and Commerce can stand up in this house
and say what quantity of beef has been shipped, giving the dates of shipment, to Great Britain during the past calendar year, or give us that information at least in confidence, then I say that statement is as untrue as it is misleading.


Mr. GARDINER:: The hon. gentleman has mentioned my name, and the Prime Minister is not here to reply. What the Prime Minister did state was that the need for any rationing arose from the fact that food was being shipped to Great Britain; and I am sure my hon. friend will agree that if a percentage of the butter fat represented by the cheese being shipped to Britain had been converted into butter, which would have been quite possible, there would have been no necessity for the rationing of butter.


James Arthur Ross: I was speaking particularly of beef.


James Garfield Gardiner: Beef is in exactly the same relationship to pork. We are shipping approximately seventy per cent of our bacon and ham to Britain.


James Arthur Ross: Pork is not beef.


James Garfield Gardiner: Partly as a result, all our beef, much of which previously went to the United States, is being consumed in this country.


James Arthur Ross: I desire to continue with my speech-and no proof has been given by the minister with regard to beef, the only item I am discussing at the moment. With reference to butter, which the minister just mentioned, the present shortage is due to the price ceiling and to the inefficiency and muddling with regard to the question of manpower in this country. The lack of parity prices, more than anything else, is responsible for the butter shortage, and that is also -the case with many other agricultural commodities. Many dairy herds have been shipped to the United States, and many dairy animals have been slaughtered in this country. Last year the producers received 50 cents per pound for butter fat used in making cheese and only 35 cents per pound for butter fat going into butter. To-day, including the 10 cent bonus, the producer receives 44 cents per pound for butter fat going into butter, while his neighbour in the United States receives approximately 50 cents. When Canada went to war the government used as a base period for industry and organized labour the years 192629. When the United States went to war they took as their base period for the whole nation the years 1913-14. On January 30, 1943, the

The Address-Mr. Ross (Souris)
cash grain quotations, Winnipeg and Chicago, were as follows:
Winnipeg Chicago Difference
Wheat	90	1.451	-551Oats	51J	.62	.10JBarley	641	.90	.25!Eye	651	.841	-191
Then the implements of production cost much more in Canada than in the United States. On previous occasions I have placed upon Hansard price charts showing these differences. A comparison of the prices of four of the necessary farm implements in Canada as between 1934 and 1941 is as follows:
1934	1941
2-furrow gang plough	$137.50 $155.00
8-foot cultivator	 143.00	162.00
20-row double disc drill.. .. 250.50	295.25
8-foot binder	 257.00	327.00
The average increase in the cost of these four farm implements, which are most necessary on any farm, was 181 per cent during that period. To-day there is a large demand for power equipment, but it is expensive and difficult to obtain. According to agricultural statistics the average wages of farm help by the month increased by over 65 per cent from 1940 to 1942. It is most difficult to obtain help at any price, since agriculturists find it impossible to compete with industry in order to obtain labour on their farms. In the matter of live stock, Winnipeg and Chicago quotations as of January 30, 1943, were as follows: Winnipeg Chicago Difference
Fat steers	$11	00	$15	50	$4	50Fat cows	9	50	12	50	3	00Fat calves	12	00	16	50	4	50Fat hogs	15 35	15 35	....
The choice hog in the United! States weighs from 190 pounds to 330 pounds. The choice hog in the Canadian market weighs from 190 pounds to 230 pounds. The Canadian producer takes a heavy cut in price for the hog weighing over 230 pounds; for any producer knows that it costs much less per pound to put weight on a hog over 200 pounds than under that weight. There is a large disparity in connection with grain, live stock and dairy product prices to-day; and will any hon, member say that the agriculture industry should not be entitled to parity at this time?
In connection with the man-power muddle, there is no master plan. Agriculture, labour and the armed forces are all competing for our man-power resources; there is no coordination whatever. Last July a young man in my constituency, the only male on a half section, with a widowed mother, in order not to be drafted volunteered1 for the air force, and was accepted. He asked for leave to assist in harvesting his mother's crop, but his

request was refused. I investigated his case in detail and wired the officer in command of the manning pool in an attempt to get harvest leave for the boy, but my request also was refused. I could cite many such examples. I could go back to the fall of 1941, when a strenuous effort was made to get men into the armed forces and the categories were lowered. I know of one farmer who in many respects was a splendid chap, though suffering a certain physical handicap. He was just over thirty years of age, tactful in the handling of other men, and a fine mechanic who could1 repair machinery out in the open field. He operated several sections of land and had a large number of live stock. He did not particularly want to serve in the armed forces, but he offered his services so that when his pals came back he might at least say that he had tried to enlist. His neighbours knew of his physical handicap and much to their surprise he was accepted during the fall of 1941. I have already placed upon Hansard figures showing what it costs to equip and train a man in the armed forces. This man was trained and sent overseas; after fifteen months he was brought back to Canada and discharged. I know of other young farmers in my neighbourhood who enlisted, came home and sold their farms and equipment, and after a few months were found to be physically unfit and were discharged. Some time ago it was officially stated that there had been more than 60,000 discharges from the armed forces.- Imagine the amount of money that has been wasted in equipping and training some 60,000 men, many of whom never should have been accepted, to say nothing of the man-power lost and the lessening of production that has resulted.
The man-power situation has been lamentable in this country. During August of 1940 we had a national registration of men and women, conducted under the supervision of the Department of National War Services, then headed by the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). Advantage was never taken of this registration, as I had imagined it would be, in order to develop a master plan for agriculture, industry and the armed forces. In this connection those who are interested might read the opinions with respect to farm labour as expressed on June 2, 1942, by the Minister of Agriculture, at page 3267 of Hansard, or those of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) at page 3471 of Hansard for June 9, 1942. The indifference of these ministers at that time to the question of agricultural help is astonishing to many of us now.

The Address-Mr. Ross (Souris)
The hon. member who preceded me in the debate has referred to the seriousness of the fuel situation in British Columbia. We on the prairies have a difficult fuel situation these days, and it is a condition which prevails throughout all of western Canada. We read in the daily press that in many districts schools, hospitals and other public institutions have had to close down because of a lack of fuel.
Under date of November 21, 1942, I sent a telegram to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) as follows:
Many municipal officials fear that due to lack of fuel with severe winter weather there will be undue hardship and suffering on the prairies. The present labour difficulties at the coal mines is the result of lack of proper coordination by various departments of the government. Imperative that immediate action be taken to avoid a very serious situation.
J. A. Ross, M.P. for Souris.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would like to tell my hon. friend we have put 1,800 men in the coal mines of western Canada since November, 1942.


James Arthur Ross: I am not disputing that. I received a reply from the Prime Minister stating that the telegram had been passed on to the ministers of the two departments most vitally concerned, and that the cabinet were giving the matter its attention. Those two departments were the Department of Finance and the Department of Labour.
On January 27, 1943, I had considerable correspondence with respect to a meeting of the boards of trade and municipal officials at Minnedosa, Manitoba. I shall not go through the whole of this correspondence, but I shall read the principal resolution, which is as follows:
Resolution of a meeting of western associated boards of trade and municipal bodies held at Minnedosa January 27, 1943.
Whereas the fuel situation is a national problem due chiefly to lack of labour, and the need for fuel is immediately urgent.
And whereas the dominion government controls all available labour, such as conscientious objectors, forestry battalions, and with their consent prisoners of war, and whereas in the Riding Mountain National Park supplies of one hundred thousand cords of dry poplar are now available and in the park and wooded areas of provincial lands great supplies of green wood is available.
Be it resolved that the Minister of National Resources and the fuel controller be urged to take action forthwith to make these supplies available.
Signed Mayor Young, Brandon Mayor Pollock, Neepawa Mayor Ramdsden, Dauphin Mayor Clark, Minnedosa.
I have several other resolutions with regard to the matter, of which the departments concerned have copies.
Speaking on March 24, 1942, the Prime Minister announced the establishment of national selective service, and defined its policy. On August 19 of the same year on a nation-wide broadcast he told of the extension of that policy in order to put all men and women to work in essential industry.
On January 16, 1943 he is reported to have written the Minister of Labour asking for detailed answers to some nineteen questions relating to Canada's man-power situation, or as to what has become of the words uttered by the Prime Minister himself on March 24 and August 19.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know how that letter got out, but I think the use of it is reprehensible. I am not referring of course to the use made of it by the hon. member who is speaking. But it was merely a routine letter such as is sent out every year by the leader of the government prior to a session. I say that the use of that letter is unfair and unfortunate.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, if it was unfortunate, let us have the letter.


James Arthur Ross: I have only taken it from the daily press; and in view of what the minister has said now, he should let us have a copy of it.
In the meantime two things are entirely responsible for the present difficulties in connection with food production, namely, the price-ceiling set-up without proper consideration for parity prices, and the mishandling of Canada's man-power problem. With respect to the price-ceiling may I say that since June 29 of last year I have had a question on the order paper concerning the wartime prices and trade board, and I have not yet received an answer to it, because some of the information asked for Mr. Gordon does not wish to give.
I believe most people realize that inexperienced men cannot properly operate and take care of modern mechanized agricultural equipment. With it, one man can do several times the amount of work that can be done by a man using horse-propelled equipment. Many of these experienced operators have left the farms. Under the present set-up it would be difficult if not impossible to get them back on the land. A great deal of planning and effort must be put forth before a crop is produced and harvested in this country. Much of this production is used, in turn, in the production of beef, bacon, poultry, eggs, dairy



The Address-Mr. Ross (Souris)
products and the like. Agricultural production in Canada during 1942 was very high. But increases on a wide range of products is asked during 1943. Some fourteen farm products vary in percentage increases of from 8 to 67-6 per cent. This is a large contribution for agriculture to be asked to make, in view of the present labour shortage and other difficulties now confronting that industry. The importance of a clearer definition of the man-power policy, as it is expected to apply to agriculture, is now most evident to all; and I trust that governmental authorities will work in closer collaboration 'with organized agriculture. .
The report issued by officials of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture while in session at Calgary last Saturday, January 30, to the effect that they had not been consulted about 1943 production, is disappointing. When the grain policy for 1943 was announced last Friday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) it was disappointing to learn that payments of storage of grain within the quota held on farms would not be allowed on the same basis as that paid the elevator companies holding grain for the government of the day. And equally disappointing was it to find that a parity price would not be paid for the quota the government agrees to take from the producers of this country.
In conclusion I would ask the government:
1.	To assure the nation that our army as now organized will be properly reinforced when they go into battle and suffer casualties -as they surely must do at some future day. It is most important that the nation should have this assurance now.
2.	That a food ministry be established in order that Canada may do her utmost in the production of essential foods for the united nations at this time. This is a matter which may be of vital importance in Canada in the coming season.
3.	That parity prices be created immediately for all products and services essential to the war effort and the human family.
4.	That industry be decentralized. Plants for the production of alcohol from wheat, plants for the manufacture of synthetic rubber and flax processing plants should be established west of the great lakes, adjacent to the raw materials and the abundance of cheap power which is available in that area.
5.	That redistribution of representation in the House of Commons be not dealt with until after the conclusion of the war, because there has been a considerable movement of population in various parts of Canada since war was declared. If necessary the British North America Act should be amended in this
rMr. J. A. Ross.]
respect. An amendment to that act will be necessary if social security legislation is to function properly.
6.	That old-age pensions be increased to S30 a month.
I shall support, Mr, Speaker, the amendment of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) which reads:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed:
(a)	to provide an adequate plan for the effective use of Canada's man- and woman-power;
(b)	to adopt and carry through a national labour policy which will ensure maximum production and give to labour its rightful position as one of the major partners in our Canadian democracy; and
(c)	to provide adequate measures whereby Canadian agriculture can make its maximum war contribution and receive a fair share of the national income.


Mr. A. W. ROEBUCK (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the pungent and eloquent remarks of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) and I want to join with him in the congratulations which he offered to the government of the day upon the forecast which appears in the throne speech, to which we are speaking at the present time, in regard to security measures.
The hon. member for New Westminster has spoken of the increase in the national income during these years of war. If my memory is right-I am not quoting him but giving my own memory of the figures-the national income of Canada in 1939-40 was four and a half billion dollars. To-day it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of eight billion dollars. In other words, in a time of disorganization and disruption consequent upon a state of war we have practically doubled the income of Canada. I would call the attention of hon. members to the fact that we have done that during a period when we have withdrawn from active production as many as 600,000 of our healthy, young and otherwise producing men by enlisting them in the armed forces. The old statement, " Where shall the money come from; what shall we use for money?" is hardly applicable and can hardly pass as an argument. Were we to maintain the productive power of the Canadian people after the war closes at only the rate at which we are producing now, and producing under difficulties, in factories newly established and worked by men recently trained, it would be possible for us to double the income of every man and woman in Canada-yes, and maintain all the graft and exploitation that goes on as well.

The Address-Mr. Roebuck


Angus MacInnis: Why maintain it?


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: I am not advocating the maintaining of it. Do not take that meaning out of my words. I say that even if you do maintain the exploitation and waste in future years, as I hope we shall not, we could still double the income of every working man in this country. So that the time for saying we have not the wherewithal to deal with the necessary calls upon our purse has gone by. When the war needs and the fear that war engenders has passed, Canada should be able to build a secure and prosperous and healthy people. I mention these matters referred to in the speech of the hon. member for New Westminster because they are along the lines of the remarks I had planned to make.
Many tempting topics present themselves to a speaker in the debate on the address in reply, but I propose to confine myself to just one, and thus I may lend greater emphasis to the cause I propose to plead. I wish to bring as forcefully as I can before the people of Canada, if my voice carries that far, before the members of this chamber and the members of the administration, the matter to which I intend to refer.
I ask hon. members to throw their minds back, not very long in the memory of man, and! recall the days when the soldiers of Canada marched away to world war No. 1. They donnedi the king's uniform and left this country to engage in the horrors of trench warfare. When they were going, from thousands of platforms, from the floor of this house and from the mouths of the responsible statesmen of that day they were assured that under no circumstances would their dependents suffer want. The men who made those speeches believed in what they said. They had a right to believe in what they said, because I have no doubt they had every confidence that that would be the wish of the people who would succeed them. I do not mean necessarily the government; I mean the people of Canada who would come after them,. They felt that it would be the dlesire and, the determination of all men that under no circumstances would any of the dependents of those bold young men of that day be left in want.
A little more than twenty-five years has gone by since those fateful days when the young men of Canada marched to war. To-day several thousands-I do not know how many; it is impossible to know

of aged widows of the men who were then youths are in dire poverty, living upon charity, or dependent upon relief. The humble pleas of these poor, poverty-stricken in many instances, and old women-I do not think they will take offence at my calling them old, since most of them 72537-10^
are far beyond middle age-have been presented to this house on numerous occasions, *but seemingly they have fallen upon deaf ears. No, not deaf ears, that is wrong; they have been heard with sympathy, but for some reason nothing has been done. I hold in my hand1 a petition which was circulated among some of the members at the last session of parliament, and in substance it says this:
That the soldiers of the last great war were assured that their dependents would not be left in want; that many widows of deceased veterans of the last great war are now living in poverty, are dependent on charity, or are in receipt of municipal relief; therefore your petitioners pray that all widows of deceased veterans of the great war of 1914-18 who are now in necessitous circumstances be pensioned in an amount sufficient to provide the reasonable necessities of life.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: May I interrupt my hon. friend?


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: I have a good deal more to say.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If the hon. member is referring to the delegation of non-pensioned widows that came here last year to interview the committee, and which was sponsored by himself and the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), I may tell him that provision is being made in the estimates this year to meet some of the considerations then advanced.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: I am sorry I objected to the interruption. The news, Mr. Speaker, is splendid news. I hope that the measure which the minister has announced will be a whole-souled and sweeping measure. I suppose I can hardly hope that it will be as sweeping as I should like, but I do know the kindly spirit and the sympathetic nature of the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie). The hon. member for Westminster had occasion to compliment the minister no less than three times during the course of his speech, and in each of those compliments I join, because the minister has accomplished something in an outstanding way since he assumed the most important office of the ministry of pensions and health.
I should like to say something further on this question, notwithstanding what the hon. member has said, in order that I may urge the fullest consideration for the cause I am now pleading. I know that the words the minister has just uttered, brief but much to the point, will bring a measure of relief to many a poor old woman in many a humble home across Canada. They will be accepted with gratitude and relief, almost with exulta-

The Address-Mr. Roebuck

tion, by those who for years have advocated the cause of these poor women-the soldiers' organizations and the friends of dependents of soldiers generally.
To understand what the position now is which the minister says will be relieved, one should bear in mind that in the past only those widows were entitled to pension whose husbands drew fifty per cent disability pension. That is to say, those who drew pensions less than on the fifty per cent basis were not entitled to a continuance of the payments made to the soldier when he finally passed on, unless of course it was possible to prove that the husband died as a result of injuries directly related in some way to the war.
I think we all know that practically all the men who took part in trench warfare from 19M to 1918 returned as casualties. We know that, and their wives and their widows know it. But it is another matter to prove direct connection between the loss of life and the war. It Is much easier to be satisfied of that in your own mind than to bring evidence sufficient to prove it to the meticulous gentlemen who sit on the pensions board. And so it is that very few, comparatively speaking, have been able to jump that hurdle and actually prove that the death of the husband was the result of war service. Pensions accordingly have been restricted for the greater part to those whose husbands were in receipt of a fifty per cent disability pension. The result is that the great mass of the war widows of world war No. 1 have been non-pensionable irrespective of how necessitous were their circumstances.
We made considerable progress in 1941. Section 11 of the new act is an illustration, for now a member of his majesty's forces who dies in service either in Canada or abroad leaving a widow in necessitous circumstances may, in the discretion of the board, receive a pension. It was not so in past days.
I have a memorandum here which may be interesting to hon. members. It is to the minister from the chairman of the pensions board, dated June 22,1942. The chairman says:
Since May 1, 1941, when the select committee of the House of Commons received representations in regard to the non-pensioned widows, a total number of 59 pensions have been awarded to widows under section 21 of the Pension Act by the Canadian pension commission.
I do not know what the figures would be if I brought them up to date, but I fancy they would not be changed very greatly. In any event I am confident of their total inadequacy. Fifty-nine pensions only have been granted to those in necessitous circumstances. I know of more than that number myself, I think, personally. It is totally inadequate. I have

given and I give great credit for the improvements in the act brought about primarily by the Minister of Pensions and National Health. He was not only legally, shall I say, formally, responsible but he was chiefly responsible. A great many consecrated absurdities were washed out of the old act and some time-honoured wrongs were abolished or mitigated. We ironed out a lot of wrinkles which should never have been in the old pensions act. Evils were removed. In some cases sores were healed, but unfortunately many of the scars remained. This is one of those scars. Had the Pension Act of 1941 been in effect since 1918 I think it is safe to say that many soldiers would have received pensions who, under the older and harsher act, were disentitled, and that some of them would have received larger pensions under the new act than they did under the old. .
But here is where the scar remains. The present act will benefit veterans of the present war and those who still live from the last war. But what about those who have died? It is small comfort to the widow of to-day to be told that she must live in penury and want without government support, because of the harshness of a former law which kept the pension which was given to her husband below the fifty per cent basis or denied him a pension altogether; that she must not benefit because he did not benefit. But that is in effect the rule. Unless he was able to secure a fifty per cent benefit there is nothing now for her. It is a rule which is incapable of logical defence. Moreover, that whole fifty per cent rule is in my judgment arbitrary and illogical; and I hope that in the measure which the Minister of National Revenue has forecast he will sweep away at least that- what shall I call it?-technical defence to a claim which would otherwise be good. "National Revenue", di'd I say? Well, I will include the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gibson) in some of the compliments I have been extending to the Minister of Pensions and National Health. If I have mixed the two, their characteristics of sympathy and consideration for the weak and helpless are as one. I mean that. A minister of national revenue gets mighty little sympathy. He is the one who makes us pay our taxes; and I know that the present Minister of National Revenue does it as easily, as kindly and as politely as it can be done.
But to come back to what I was saying: I do hope that the ministers will eliminate all stultifying technicalities of the kind and look these women in the face. Let us get down to realities; let us get down to facts

The Address-Mr. Roebuck
and see these women as I know them to be.
I suppose most of the hon. members who are listening to me went to the little red schoolhouse about the same time as I did and read the old third and fourth school book.
If they did1 they will remember the old-time Song of the Shirt:
With fingers weary and worn,
With eyelids heavy and red,
A woman sat, in unwomanly rags,
Plying her needle and thread,-
The women whom I am pleading for to-day and intend to make the sole topic of my speech in this debate cannot get jobs at all. Most of them who are employed are mere charwomen; most of them have spent their lives in bringing up a family, or possibly have been attending a sick husband over weary months and long years, and have thus unfitted themselves for the competition of the modern labour market. They are not old enough to qualify for an old age pension, and they are too old to obtain work in our factories or war production plants. The time when they could receive the mother's allowance has long since gone by, because in the most instances their families have now passed sixteen years of age. So, without work, or in most cases the ability to work, they are depending upon charity, living in the houses of relatives to whose economy they are not able to contribute. Their position is a most unenviable one. They are the wreckage of world war number one.
Parliament in the course of this debate will concern itself with post-war problems. I hear them discussed in almost every speech; and there will be many speeches, no doubt, in which reference will be made to two of the four freedoms of the Atlantic charter-freedom from want and freedom from fear. We shall be speaking, in an academic way for the most part, about these matters; for it will be a want of the future which is to be relieved and not of the present, and so in a sense we shall be discussing academic problems. But the one I am laying before parliament now is not a problem of the future only; it is a problem of the present. The fear and the want are * right here now; and it seems to me that if this parliament wishes itself to be taken seriously in its discussion of the abolition of fear and want as a post-war problem, it had better take care of the fear and the want which are before our eyes at this very moment. It can easily be done. I am only asking for consideration on behalf of the widows of soldiers of the last war-it might even be restricted to those who saw service abroad, although I do not advocate that; I can see no special reason for drawing that line-widows
of men who served twenty-five years ago and who are in necessitous circumstances. That is all. I am asking not for a general pension for these people, but simply for the relieving of the distress of those in necessitous circumstances. If this house cannot do that for the women whose men were assured by our predecessors that they would never suffer want, then we need not be expected to be believed or be taken seriously when we talk about freedom from want and freedom from fear in the years to come.
I may have said some things which it was unnecessary to say in view of the assurance just given by the minister, but perhaps what I have said will do no harm; and it may strengthen the hand of the minister in preparing the measure to know that at least on this side of the house there are many who agree with it. I know I can speak for every one of those whose names appear on the document which I read; I think I can speak for every private member on this side of the house, when I say that the dire necessities of these soldiers' widows should be relieved, and relieved immediately.
I congratulate the minister of pensions upon what he has said. He said only a word or two, but as I caught it I thought he gave the assurance that at this very session of the house steps will be taken to deal with this matter. Is that what he said?


An hon. MEMBER:: That is what he
said.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is provision in the estimates.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: There is, or will be, provision in the estimates? Well, that fills me with joy. I am happy, very happy to have received that assurance. These women have been looking to me to say something on their behalf. I congratulate my hon. friend across the way upon what he may have contributed to this matter. I see that the good women have put me down as an honorary patron of the Toronto association. It will make me happy indeed to tell them of what has taken place in the house this afternoon.


Mr. W. F. KUHL (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, to say that we are living in the most serious period of the history of mankind thus far is to make a statement which by now is almost worn threadbare. Nevertheless I believe far more importance is to be attached to that statement than many are prepared to acknowledge. I am not thinking so much of the outcome of this war. We are all heartened, as has been expressed by most of those who have already spoken, by the turn of events in
The Address-Mr. Kuhl

the military conflict. 'We are all quite certain of the successful conclusion of the military conflict. We can rest assured that the armed forces and all those associated with them are going to do their part, and, with certain adjustments at home, we are all quite satisfied that the outcome of the military conflict is not in doubt. My greatest fears are in association with the order that we shall have after the war is concluded. We are not bound to win the peace as an automatic result of winning the_ war. Judging from what some say one is led to believe that they conclude that just because we shall again win the military conflict we shall automatically win the peace. That is not so. I believe that after the war is won, even while we are winning the war, the common people are going to be obliged to fight and to exercise themselves to the utmost to assure themselves that they are going to win the peace as well.
From my observations and reading I am satisfied that in behind the scenes there is an unholy, ungodly, devilish gang of individuals who are determined that we shall not win the peace, and I am satisfied that they will move heaven and earth to see that we shall not win the peace. At the present time, because we are beginning to see through the woods in this military conflict, many proposals and plans are being made for a new world order. Everyone everywhere has some conception of a new order. All parties in this house are suggesting plans and programmes for a new order, and I think we do well to examine every one of these proposals and programmes very carefully for two purposes, first, to discover whether they are genuine solutions, and, second, to discover whether they are disguised plots against the people's liberties.
As I look over these proposals and plans I have two comments to make. First of all, as has been emphasized by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) in his address, many of these proposals indicate that their objective is economic security. In fact, they all do. But the thing that is conspicuous by its absence in most of them is the technique, the method by which the objective is to be attained. We are all aware of the circumstances that prevail in the way of poverty, destitution and the low standard of living, and I do not think it is necessary to emphasize these aspects of our national life. The question to which we ought to be confining our attention is that of ways and means of eliminating these unnecessary conditions. I think the most serious aspect of many of these proposals is that while they do provide for security, many of them do so at the price of individual liberty, and I believe that what we desire in

Canada, as elsewhere in the British empire, is not only economic security but individual liberty as well. Not only are we fighting a military aggressor, but we are supposed to be fighting for a way of life as well and not alone for the right to establish economic security.
To me the alarming situation with regard to some of these proposals that are being made is that they have as their basic philosophy the very philosophy against which we are in armed conflict and which we are trying to drive from the earth. As I look over the proposals I find that everything from absolute anarchy to absolute despotism is being advocated, and all in the sacred name of democracy. It is time that we gained a very clear conception of some of the objectives for which we are fighting, and in what I have to say this afternoon I shall endeavour to point out what I consider are some of them.
What constitutes our way of life? What are the requisites of complete democracy? What is the basic philosophy of our way of life? These are questions which are proper at this time and Which ought to be answered. There are those who suggest that we ought to throw overboard everything that existed in pre-war days. Personally I cannot subscribe to that view. I do not believe that everything that has obtained in pre-war days is wrong and unjust. I think it is mere childish prattle to suggest that we must throw overboard everything in order to have a new order. Consequently the question arises: what are we going to preserve from pre-war days?
I believe the answer to that question depends upon certain basic major fundamentals which we desire to see obtain in the new order of which we speak. Some of these principles have been at work in what is referred to as the old order, and in my opinion we shall have to preserve the best of these principles, making changes or additions where necessary. There are three .aspects of democracy-the political, the economic and the social. One could elaborate at great length on all three aspects, but this afternoon I wish to confine my -attention particularly to the economic aspects of democracy.
I believe we are all fairly satisfied that we have a good measure of political democracy, but there is never anything so good that it cannot be improved, and there are many ways in which we could improve our political democracy, though on this occasion I am not going to offer any suggestions in that regard. Social democracy is largely dependent upon what obtains with regard to political and economic democracy. We have yet to achieve economic democracy in this country; and in

The Address-Mr. Kuhl
considering what is involved in economic democracy, the first thing we have to settle in our minds before we can make any progress is, What is the object of an economic system; what is its purpose; why have we an economic system? I suggest that the only legitimate purpose of an economic system is the production of the greatest desirable abundance with the very least amount of work and trouble.
I consider that a sound fundamental. It is basic; and unless we properly establish the object of an economic system, then any superstructure we may erect upon it will be faulty and to no purpose.
I have listened to various proposals which have been made, but as yet I 'have heard no group in this house or outside it, other than those who subscribe to the social credit philosophy, advocate as a basic fundamental the maximum production of goods with the minimum amount of work and trouble. Today we hear from many quarters, including the speech from the throne, the suggestion that the object of an economic system is to find jobs, to put people to work at full employment. The speech from the throne states:
My ministers have already begun to explore the international agreements and domestic measures which will help to secure adequate incomes for primary producers and full employment after the war.
I suggest that the providing of jobs is an illegitimate objective of an economic system. The objective of an economic system is, I contend, to produce abundance, whether or not that creates jobs. I consider that principle to be sound. I believe we ought to engage extensively in national projects once the war is over. The other evening the hon. member for Rosetown-rBiggar (Mr. Coldwell) suggested that an appropriation of $5,000,000,000 ought to be set aside to be spent during the first two years after the war. I also observed, however, that he skilfully avoided indicating where this amount of money was to come from. I certainly believe there are many national projects in which we ought to engage when peace comes. There is no reason in the world why we should not have at least a two-lane, hard-surfaced 'highway from coast to coast, or a four-lane highway if necessary. There is no reason why all the roads in this country should not be hard surfaced, right up to the front door of the farm-house. There is no reason why we should not make every natural beauty spot in this country accessible to the people. I am very much interested in this aspect of our national projects by reason of the fact that I have the honour to represent one of the largest and most beautiful places of this kind not only in Canada but in the whole world. In looking over the situation I am satisfied that we could build a thousand miles of hard-surfaced roads in Jasper park itself in order to make these beauties of nature accessible to the people of Canada as well as to the outside world. I am satisfied that we could spend a million dollars very easily in one year in Jasper park in order to make it more readily accessible and more attractive. Again, I see no reason why we should not launch a national housing programme under which we would rebuild up to three-quarters of all the houses and dwelling places in this country. Again, our forests ought to be replanted and there ought to be far more fire protection than we have at present. We could also devote attention to the reclamation of waste land, to irrigation projects, and to the complete electrification of every home in the country.
I consider these legitimate projects; and if it takes work to bring them about, well and good. We ought not, however, to engage in these projects for the sake of providing jobs. We ought to build roads because we want roads on which to travel, not just in order to put people to work. We ought to rebuild houses because we want our people to live in the most congenial surroundings possible, not in order to put carpenters to work. If we adopt that attitude toward all our projects we are going to get somewhere; otherwise we are going to do a lot of foolish things such as we did previous to the outbreak of the war.
In carrying out these national projects, as well as in conducting our industrial enterprise, we ought to take the fullest advantage of all technological improvement and progress. As I have suggested several times already, there are those who constantly suggest that it is the duty of industry to provide jobs. 1 say definitely that is not so; it never was, should not be and cannot be. It is the duty of industry to produce, and that is its only objective whether or not it requires human effort. We all know that in this modern day, by reason of technological advancement, human energy is a very small factor in the production of anything. The constant trend of human endeavour ever since man was placed on this earth has been to free himself from nature-forced labour. That is why we have had all these modern inventions. Man is trying to free himself from the bugbear of drudgeiy so that he may have more leisure time, and I think that is a legitimate objective. We ought to use every piece of machinery that
The Address-Mr. Kuhl

can be devised by man, whether or not it puts people out of jobs; but we should see to it that every thing produced by the machinery is distributed among the people. If this is done, if we take maximum advantage of technological advancement, it will mean that the necessary hours of work can be reduced to a very small amount, perhaps even to the extent of four hours a day for four days a week, as has been already suggested. This means that all the people would have leisure-paid leisure. Leisure is not a loafer's paradise. It is an opportunity for man to satisfy his creative instinct, an opportunity for him to satisfy his musical inclinations, his artistic inclinations, and many of the things which people call hobbies.
That is the attitude we ought to take with respect to this question of work. I assert that we are not fighting for a work state. A work state is simply a slave state. We are fighting for the opportunity to satisfy our creative endeavours. We are fighting for a set of circumstances under which man can engage in and satisfy his creative instincts to the maximum.
Therefore the first fundamental we must establish, if we are going to make progress in the establishment of a new order, is to insist that the purpose of an economic system is to provide abundance, and not jobs. A second fundamental which I suggest must be recognized and established1 is that there must be a definite relationship between the money issued, which is created and put into circulation in the nation, and the goods produced. I consider that one of the greatest false assumptions-and it is an assumption of Liberals, Conservatives and the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation as well-


Gordon Graydon: Progressive Conservatives.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Yes; I beg the hon. member's pardon. I consider one of the greatest false assumptions in economic thinking is the assumption that automatically there is always a definite relationship between the money put into circulation and the goods produced. That is not so. There are direct statements, and statements which imply that national income and national production are one and the same thing. That is not true, and anything based upon that assumption cannot stand. It is false to assume that automatically there is always in circulation an amount of money which equals the prices of the goods the people are expected to buy. There are many who assume that if a farmer produces a thousand bushels of wheat and it is priced at fifty cents a bushel, automatically the con-

sumers have $500 with which to buy that thousand bushels of wheat. It is assumed, too, that when a manufacturer manufactures shoes to the value of a thousand dollars, automatically the consumers have a thousand dollars with which to buy a thousand dollars worth of shoes. That is a false assumption, and anything based upon it is unsound. One can discover that by going into the books of any business. It can be discovered in the "Canada Year Book".
The sum total of the situation that existed in Canada before the outbreak of war was that we had a production of goods or goods priced to the extent of six billions of dollars, whereas the money paid out in the course of production was only around four billions. It is apparent that four billions of dollars in money or purchasing power, which represents all the money and all the income that all the people rich and poor alike have, cannot buy six billions of dollars worth of goods. Therefore any scheme or any proposal based upon the redistribution of the national income cannot do the job.
I contend that we shall not be on a sound basis until the amount of money put into circulation in this country is equivalent to or governed by the desirability and) the capability of the people to produce goods. That was not the case in pre-war days, and if the policies still intact to-day are continued in post-war days, it will not be so then. The reverse is the situation to-day. I am referring of course to a time of peace. In peace time it is always the amount of money put into circulation which determines the amount of goods we shall have. The reverse should be the case. The amount of goods we have or the amount of production we have should determine the amount of money in circulation.
I say, therefore, that the key to the whole solution, to the solution to all the problems, lies in the restoration to parliament of its high prerogative, namely, that of creating and issuing the money of the nation. When the government has control of that prerogative, it is master of the situation. Does anyone think the old banker Rothschild was joking when he said, "Permit me to create and issue the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws." Was he simply joking when he said that? Of course he was not. If parliament is in possession of its most sacred prerogative, then the government is in absolute control-and not until then.
I say, therefore, that one of the major changes which ought to be brought about is , the restoration to parliament of its highest prerogative, that of creating and issuing the

The Address-Mr. Kuhl
money of the nation. Once that is done, it should be the duty of the government to use money to reflect physical facts. That is not what happened! between the last war and this one. That is not happening now. Money does not reflect real facts to-day; neither did it in pre-war days.
We are told that the cost of this war is blood, sweat and tears. That is true. Which of these elements is it that the Canadian people are not providing? Canadians as a whole-in the armed1 forces, in the workshops, in the factories, in the mines, on the farms, behind the desks, or anywhere you wish to go -are expending their energy, or are giving their time, and are applying all their ability. The people as a whole in Canada are providing the blood, the sweat and the tears from moment to moment as this war is being fought. Therefore they are paying for the war in full from moment to moment as it is being fought. Consequently our financial policy ought to indicate that situation. The fact is that it does not. Our financial policy indicates that we are not paying as we are going. We are going into debt. That is an absolutely false situation. It is preposterous and unjust to suggest that after the people of the country have paid for their participation in the war with their blood, their sweat and their tears, they should have to pay a second time for a good part of it. There is absolutely no need for a war debt, neither is there any need for a national debt in peace time. It is only so because of a false financial policy. Our financial policy does not reflect physical facts. Once the prerogative of creating money is restored to parliament, then it is the duty of parliament to make money reflect facts.
In the use of this privilege the first objective of the government should be to see that production is stimulated to the highest desirable possible level. That is the first thing to do once the government is absolute master of the money situation. Because of the manner in which prices are established in our modern industrial set-up, the situation always arises where production is in excess of income. Prices of goods are always greater than the money paid out in the course of production. This is not because somebody is getting away with exorbitant profits. If profits were fair all the way through, if all charges entering into prices of commodities were just and sound and fair all the way through, nevertheless the condition would be as I have stated. By reason of the way in which business is transacted to-day, the natural consequence is that prices of goods coming out of any institution are always greater than the money paid out
in the course of production. Consequently there is always a part of the national production which is unmonetized, which is not represented by money anywhere, in people's pockets, in savings accounts or anywhere else.
The second duty of the government should be to use this privilege to monetize that unmonetized portion of production. In normal times, before the war broke out, there was a deficiency of approximately $2,000,000,000; there were $2,000,000,000 of prices of goods, the equivalent of which did not exist in money anywhere. In the post-war period there is no reason, provided production is stimulated to the maximum, by using the increase in production machinery that we have during the war, why national production should not go up to $10,000,000,000 worth of goods. The only limit would be the capacity of the machinery of production and the desire of the people to produce.
The difference between national income and national production must be monetized. It is the duty of the government to issue to the people, either directly or indirectly, an amount of money equivalent to the difference between total income and total prices. This money can be used for national services of one kind and another, for national projects and so on; it can be supplied to the citizens, either directly or indirectly, and as -a consequence our economy will be balanced. I insist that when the government uses the prerogative of creating and issuing the money of the nation as it should, our economy will be balanced and, as a consequence, many of the problems which to-day are regarded as special problems will automatically disappear.
We shall no longer talk about the returned men's problems, either of this war or the last war; we shall no longer talk about the war widows' problems; we shall no longer talk about the problems of the aged, the blind and the maimed. We shall no longer be confronted with the problem of supplying medical aid and dental care. Farmers' problems will take care of themselves once the government is in supreme control of money. The government can then make any price for any commodity, and in that way the producer of any kind of commodity will be assured a just price. The labourers' problems will disappear and, as a consequence, they will have security and will be enabled to purchase the products of industry.
One problem which is common to all the problems raised both inside and outside the house is that of relating money to physical facts. When that is done, the majority of these problems automatically disappear. They
The Address-Mr. Kuhl

will be solved by reason of the fact that the major, fundamental and basic problem is solved. This would solve not only our internal problems, but would largely solve our international problems as well. It would remove the incentive for trade wars. Under present methods, by reason of the fact that the people of this country have never had an amount of money to buy the total production of the country, there is an incentive to export goods. Most of those goods could be consumed right here at home. The greatest potential market for Canadian production is the Canadian people. If they had an amount of purchasing power equivalent to the prices of the goods offered for sale, there would not be this drive for foreign markets, which is one of the contributing factors to the causes of war. We would distribute among our own people our own production to the limit of their desire to consume, and what would be left would be a genuine unusable surplus, a surplus which the people could not use. That would be something which could be legitimately traded for anything that we desired from the outside.
I suggest that if the fundamentals to which I have referred are established, we shall not only have economic security in this country in the post-war period, we shall also maintain and preserve our individual freedom. I should have liked to elaborate somewhat extensively the philosophies of some of the proposals which are being made to-day, but my time is about up and I shall simply say these words in conclusion. All the proposals that are put forth to-day as a solution or as a programme for our post-war days can, I believe, be classified in two classes. They have as their objective making either the people supreme or the state supreme. Some of them may lean slightly in one direction or the other, but all the proposals that are made can be classified in these two classes. I insist that we want a post-war period in which the people are supreme, in which the state is the servant of the people, not the reverse. Democracy stands for decentralization; totalitarianism stands for centralization. Any proposal that tends toward centralization of power is a repudiation and negation of democracy. We want decentralization. Let us, when we examine the proposals that are made, try to discover into which one of these two categories they fit. When this war is over, we are going to have, as a consequence of the peace terms we draw up and the proposals we implement, either a supreme state or a supreme people. If we establish and carry out the fundamentals to which I have referred, we shall have an 
economic set-up in which we may have economic security as well as individual liberty.


Mr. J. K. BLAIR (Wellington North):: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to compliment the government upon the splendid way in which they have handled the problem of price control. During the last war prices were allowed to go to extremes, and it was very difficult to arrive at proper valuations. I must say, however, that at the present time I am receiving many representations from farmers and farmer organizations in my constituency urging that the price of cattle be raised to some extent, but not to any excessively high level. Our farmers bought their cattle on the understanding that the Canadian price would be on a parity with the United States price. They have their cattle, and plenty of food on the farm for those cattle, but the Canadian price is not sufficiently high to guard the farmer against loss. Many of these cattle cost more than 11 cents a pound. It would be satisfactory if the price were raised to 12 or 12J or even 13 cents. Our farmers would then sell a great portion of their cattle.
A report has been spread abroad that there is a scarcity of cattle in this country. I believe that report is false. I know of hundreds of stables which are full of choice cattle. They are not being sold by our farmers because they are not prepared to take a loss. They believe that they have what they consider a promise from this government that they would receive a price equal to the United States price. There is an embargo on Canadian cattle going to the United States, but it was understood that the Canadian price would be maintained on a level with the United States price and our farmers have bought their cattle on that understanding. Naturally to-day they are disappointed at the Canadian price. Many of them have written to me urging that the price be raised, and I think it is only right that I should bring this matter to the attention of the government. If nothing is done, these cattle will be thrown on the market when spring comes, and the market will be flooded with cattle. We should give the farmers some encouragement to produce, particularly because at the close of this war the food supplies which are available among the united nations will be a power which we can use in the peace negotiations. There are many Esaus in the world, and there will be many starving nations which will want food supplies. Consequently it will be realized that food supplies may play a great part in the peace negotiations.
Our farmers are deserving of consideration,' and I think we should be careful not to shut

The Address-Mr. Blair
out our cattle entirely from the United States. It will be remembered that a few years ago Mexico was shipping three times as many cattle to the United States as was Canada. I took the matter up with the then Minister of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Euler, and asked him so to arrange matters that Canada and Mexico would ship cattle into the United States in the ratio of their respective imports from that country. Mr. Euler sent two men to Washington, and within four days he rose in his place in the house and stated that he wished to advise the hon. member for Wellington North that Canada's allocation of cattle to be shipped to the United States market was to be in proportion to our imports from that country. As a result of that agreement we shipped into the United States that year three times as many cattle as we did the year before, and that arrangement continued in effect until the present embargo was imposed.
It is a serious thing, Mr. Speaker, to close any avenue of trade and commerce.


James Arthur Ross: Hear, hear.


John Knox Blair: I am glad to hear that coming from the old Conservative party. I should not like to see the Liberal party adopt a policy of restricting trade and commerce, because trade and commerce is the great thing to keep any nation on its feet.
I trust that the representations which have been made by the farmers of my constituency will be given consideration by the government. They believe that some form of undertaking has been given by the government with respect to the price of Canadian cattle.
Moreover, I should like to see the control of our cattle trade put into the hands of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). He may have his faults; indeed1 he has often been criticized in my district, but I have more *confidence in him that I have in a bank manager. I am always afraid of a bank manager and will keep away from him in business affairs. I think it would be well for us to develop closer relations between Canada and the United States because we are both fighting in the same cause, and it should be possible to arrange for parity between the price of Canadian and that of United States cattle. Then our cattle would flow freely on to the market; the Canadian farmer would be on an equal footing with the United States farmer as far as price is concerned, and the Canadian farmer would win out every time because we have better soil, better cattle and better farmers. Therefore I hope that the government will give these representations its serious consideration. There is a real necessity for raising the price of Canadian cattle, and there is the
further fact that when spring comes, if nothing is done in the meantime to raise the price to our farmers, Canadian cattle from east and west will be thrown on to the market. What will happen then to the price?
The packers spread the report that there was a scarcity of beef. Why, Mr. Speaker, the country is full of cattle, and the sooner we realize that the better. It would not hurt the Canadian people if a few of our Canadian cattle went over to the United States side. Those cattle would have to be paid for in United States funds, and we would still have a fair supply of Canadian cattle left to meet the demands of this country.
Mrs. DORISE W. NIELSEN (North Battle-ford) :	Mr. Speaker, when I listened to the
speech from the throne I certainly realized that there is a tremendous number of problems which we must begin to tackle at the present time and that there is a great deal of planning to do; but reading the speech over again, I thought from what I knew of conditions in western Canada that there were some things which I should like to bring to the attention of this house which are far more urgent than any planning for future security. After all is said and done, the majority of us in this house realize that there are many things which have yet to be done before we can have any right to feel that victory is secure for us. A tremendous number of things must yet be done to ensure that victory, and in the doing of them we can lay the foundations for the postwar years. I am in agreement with planning; but planning, that is in an academic way, will fall far short of what will be required when the time comes to put those plans into effect, unless while the war is continuing we lay the foundation, the economic basis, so that we shall have something substantial upon which to work. It is because I believe this that I wish to devote the main part of what I have to say to the question of the fight on the food front.
Before I come to that, there is one thing I wish to mention in passing which came to my attention as I listened to the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Toward the end of his speech he mentioned the various categories or types of people whom he hoped to see as representatives in this chamber in the years to come. He mentioned labour and the farmers; he referred specifically to returned men and hoped that many of them would have seats in this house to help with future legislation. He then mentioned men with broad human sympathies. But he never mentioned anything about the women.
The Address-Mrs. Nielsen

I cannot let that pass. I believe that every hon. member and every person in Canada will acknowledge that during these war years the women of this country have proved by their deeds what capable people they are. They have gone into practically every one of the industries which are vital to war production. They have undertaken heavy physical labour. They have also taken on types of work requiring executive ability and the kind of ability which is of the brain and not so much physical. In view of these facts, I hope that the omission to which I have referred in the Prime Minister's speech the other evening was not intentional but occurred merely because he failed for the moment to think; for when we realize what women have done, are doing and will continue to do to fight for the preservation of democracy and for Canada, all must agree that they have a place among legislators to decide on the issues of peace and war, to see to it that this country in post-war years has those things which the people need.
As I have said, what I wish to speak about mainly is the fight on the food front. It was stated in this chamber, I believe last session by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), that with regard to the question of supplying men, .materials or food, he would not like to place any one of them in the first position; that men, armaments and materials of war, and food, all three of them, are so tremendously important that none can be considered before the others. At the present time the position of the people who are fighting on our food front is receiving less consideration than any other branch of our war effort. During the recess I spent possibly about a week in my own home; the rest of the time I spent in the rural areas among the farming people of Saskatchewan and Alberta, and during that period I learned much at first hand as to the ability of our farm people to put up the fight which they want to make on their particular front.
Our job to-day in this house is to tackle immediate problems as they come up; that is the first job of legislators during a period of war, and I fail to see why the speech from the throne did not mention specifically this matter of the fight on the food front. I will not call it just an agricultural problem. Were I to do so, it might bring up in the minds of many hon. members something of a rather painful nature. It is rather like a boil on the neck; it has come up so much during the years of depression that now, in war-time, many hon. members think of agriculture, as they did in the past, as something which is painful

because it is difficult. I speak of it as the fight on the food front to bring it before this house as a war emergency; for that is what it is. We are asked to tackle in a realistic manner the problem of increasing food supplies; and if we do so in the way in which we have tackled the problem of industrial development for war needs, not only will it aid in the winning of the war,. but the measures we introduce to increase food production will lay the foundation of economic security for our farming people in the postwar years. We shall have a structure upon which we can plan. Unless the economic security of our farming people is made possible now, all the plans that are made will tumble about our ears like a pack of cards in the years after the war.
The question of the fight on the food front is not a political question; it is an issue of national importance. I am not bringing it forward because I am an opposition member and wish to use this material, so to speak, to hurl at the government because I sit among the opposition. It is a question which should command the interest and understanding of hon. members of all parties; and the speech of this afternoon of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) shows that it is a subject which hon. members on all sides are going to ponder more and more.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has expressed the hope that this particular debate will soon finish so that he can bring before us some financial bills. I can understand his anxiety to attend to those matters; but let me point out that agriculture will not wait, either, because agriculture and the fight on the food front depend upon the seasons of the year. The matter of increasing the production of food and stock and of ensuring that the maximum acreage of land is under cultivation this year has to be attended to before farmers get out with their ploughs in the spring. The question of stock increase is particularly important in the spring of the year. Whatever we are hoping to do to fulfil the quotas which have been set for us must b.e done very soon. That is why I am anxious to bring before the house certain points with regard to this fight on the food front.
The increasing tempo of the allied offensive leads all of us to hope that in the very near future we shall be able to foresee the ultimate victory-the sooner the better. But in considering the question of food increases we must remember that the achievement of military victory does not mean that we can sit back with a feeling that there will then be no further need of these increases. With the winning of victory in the field, demands for

The Address-Mrs. Nielsen
food and breeding stock for the countries of Europe will necessitate the increasing of our supplies many, many times.
What we have to do is to consider right here and now the problem of laying a correct basis for what we believe, and, in my opinion, properly believe, will be the necessity for increased food production over a period of many years. After all, we have a stupendous task. Last year we were fortunate in that we had the cooperation, shall I say, of nature. We had a year of bountiful rainfall, a year in which the production of crops was outstanding. But what basis have we for believing that the coming season will be as generous to us? Therefore we have to see to it now, in the early part of the year, that every possible piece of machinery, every single acre of land, and every animal are used and are ready for increased production during the coming season.
During the weeks and months I spent in Saskatchewan and Alberta, in very close contact with the farming people, I came to the conclusion that it was absolutely impossible for one to feel the degree of optimism which has been expressed by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). The Minister of Agriculture himself, speaking recently in Saskatchewan, stated, as reported in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of January 16, 1943:
There are sufficient reserves of man-power on Saskatchewan farms to make possible the increased production of hogs, cattle, butter and eggs which the government is seeking in this province this year.
I do not know of any people; I do not know of any section of the Canadian people who are working longer hours than are the farmers in western Canada. I do not know of any people who are striving more than they are to reach the production goals which have been set before them; and yet, after this close contact with the people, I fail to see how, under existing conditions, they are going to be able to reach those goals.
It is all very well for the Minister of Agriculture to be optimistic, but I must tell the members of this house that our farming people to-day are feeling a' sense of frustration on account of their inability to reach those production goals for lack of that assistance which they need. To say that they are dissatisfied is to put it very mildly. In fact, I doubt very much if I could possibly express in parliamentary language the deep disgust of the farmers. I remember, as everyone does, the marvellous and) stirring effect of the words of Mr. Churchill when he said, "Give us the tools and we will finish the job." The farmers of western Canada to-day are saying the same
thing to the government of Canada, "Give us the tools and we will finish the job." At present, however, they are lacking the various things they need to give them an opportunity to step up production, and for that reason they consider that this one job of the great war service which they could render has fallen far short of what they would like it to be.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mrs. NIELSEN:: To continue, Mr. Speaker,
I find myself in disagreement with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) again, upon the question of which type of farm we can look to for our increases in production. In one of his speeches I believe he drew an imaginary line across Saskatchewan and said that to the south of that line, where there are many of the larger farms, he expected to see large increases, particularly in live stock. I am willing to admit that these days in the provinces of the west there are many farms which still are not producing the maximum of which the land is capable, but this is so for various reasons. I think the Minister of Agriculture, in expecting increases in production on the larger farms, will find that lack of labour on those farms may, in some instances, bring about some curtailment of the production of live stock, instead of increases. It is on the smaller farms which stretch over the northern parts of the province that we have had great increases in the past and, I believe, can see further increases in the future.
The trouble, of course, is that the farmers are cautious. Owing to the fact that there is uncertainty in connection with prices, and no guarantee as to what the future may bring, many farmers hesitate to increase production even if they could do so, because in the past they have had some sad experiences. On many of the smaller farms we find that lack of ready cash with which to increase herds is preventing an increase in production. These farms lack the necessary machinery; they lack the foundation stock, and of course they also face a labour shortage. I do not think I have to remind hon. members that there has been a great exodus of people from the prairie provinces. That is an epic story, which perhaps some day will be written. The harvest of last year was brought in only because we were able to get workers from eastern Canada, and because we had the old grandfathers and
The Address-Mrs. Nielsen

grandmothers and the school children out in the field. It is doubtful whether next year we shall have that supply of extra labour from eastern Canada, and therefore we have an extra problem in that regard.
What is really happening in those western provinces to-day ? During the last few months, and in fact at the present time, valuable breeding stock has been or is being slaughtered, chiefly because of the lack of help but also because of the need of ready cash. Many of these farmers have wheat in their bins, but they have no cash, and therefore they are unable to meet their operational and living expenses. Therefore they have to forfeit some young heifers or other young stock in order to find the cash they need in order to carry on. There are people on many farms who would like to buy an extra milch cow which their neighbour has to sell, but they also lack the cash with which to do so. This year, in Saskatchewan particularly, we are asked for an increase of seventy per cent over last year's hog production, a tremendous increase. The fact is that we must realize that last year we lacked the proper accommodation on our farms for the increased number of hogs we then had. There was disease because in many instances our farmers lacked the cash with which to buy the necessary vaccines. I believe one of the field representatives of the provincial government stated that last year we lost forty per cent of the young hogs in Saskatchewan through disease, and that loss could have been prevented. Then we find that machinery in the west is breaking down, following the years of drought, depression and low prices. The machinery problem was acute even before war commenced; farmers were not able to keep their machines in repair or to buy new machines. To-day we find that there is a shortage of blacksmithing and blacksmithing repairs. High prices and the present regulations governing new machinery sales are penalizing some of our smaller farmers. Then, of course, cash orders are usually honoured first, so that the man who can pay only by instalments is penalized in this manner also.
I should like to mention one matter in particular with regard to industry in western Canada which I think is pertinent to the question of agriculture. I refer to the matter of distilleries. Before too long I should like to hear from the responsible ministers why we have not as yet any distilleries built and functioning in the western provinces. They are going ahead with distilleries in the United States; on th'e prairies of the western states huge plants are being constructed. I am informed that this government already has under construction at Sarnia a large plant for

the manufacture of synthetic alcohol, and I am further told that this plant is to use oil as the base. This oil will have to be brought from Colombia or some other place in South America by tanker. I understand further that a plant using oil for the manufacture of synthetic alcohol takes about eighteen months to build and equip. That is twice as long as it takes to build and equip a plant for the manufacture of synthetic alcohol from grain. I am also given to understand that the cost of building and equipping one of these plants such as we have at Sarnia is twice that of building a distillery. What I should like to know is this. Why was this huge plant built at Sarnia instead of distilleries being built in the western provinces? Who is going to have this plant at Sarnia after the war is over? Is it going to revert to some of the great oil interests of this country, so that in addition to having a monopoly on oil they will also have a monopoly on synthetic alcohol and the manufacture of synthetic rubber? I am told that the mash which is left after the distillery has extracted the alcohol lacks a certain amount of starch but is very rich in vitamins and therefore makes a better feed for cattle and live stock than the original grain. Consequently, even from that point of view it would have been more advisable for the sake of the war effort and for the sake of speed and efficiency to build distilleries in the west instead of building this huge plant at Sarnia. As far as I can see, the use of alcohol in postwar years is going to be veiy important. In connection with the manufacture of plastics, particularly, alcohol is an essential ingredient. If some of these giant distilleries had been erected in western Canada we would have had a basis for the manufacture of plastics. We in the west have lacked industries in the past, and here was a base upon which we could have built something for the future. Apparently, however, we are not to have it. It appears to be nothing more or less than that once again the people of western Canada have been sold down the river, that private interests have once more had the ear of this government instead of considering the needs of our western people, both now and in the years following the war.
Then I cannot understand why, when various farm bodies in this country have brought forward proposals with regard to increasing production, those proposals apparently should be disregarded by the government. What is the good of farmers having elected, representative bodies to bring forward proposals if governments do not pay any attention to them? We have had proposals advanced by the federation of agriculture, by the wheat

The Address

Mrs. Nielsen
pool and others, but apparently they have not succeeded in gaining the attention of the government. During the last recess I spent my time among the farming people of the prairies. There have been numerous conferences and gatherings of farm people, because the farmers themselves are only too anxious and willing to make their contribution to increased production. But as I said before they lack the facilities. At these conferences there has been very wide, broad discussion as to what the farming people need, and this evening I want to lay before the members of the house not my opinion as to what it is necessary to give the farmers of this country in order that they may have an opportunity to produce what is needed, but rather the suggestions which have been brought forward by the farmers themselves. Goodness knows, if anybody knows what is needed, they should know. With regard to their suggestions in connection with lack of labour and shortage of man-power, some hon. members may consider their proposals are somewhat drastic. But possibly we have come'to the time when this man-power shortage can be solved only by the taking of drastic measures.
The first proposal, for the three western prairie provinces, is that for the time being and for some months ahead all voluntary enlistments be stopped.
The second, that the draft itself be postponed until at least the month of June, when work in connection with seeding operations is completed.
The third, that an arrangement be made during the season when help is greatly needed, particularly in the fall for harvesting operations, so that men who are taking their basic training can go to the fields and work under military discipline. Instead of doing their physical jerks three times a day, stretching their arms and touching their toes, I suggest that they be allowed to do stooking. That would limber up their muscles just as well, and they could do it under military discipline. In that way there would be established a feeling between the farmers and the forces that they were doing work of national importance which has to be done.
The fourth has reference to the w'omen's land army. That has already been mentioned by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). I am of opinion and have been for some time-in fact I believe I mentioned it last year when I spoke-that women can be very effective on farms. I think a small number of women could start, first of all, to see how efficient they would prove to be. It would be possible to get from farmers an estimate of how many would be willing to
take women on their farms. In many instances these women would not have to be trained. They would be well qualified to drive tractors or trucks, or to milk cows or feed poultry. There might be the necessity of giving some of them a few weeks training. The government *would equip them with strong footwear, breeches and a good stout coat. There is no reason why these land girls could not prove as beneficial and as efficient as the land women have proved in other countries.
Again-and this, I would remind the house, is from the farmers themselves-they consider that on many farms where the whole family has to be enlisted in farm work, where the son, the daughter and the wife go out and do outside work, a cost of living bonus should be paid not only to all agricultural labour but to sons, daughters and wives of farmers who can prove that they put in so many hours of work each day outside in the fields.
Then, with regard to the encouragement needed to producers to get into production, I have one or two observations to make. First of all, I must say I read in the press this afternoon that it is quite possible we may have a food ministry. I am satisfied that this will go some way toward helping the present situation. In any event, removal of control of prices on agricultural products from the wartime prices and trade board is an essential procedure. There should be an upward trend of prices toward parity. Not only that, but legislation should be brought down in this House of Commons ensuring over a period of years, or at least for one or two years into the future, a definite price standard or level, so that the farmers may know what to expect.
Then, there is the question of small loans for the smaller farmers. I have been on farms where, for lack of a small amount of cash, farmers who had plenty of feed did not have money to buy an extra cow or two to milk, or did1 not have money to buy concrete to build a hog-pen so that they could increase their hog production. With a little money women could go into the raising of poultry so that they could sell eggs. And, remember, if we went into poultry raising on a greater scale we would be helping out the beef shortage we are likely to encounter soon. For lack of cash on many thousands of farms production, which might otherwise be made possible, is going to be impeded.
These loans need not be large. I believe $200 or $300 might be as much as any farmer would/ want. When we come to consider it, the loans could be made on the land. I believe these loans should be interest free. We could lend $200 or $300 each to a hundred
The Address-Mrs. Nielsen

thousand of our farmers, and still the aggregate sum would be roughly only two per cent or three per cent of what has been taken from our national income to help speed up industrial production. The cost itself relatively is really very small. Small loans would1 be used for building up stock, for payments in connection with the operational expenses, so that farmers would not have to sell the stock they now have in order to take care of their living expenses.
I do not think the farmers in the west are wanting any special sectional interest with regard to machinery, but they are expecting that machinery requirements will be taken care of better than they were last year. There is no doubt an understanding on the part of many hon. members that lack of repairs was responsible for the break-down in our farming operations last year, and that this is why so many stooks to-day lie underneath the snow. Possibly an increase in the quota of repairs will be necessary, if we have as bountiful a crop as we had last year, and if we have a large acreage of coarse grains seeded this spring.
I believe that the matter of lower prices for farm machinery is something which must be tackled by the wartime prices and trade board, or whoever is responsible. I say that because present prices of farm machinery are beyond the reach of the small farmer, even though by custom work he put such machinery to full time use.
We shall have to have more cooperation among the farmers, and I know they are going to be willing to give that cooperation. They are going to pool their machinery, and work as they worked in the early days, sharing the machinery which is available. They will go a long way toward cooperating with this government and do everything within their power, as long as the government will give them the little bit of assistance they so desperately need.
As far as increase in hog production is concerned, I believe that there, again, loans would do a great deal toward helping the situation. Some assistance must be given by the government to the small farmer in connection with supplying free vaccines, so that these farmers may not have the loss from diseases that they had last year. Then, too, farmers need greater grading supervision for cattle, hogs, cream, eggs and poultry. I think we should have a youth-training plan to include courses in dairying, poultry-raising and so on, so that our young people on the farm may grow up competent, and may be able to make the greatest possible production in their various fields.

I find it is almost impossible to go into great detail in the forty minutes allowed. It is impossible to discuss in detail the many improvements necessary for the farmer. I have seen in the press, however, that provincial governments are assisting in the setting up of small farm committees, and I would recommend that the federal government should do everything within its power to assist in this idea of the setting up of those committees. It is not a bit of use for the farmers to set up committees and take stock of what is needed in their own district unless they can have the assurance that the federal government will listen to their needs, and will supplement what is needed in the districts concerned, as far as supplies, stock, machinery and other materials are concerned. If they had the assurance that the federal government would do that, I believe there could be built up a scheme of cooperation between farmer and government which would result in an encouraging increase in production.
As I said before, this is a detailed matter, and something which cannot be covered by any blanket scheme. Schemes such as we have had in the past such as bonuses for the reduction of wheat acreage and for increases in the production of coarse grains do not give the assistance which is needed. That assistance is required in various ways on the smaller farms. I need not remind hon. members of the old rhyme about the lack of a horseshoe nail resulting in the lack of a shoe, the lack of a horse, the lack of a man, and finally the loss of a battle and a nation. What is the use of our planning a war effort as a nation, if any one of those branches in the war effort is falling short. If we fall short on the food front, then that shortage is going to damage the national effort of Canada all the way along. We must pay attention to the needs of our farm people. They are not asking for special attention; they are not asking for anything for their own salvation; they are asking only for an opportunity to get out and produce in a fair and decent way that which is needed.
If this government will give the necessary attention to the details, then I consider that there will be an opportunity not only to fulfil the quotas but to have on our farms in western Canada the right kind of security and happiness instead of frustration. Our farming people will then know that they are able to make a contribution worthy of them. Without these small details being attended to, we shall have cattle being slaughtered when they should not be slaughtered; we shall have fewer hogs; we shall have honey not collected; we shall have

The Address-Mr. Mclvor
sheep flocks not being started; we shall have less feed grain, fewer eggs, poultry and so on. It is a question of paying attention to the details in connection with all these smaller interests. If that is done, I feel that the farmers of western Canada not only will fulfil what is expected of them but will find that security and that basis for post-war planning which is so necessary. All they are asking is that they shall be given an opportunity to fight as they want to fight. In other words, they are saying to the government, as I said before, "Give us the tools and we will finish the job".


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take up a few minutes of the time of the house because I believe I have something to say. First of all, I should like to congratulate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon). I consider him a Christian gentleman, and that is about the highest tribute one can pay to a man. In my imagination I see the Elijah of the past and the Elisha of the future travelling to the Jordan of the Winnipeg convention. I come back to the house and I find a pleasant thing. I saw that Elijah -had cast his mantle and allowed it to fall on the shoulders of the youthful Elisha. I can see him with that mantle striking out into the future to help the common people of Canada. I congratulate the Conservative party upon having these two leaders, because they are really one.
The speech from the throne interested me considerably. The first thing I want to speak about is something that I was determined to bring before this house, namely, that there should be some form of health insurance, whether it is called state medicine or any other name. About six years ago I introduced a resolution into this house, and I did my best to have it agreed to. I was supported by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden), but I am sorry to say that there were four medical members of this house who opposed the resolution. The next year they had changed their minds, because three of them did not speak while the other one supported it.
I find now that the Canadian medical association is in favour of some form of health insurance. I should1 like to refer to the words of my old friend, Doctor Gordon S. Fahrni, who was president of the Canadian medical association last year. A year ago he said that there were two very good arguments why health insurance in some form should be provided in Canada. One was the sense of security which would be given to the people during the post-war reconstruction and rehabilitation, and the second was the fact that if the war continued for many more years we
would find ourselves under a bureaucratic rather than a democratic form of government. He told the medical association that health insurance in some form was coming and that they should get behind it. The Canadian medical association met again in Ottawa on January 19, 1943, and they passed unanimously the following resolution:
1.	The Canadian medical association approver the adoption of the principle of health insurance.
2.	The Canadian medical association favours a plan of health insurance which will secure the development and provision of the highest standard of health services preventive and curative, if such plan be fair both to the insured and to all those rendering the services.
It is a fine thing to know that now the government is bringing forward some form of health insurance. The public is behind it, especially the farmers. If anyone has suffered during the past years because of a lack of medical service it is our farmers. It was not those who were on relief; it was those who come in between, the men who would rather do without medical treatment than put their wives and families into debt.
They have many fine leaders in Ontario who are not afraid to speak their minds, but I was a little disappointed when one leader found fault with the administration of the dependents' allowance board in Ottawa. When I heard that, my dander was up. I do not think this board warrants criticism of that kind. I have sent a great many requests to them, and I have yet to be treated other than courteously. I have always been given splendid service. When the board was organized Mr. MacNamara put it on a sound basis, and I want to pay my tribute to the efficiency of that board.
I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon the speeches he has been making. I would commend to hon. members to my left the speech which the Prime Minister made to the congress of labour in Toronto. I think we all realize that he is a leader of the first water. He spoke of the new order, and I believe he meant it when he said that it must be built on a sound foundation. He continued:
The new order must be based on faith, leading to cooperation between the parties in industries and to cooperation among the nations of the world. The new order must be based on human rights; not on the rights of property, privilege or position. The new order must be a world order. It must be governed by a universal rule of law.
It will be seen that this new order is tempered with mercy, whereas the new order in Germany is based on inequality. I know hon. members will expect me to congratulate the Prime Minister upon his radio address on
The Address-Mr. Mctvor

temperance. I think he was most sensible and showed the clergy of Canada how they should act. If they would give the leadership that the Prime Minister of Canada gave, they will be leading in the right direction. I commend the reading of that speech to hon. members.
I should like to say a word about Fort William. The Department of National Defence hit us rather hard this year when they took away our fine skating rink to make it into an armoury. However, the sports and athletes of Fort William are not to be beaten. They have made other skating rinks, and hockey games are being played every night all over the city. After the war they will be able to provide the finest of hockey players for the rest of Canada and the United States. I would remind the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) that there is a petition piled high in the Department of Public Works asking for an armoury. But we did not get it, and I did not push for it any harder than I ought to in this house.
I should like to thank the Department of Public Works, the minister and his officials, also the Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock) and his officials, for allowing us to use the basement of thp new post office for a dry canteen. It was taken over by a group of unselfish women; a lot of money has been spent on it, and it is at present the best used place at the head of the lakes. It is all right to have enough to wet one's whistle with, when you wet it right. This dry canteen is now in difficulties because, while the building is fireproof, these young men and young women are denied the right to .dance.
I should like to mention a few of the things that we have at the head of the lakes. We have farmers there who are just a little bit restless owing to lack of farm help. Some of them have had to sell out on that account. I think it should be made perfectly clear to the farmers of Canada that any man who is essential to the work of the farm will be left on the farm. I know that the registrars of the selective boards are doing a great job and that it is their duty to find men for the armed forces, but men are also essential to carry on agriculture.
The resources we have at the head of the lakes are astounding. The other night I heard an address by a specialist of the Great Lakes Pulp and Paper company, and he convinced me that if the pulp and paper resources of the Thunder Bay district were utilized to the full they would provide work for everybody in the district and for far more than that. As a result of recent scientific discoveries, wood and pulp are taking the place of steel, and the gentleman who gave this addressed convinced
I Mr. Mclvor.]
me that we had enough resources in the timber limits of the Thunder Bay district to keep everybody working.
Our city is now organized for the reconstruction period that will come after the war. At the head of the lakes we have also shipping, and mining, and I should like to read now a resolution from the city of Fort William which was pressed home. -It is as follows;
That the attention of the provincial and dominion governments be again drawn to the fact that a vast deposit of nickel and other valuable minerals is being allowed to lie undeveloped near Shebandowan lake in the district of Thunder Bay and that this property is practically untaxed.
This council feels that the owners should be required to develop this ore deposit or in default of this, the government should have thorough tests made of the ores and arrangements made to have same put into channels of production for the benefit of the united nations in this struggle.
West of Fort William we have perhaps the most outstanding mining area in the whole Dominion of Canada, and we are grateful to know that the "Go" signal has been given by both the provincial government and the dominion government to the Steep Rock mine. This is perhaps the finest source of hematite ore that there is in Canada. According to Judge McKay and Julian G. Cross, an eminent mining engineer, our iron ore apart from nickel and other types of ore at the head of the lakes, if developed, would make the whole Dominion of Canada boom.
I should like now to say a word to the men in Canada who I think have been wronged by the war. There is no group of men who have been harder hit by the war than the commercial travellers. One of them came to me and told me that he took out a life insurance policy two years ago, paying a premium of $501, but at the end of the second year he had to let his policy lapse because the sales of the article he was selling had been so drastically curtailed. That insurance policy had cost him $1,002, and all he received from the company when the'policy lapsed was S235. In two years the insurance company made out of that commercial traveller $767. I have apprised the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) of the facts of this case. I do not think any insurance company should be allowed to get away with that sort of thing; I care not whether they contribute to the victory loans or anything else. It is practically taking away what does not belong to them.
I should like to speak for half an hour on the need for extending the old age pension, but I am sure that this subject will be well taken care of by others. A government like ours which has fathered the old age pension,

The Address-Mr. Mclvor
will surely see to it, when it knows that public opinion is behind it, that the present old age pension of $20 a month is increased to something like S30 a month, so that those old people who through sickness or misfortune or perhaps even through their o<wn neglect have been unable to provide for their own old age, will be assured of enough to eat and a place to sleep in their declining years.
I come now to the chief reason why I wanted to speak to-night. No government in Canada has done more for labour than this government.
I supported vigorously not very long ago a law brought in by the late Minister of Justice giving labour men the right to organize and making it a crime to dismiss workers for belonging to a union. Men should have the right to organize if they are citizens of Canada, but if' they are not citizens of Canada I think they should keep quiet until they become naturalized. I have been interested in labour practically all my life. I take second place to no man in this house or outside in being interested in the man who toils. I know what he feels like when he works for ten or fifteen cents an hour for perhaps ten or twelve hours a day. I know what he feels like when he spends his money foolishly or spends it in a way that does not bring in the results he expected. But just the same I say that every man needs a job; when he gets a job he needs to put a day's work into it, and I think labour on the whole is ready to do that. I heard a labour leader say at the head of the lakes -the other day: "We should have no strikes in Canada now." He also said: "We should have no underpaid workers in Canada now." I know of a plant at the head of the lakes where at one time some men were working for thirty-five cents an hour while others were getting two dollars an hour. I gave my criticism to a member of that union. To-day the lowest-paid man in that industry receives fifty-seven cents an hour. I say that every man has a right to a living wage. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) thoroughly agrees with me, and that is why I am going to support him.
In this matter we need cooperation. I hope the government will bring in legislation making it compulsory that representatives of the workers, the management and the directors shall have meetings to forward cooperation. I have attended meetings of this kind in one industry at the head of the lakes, and I learned a great deal. But when a man who is head of a corporation says, "I am not here in the interests of labour, of the worker; I am here to make money for the people who have their money invested", that man in my opinion is not fit to lead men; he is simply a tool. Labour, management and capital need
to practise the golden rule, so that, as the Prime Minister said, quoting President F. Cyril James, there will be a levelling up as well as a levelling down.
Here I should like to interject that I have been greatly disappointed to learn that men working for the Canadian Pacific Railway have been removed when they had only two months to go before being entitled to pension. They have received no pension, and although they might be taken back and work for two more years it would make no difference in this respect. There should be some way whereby, when a man works until two months before entitlement to pension, he should receive part of it.
I am also of opinion that a man and a woman doing the same work should get the same pay. To give the man more money is a mere relic of the system under which man lordied it over the weaker sex.
I wish now to make some reference to the Minister of Labour. I suggested to the Prime Minister that he should get an outstanding labour man to represent labour in the cabinet. He told us the other day definitely that he tried to get Tom Moore. When he could not get Mr. Moore he took Mr. Moore's advice, and we have the Hon. Humphrey Mitchell. Before I have finished I shall show the house that the Prime Minister did not make much of a mistake.
History shows us that some men run along for quite a time before they encounter difficulties; but the greatest leaders of the past and even of to-day are men who have had the experience of being pretty well hounded out of office. Take that great Irishman of whom all of us who love a fight like to think, the Duke of Wellington, who relieved Europe of the scourge of Bonaparte. When Wellington became Prime Minister of England, because he did not pass legislation which suited certain classes they stoned him in the streets of London, broke the windows of his carriage, and tore his horses away. Yet the great Wellington came back. I think of another man whom nobody to-day would dare to call a second-rater. Some of us remember that when Winston Churchill first entered the House of Commons he was well recommended, but it was not very long before he became just a lone wolf. The Liberals did not- want him; the Conservatives did not want him, and certainly labour did not want him. But Churchill had a message for the nation and the world, and to-day he is doing a great job. I would say to the Minister of Labour, "Let the other fellow do the worrying. You stick to your job; look after the man who toils,
The Address-Mr. Mclvor

and if you do, some day the sails will flap the other way and you will find that the men who are most against you will be right on your side."
I do not agree with those who say that all labour in Canada wants the resignation of the Minister of Labour. That is not according to my information. I find this report in a Winnipeg paper:
Stand of Mitchell praised by McBride
Approving .the stand taken by Canada's Minister of Labour, Hon. Humphrey Mitchell, in the recent controversy regarding the operation of selective service in Canada, J. L. McBride, business manager of the Electrical Workers' Union, to-day forwarded a wire to Mr. Mitchell. It read:
Hon. Humphrey Mitchell,
Minister of Labour, Ottawa.
Dear Sir,
Permit me to congratulate you for your recent actions. Had Elliott Little been permitted to carry out his theory of selective service the efforts to place men in suitable employment by business managers of labour organizations and even labour unions themselves, would be nullified. Take little notice of the gushes from Bengough, Mosher, Swailes, Chapel and others who do not seem to understand the situation. Carry on, Mr. Minister.
J. L. McBride, business manager, Electrical Workers' Union.
Let me tell hon. members who Mr. McBride is. Jack McBride is known in Winnipeg and was known to me before I left that city, my second home. He is one of the oldest trade unionists in Winnipeg, and, for that matter in Canada. He is an officer of the International * Grand Lodge of Electricians, as well as being business agent of the local. As far back as 1918, at least, he was their business agent. He is the labour member of the workmen's compensation board, having been appointed by Mr. Bracken.
When I think of labour leadership to-day, I contrast the lot of some men working for fifty-five and fifty-seven cents an hour with the position of leaders of labour in the United States who receive bigger salaries than that of the Prime Minister of Canada,
Robert Levitt, general secretary of the United Mine Workers of America, district 18, Western Canada, gets $7,500.
William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, $20,000 a year and expenses.
Philip Murray, president of the Committee of Industrial Organization of America, $20,000 and expenses.
John L. Lewis, president of the United Mine Workers of America, $25,000 and expenses.

Caesar Petrillo, Chicago, gets $25,000 a year as president of the Chicago local of the American Federation of Musicians and another $20,000 as president of the American Federation of Musicians, national body.
He plays a great tune, and they pay for it. I think that, when the leaders of our labour organizations can receive from the toilers of Canada and the United States from twenty to forty-five thousand dollars a year, they should practise what they preach and share up with those at the bottom.
The chief objection to the present Minister of Labour comes from C. H. Millard, national president for Canada of the Committee of Industrial Organization. It is a rather peculiar thing that he is candidate in York West for the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation for the next Ontario provincial election. I am not going to labour that, though I may have something to say about it later on.
Who is this Minister of Labour? When the minister came into this house he had a record behind him, and that record is still unsullied. Here it is:
Financial secretary, local 105, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 1919.
Secretary, local 105, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 1920.
Delegate, Hamilton Union Labour League, 1920.
Delegate for a number of years to Hamilton District Trades and Labour Council. President (two terms) and secretary (twenty-two terms) of Hamilton District Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, 1924.
Member, Ontario executive board, Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, 1924.
Chairman, Ontario executive board, Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, 1925-31 inclusive.
Secretary, Ontario executive board, International Union of Operating Engineers, 1924-36.
Member, Institute International Affairs.
Member, Canadian Political Science Association.
Delegate to conventions of Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, 1919-36, serving as chairman or member of various committees.
Appointed by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada to serve on a special committee on workmen's compensation, under the chairmanship of the late Senator Gideon Robertson, Edmonton, 1928.
Served on a special committee of the Trades and Labour Congress Railroad Brotherhood in preparation of case submitted to Chief Justice Middleton acting as a royal commissioner on workmen's compensation.

The Address-Mr. Mclvor
Chairman or member of grievance committee, Dominion Power and Transmission Company and Hydro-Electric Commission, 1919-29.
Financial secretary, International Union of Operating Engineers (one year).
Delegate and member of committees of International Conventions Union of Operating Engineers, 1924-30.
Secretary, Hamilton Cooperative Creameries and prime mover in its organization.
Delegate to the British Trade Union Congress, representing Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, Brighton, England, 1933.
Delegate to International Federation of Trade Unions, representing Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, Brussels, Belgium (served on a number of commissions appointed by this body).
Visited1 Russia on the invitation of and as a member of a trade union delegation, 1935.
Visited Poland, Germany, France and Holland in 1935, studying the labour movements and the general conditions in these countries. '
Alderman, city of Hamilton for three years. Member of the Hamilton Board of Education one year. Resigned owing to duties in Ottawa as director of labour transference.
Member of Board of Governors, Hamilton General Hospitals, 1928-37. Resigned owing to duties in Ottawa.
Member of the House of Commons, 1930-35. Perhaps this is where he made a mistake. He did not line himself up with anyone. He wanted to be an independent labour man and that he was, and that he remained. He was president and secretary of the central branch, Independent Labour Party of Hamilton. He was secretary of the Independent Labour Party of Ontario for a number of years, and at the request of the late Hon. ISTorman Rogers, a former Minister of Labour, he served on a special committee to investigate relief camps from November 28, 1935, to March 20, 1936. He was director of labour transference from 1936 to 1939, when the camps were demobilized, transferring men to railways, farm work and other employment, and he also negotiated agreements with all the provincial governments.
In this connection I met him, and I formed my opinion as a man with, I believe, fair judgment and with a bias toward the man who toils. The minister negotiated agreements with the provincial governments with respect to the farm placement scheme and the establishment of forestry camps and work in British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba, to meet the problems of the single transient unemployed. He directed during 1938 the
rehabilitation of men in the older age brackets and negotiated agreements with various provinces to assist in the general organization plan.
I wonder where in heaven's name can you find a man who has a better background to lead labour in the House of Commons and in the government of Canada than the man who, we are told, is not fit to occupy the position. I like to stand up for the man whom certain people like to strike when he is down. I say to the minister again: Carry on. Do your duty and let the other fellow do the worrying. Trust in the Master Workman, and you will blaze, in this house and in the country at large, a trail that will be second to none in Canada.
I should like now to say a word about the soldiers. I congratulate the government upon the increased pay not only to soldiers but to their dependents, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to place on Hansard a table showing that the highest paid soldiers in the world are Canadians. For the man with wife only, the amounts are as follows:
Country	Amount
Canada	
?59	40United States	
50	00Australia	
42	78New Zealand	
34	92South Africa	
42	09United Kingdom	
24	06
As will be seen from this table, Canada stands at the top, and I think the government should be given credit for this. As I said la3t year, why take a man out of his work, make him a soldier and pay him less money than he was getting. Before the government has finished, I hope it will pay the soldiers better than ever before because they are the ones who are taking the risks.
I congratulate the Prime Minister upon the fact that when the corvette Port Arthur put a submarine out of business he gave honour to whom honour was due. I would ask the Department of National Defence, however, when they are sending their silver crosses to mothers, not to forget, where there is no ' longer a mother, to send the cross to father, sister, aunt or other dependent. It is not very much to ask, but it would mean a great deal to a woman to look at the cross and say, "That stands for my brother."
The men in uniform were rightly honoured when two of them were chosen to move and second respectively the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne. I was greatly interested when the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Booth) addressed the house the other day. I do not think I
The Address-Mr. Mclvor

have ever sat in this house when more rapt attention was given a speaker than was accorded that lieutenant-colonel. Let me tell the house something of the spirit of the youth who have left Fort William. One of our boys, who was a great helper to me-how I miss him! -a splendid young musician, got his wings, but he was not satisfied to stay in a training centre though his mother wanted him to remain there. He said, "The struggle is bigger than I am", and I think that is typical of the youth of Canada. I know what it felt like after the last war when returned soldiers could not get twenty-five cents an hour, and we did our best to find employment for those who were refused work. After this war is over, whatever government may be in power, if work cannot be found for the returned men and others, whether I am in this house or out of it, I shall be leading these men in an effort to obtain employment and to impress upon the government the needs of the community.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that there are to be some changes in the house. Well, there is one change I should like to see. When you are opening this house in a very reverent way, only the members are present. I think the house should be thrown open, at least to the press; I think the press should hear you when you lead us in prayer and ask for victory. They may not appreciate it, but in our press gallery we have many gentlemen whom I consider to be very fine, Christian characters.
In one point I disagree with the Minister of Labour. I think every toiler should have his Sunday off. He will do more work; he will be a happier man, and he will be able to make a better contribution to the welfare of the country at large if that is done. I should like to quote from "The Common Problem," written by William R. Yendall, in which he quotes a philosopher whom I knew and whose works I have read, John Watson of Queen's:
Gentlemen, a serious thing has happened in Europe. Official Germany has abandoned a spiritual interpretation of the world and has adopted a materialistic interpretation. History does not always repeat itself, but it has an uncanny habit of doing so and if it does so in this instance I would say that rivers of blood will flow before this wrong in the world of ;hought is righted.
That was written in 1912. We all know what happened after that and what is happening to-day because of materialistic Germany.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have to inform the hon. gentleman that his time has expired.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I could finish in three minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Thank you. Sunday observance was recognized by the great Gladstone as the bulwark of the nation, and I think it is the business of the church in Canada in all its branches to work and fight for freedom. The great apostle to the Gentiles said, "He is free whom the truth makes free, and all are slaves beside." The church to-day and the governments of Canada stand at the cross-roads, where error and selfishness drive men to confusion and conflict, speaking the right word, offering sympathy, dispelling darkness by the alluring vision of a grander conception of the Master Workman. It is littleness that makes people unhappy and afraid. It is the sense of kinship, of the Power and Wisdom of the universe, that drives out fear and greed; and when a man knows the ground on which he stands and practises his faith every day, whether he is the Minister of Labour or the leader of the Progressive Conservative party he is doing something that will contribute to Canada that which will be vital to the welfare of our country.


Thomas Vien: During the course of his remarks the hon. gentleman wished to place a table on Hansard. That can be done only with the consent of the house, since it is a practice which should not be followed because of the possibility of abuse. With the consent of the house it may be done.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Thomas Vien: If objection is taken, the table may not be placed upon Hansard.


Gordon Graydon: We are not sure what the table is.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman read a comparative statement of the pay and allowances of soldiers in our country and those in other countries.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is the table accurate, up to date and authentic; and by whom is it compiled?


Thomas Vien: I take it that there is not the unanimous consent which is required.


Gordon Graydon: We are not anxious to place any obstacle in the way, but there is a suggestion that the table may not be entirely accurate.


Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth debate of this kind in which I have, had the privilege of taking part, and I do so to-night in the hope that I may be able to offer the government one or more constructive suggestions in order

The Address-Mr. Fraser (Peterborough)
to help Canada's war effort. I do not say "the government's war effort"; I say " Canada's war effort," because without the help and cooperation of all the Canadian people there could be no effort and no production. In last week's issue of the Financial Post the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) said that what was needed in this country was Constructive help from the opposition and the press, and less carping criticism. I feel that the press of Canada and this loyal opposition have offered constructive criticism during these war years. I also feel that without this carping criticism, as it is characterized by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, Canada's production to-day probably would be on a 1940 basis instead of a 1943 basis, because it has been this criticism by the press and the loyal opposition that has pushed, shoved and prodded this government into taking action, whether or not it wanted to do so, in order to carry out the suggestions brougth forward by the press and the opposition.
I will acknowledge that to-day we are producing very well, but that is not the fault of the government; it is the people themselves who want to produce. Part of the trouble to-day may be found right here in this House of Commons. The members of this house are not allowed to voice their views as they should, owing to the rules of the house and, I may add, the lop-sided parliament, because there are too many members on the government side. The press is not allowed to criticize the government, nor are we. We are told that if we offer any criticism we are hindering Canada's war effort. The press is afraid to criticize the government as it would like, because the government have many advertisements to put in the newspapers such as wartime prices and trade board and ration board ads, and others, and if the newspapers criticize the government too much they are afraid these advertisements will be withdrawn.
You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that I referred to our war effort. I did not say our total war effort, as it was characterized in the speech from the throne, because we do not have a total war effort in Canada to-day. We have an effort, but it is by no means total. We all know that the people of Canada can do and are willing to do more than they are doing to-day.
Right from the start the allies have expected Canada to do more, and they are expecting us to do more right now. In fact, Canada is to-day on the spot. To use a slang expression, we are behind the eight ball. Canada must show the whole world that we will and can do things. Unless we do, after the war is over we shall not be a favoured nation; we shall
not share in the world's trade, as we would if we were a favoured nation. Unless we do, we cannot expect prosperity and happiness.
To-day in Canada there are certain groups of people who take every possible opportunity to destroy peace and happiness within Canada. They attempt to create dissatisfaction among our people. Canada was built by pioneers, built by our forefathers who worked and sacrificed in order that you and I might have the things we have to-day. They built for the future, these hardy, rugged individuals. They hewed paths and made clearings; they built their log cabin homes, many of which still stand. They built on solid foundations. The people who are causing dissatisfaction within our borders, these constant cackling fellows, tell us that we should not have ambitions, that we should be content to have complete government control of everything. That would be a wonderful state of affairs for people who are not supposed to have ambition, but who, if they ever obtained control of the country, would have control of our farms, our stores, our homes, our houses, our automobiles, our working hours, our hours of recreation-everything. These people without ambition would dominate; they would control you and me and tell us exactly what to do and what not to do.
This is the condition people in Canada fear to-day. They fear government control of everything; and that is why I believe that, as soon as this war is over, all these government controlled bodies should' be done away with. If they are not dismantled, all those things for which our armed forces are fighting will be lost. All those things which soldiers' wives and mothers and families have deprived themselves of and1 suffered will have been for nought. Those boys who have been killed overseas will have died in vain. I say: God help Canada if we have full government control after the war. If we as Canadians are not allowed to do our own thinking, to do our own governing and to act for ourselves, we shall be in a position even worse than the cattle one sees in a cattle car-because those cattle are at least good for food. We would be good for nothing.
As one man told me, he felt that if those people advocating government control obtained power, we would be controlled by a handful of control-crazy fellows. We would be subjected to all sorts of regimentation- and we have had enough of that.
We can have peace and happiness in Canada after the war if we go about it in a sane and sensible way. I suggest that a sane procedure would be for the government to 'adopt the Bracken fourteen points, as laid diown at
160	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Fraser (Peterborough)
the Winnipeg Progressive Conservative convention. The wartime prices and trade board regulations have forced men and women out of business. Those men and women have been compelled1 to sell their stores, their garages, their homes, their farms, and in many instances they have lost their life's savings. But the government has done absolutely nothing to reimburse those people for their losses. Many of them are to-day in want because of government regulations which even the devil himself would have difficulty in deciphering-regulations issued to-day by the wartime prices and trade board, changed tomorrow, changed the next day and perhaps changed the next day, and then perhaps at the end of the week thrown out entirely, and something new offered in their place. It is high time the regulators making these regulations should be regulated. Canadians are willing to put up with almost everything to win the war, and accordingly I suppose we shall have to put up with these regulations until after the conflict is over. I hope-I know-that the end. will be victorious.
Canadians are hoping that, when the war is over, the rest of the world will look to Canada and say that Canada saw her duty and did it well. We in Canada must not and will not fail, if we have the proper leadership-leadership such as that offered by Churchill, and by Roosevelt, leadership the British are proud of and the people of the United States are proud of. If we had leadership like that in Canada, our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) would have been at Casablanca instead of here, at Ottawa, trying to dig up out of the Progressive Conservative policy as laid down at Winnipeg a pre-election platform which he could include in the preparation of the speech from the throne.
I doubt very much whether the government will ever carry out some of the promises contained in the speech from the throne, because they are only promises. On the other hand the policy as laid down at Winnipeg will be carried out. Health insurance and hospitalization have been and are likely to be mentioned many times. In my opinion the house should set up immediately a special committee on health insurance and social security. At the present time we have a measure of unemployment insurance. Most industrial organizations across Canada have a system of health insurance to which the workers contribute. In some instances the plants pay the whole shot. At the present time, however, there is something the worker is worrying about, as well as the storekeeper and others. These men are worrying about ' sickness in their homes. They feel that if they must send a member

of their family to the hospital, it will likely take all their life's savings. This has happened in many homes throughout Canada. I was talking to a man the other day who had mortgaged everything he had to pay hospital and doctor's bills for his wife. He had lost everything by reason of sickness.
A committee should be set up to study hospitalization as well as health insurance and such matters. It should consider methods of keeping the people healthy, and ways should 'be found to stop the spread of disease. The spread of tuberculosis and certain social diseases has caused great unhappiness throughout Canada. Many such cases have come to my attention in the years I have been in welfare work, and this will be borne out by children's aid society and salvation army workers, as well as by ministers and priests. I know I am right when I say that a healthy nation is a happy nation.
In the rural districts there is practically no hospitalization and very little medical care. In isolated districts throughout the north country babies are being born without any medical care, and the mothers know that they will have no medical care. I understand that the Canadian Red Cross Society is taking care of this to some extent by guaranteeing doctors in certain districts an income of $4,000 a year if they will look after the territory within a radius of twenty-five miles of their office. This plan was set out in the Canadian Medical Journal of October, 1942.
Canada is spending very little in checking up the health of her people. The report of the auditor general for 1942 shows the following expenditures:
Industrial hygiene	 $ 7,294 99
Medical investigations	
24,007	34Child and maternal hygiene	22,106	18Public health engineering	
33,368	44Nutrition services	
7,134	46Venereal diseases	
49,408	82
I think the government would have been better advised if it had put into our health services the $1,500,000 which was spent on the plebiscite. I do not think the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) will contradict me in that statement.
There is something else the government has side-stepped in the speech from the throne. Agriculture is mentioned, but it is just glossed over because the government is really unfamiliar with farm problems since it has not given proper leadership to our farmers during the war years. I called the farmer the forgotten man in 1940, and1 that term has stuck to him ever since. I think he will always be the forgotten man until we have an absolute change of policy. To-day the farmer is out on a limb, and the government has put him

The Address-Mr. Fraser (Peterborough)
there. After putting him out on the limb, the government has proceeded to saw it off inch by inch. Many farmers have fallen to the ground, and many more will fall unless we have a little better direction in connection with farming.
Farmers who are operating dairy farms today dlo not know how they will carry on unless they get help this spring and summer. I know of one farmer over seventy-five years of age whose wife is sixty-eight years of age, and the two of them are looking after a herd of twenty-seven cows. They are working eighteen, hours a day. They will be able to stand that only so long before they will have to quit. There are many thousands of farmers across Canada who are not looking for time and a half for overtime even though they are working from five o'clock in the morning until midnight; all they are thinking of is to do their 'bit, and they will continue to do it even though it kills them. I know it will kill many of them. If our farmers, the dairy' farmers especially, do not get help, our dairy production will drop considerably during this year.
I suggest that in Ontario, and in the other provinces where there is extensive dairy farming, the government should make a survey of all farms in order to see which ones can be tractor-ploughed, disced and seeded. The government should then form a farm tractor corps of trained tractor men, even though it may be necessary to take these men out of the armed, forces. This tractor corps could work day and night in eight-hour shifts to plough, disc and seed these farms. This work requires skilled labour which the farmers cannot get. The government will have to provide this help. In reply to the query, "What is parliament's main job?" by the Financial Post, January 30, 1943, I replied:
There are many main jobs facing parliament at the coming session, but in order to keep up the morale and health of our people the production of food I believe is one of the most important. Numerous farms will not be in production this year owing to lack of sKmea farm help. I suggest that farms be put on a munition basis. 1 also suggest a survey be made of all farms to see which ones can be tractor-ploughed and seeded. Skilled farms corps should be formed in each district to plough, disc and seed these farms on a custom basis at below cost. These tractor corps should operate twenty-four hours per day. Women's land army of uniformed corps should be formed and capable farmers working on poor land should be moved to good land to produce.
I was pleased to hear the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen) and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) refer to a women's land army. In Great Britain they have 53,000 women, in their land
army, and: I notice from the paper, I think it was yesterday, that they expect that number to be doubled this year. The harvesting on these farms could be done by women and also by school boys and, girls, because harvesting does not require the skilled labour that seeding and ploughing require.
I should like to make a suggestion on the subject of education, a subject which was not mentioned in the speech from the throne. Voluntary committees should be set up throughout Canada to pick out bright and healthy-that should be one of the main qualifications-boys and girls with a view to seeing that they are put through university to become doctors or dentists, scientists, engineers, agriculturists. To-day in Canada we have many boys and girls who would be only too willing to go on to university but whose fathers and mothers cannot afford to send them. I know of one particular case, the child of a veteran of the last war, a girl who won a scholarship, the brightest girl in the whole of Ontario, who was unable to go on to university on account of the lack of funds. It is boys and girls like that who should be helped.
There is another subject upon which I shall touch. I had not intended to mention it, but the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) is in his place and that is why I refer to it now. It is with regard to the men and women who have been discharged from the armed forces and returned home, some of them after two or three years in the service. I know of one case-the minister knows it too-where a boy had been in the service for a year and a half and was then returned home. He was anxious to do some work even if he had to do it sitting down. He wanted some work to do with his hands. The pension board gave him a pension of forty dollars a month. The boy, of course, is tickled pink to have the forty dollars, because he has been sponging on his sister who has had to go out and work to support him. But the boy is anxious to do something for himself and earn his own money, and there are many others who are in the same position, anxious to do something for themselves. We should not wait until after the war to prepare jobs for these men and women. We should have jobs for them now, and if there are no jobs for them we should create jobs. Surely there is something they can do even if it is done in their own homes.
I have touched on many subjects, Mr. Speaker, but in war time there are many subjects of interest to us all, and I can only thank the house for its indulgence.



The Address-Mr. Gillis


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) have placed before the house the opinions of this group with respect to social security and most of the other matters arising out of the speech from the throne, but there are a few observations which I should like to make.
First, I want to join with those who have preceded me in paying tribute to the two members who moved and seconded the address. They made excellent speeches. There is, however, something I wish to point out in that connection. It arises from the statement which was made particularly by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Ger-shaw) and others that the mover (Mr. Harris) and the seconder (Mr. Halle) of the address represented in this house the armed forces. I do not think that statement is correct, and I draw attention to it advisedly. Both these hon. gentlemen were elected by constituencies in Canada and sent to this house to represent their respective constituencies. They became members of the armed forces later on, and to classify them as giving voice to the opinions of the armed forces is not correct, for they have no mandate to speak for the armed forces and can express only their own opinions; and being members of the government party they are morally obligated to express the opinions of the government on any matters pertaining to the armed forces. I say that not because of any antagonism to these two members themselves. I listened to their speeches and heard them eulogize-and rightly so-the educational programme which the government is carrying on in the armed forces. They also drew attention to many otter matters which were favourable to the government.
I know that the members of the armed forces both in Canada and Great Britain have definite opinions upon the question, for instance, of rehabilitation, and they have definite grievances with respect to legislation now in existence and affecting them at the present time. The members of the armed forces cannot be represented' in this house unless the government is prepared to change the elections act to permit the armed forces both overseas and in Canada to nominate and elect their own candidates to this house, with a mandate from the armed forces on matters pertaining to them and their future. Until such time as that is done, I do not think anyone has the right to create the impression, consciously or unconsciously, that some particular member or members exclusively represent in this house the armed forces. We pay

tribute to those two members themselves for the fact that they are in uniform and recognize the fact that a greater contribution to winning the war is necessary than merely lip-service. They have demonstrated that they are prepared to make their maximum contribution to winning the war.
I have taken this position, Mr. Speaker, and I have taken it advisedly. If I am elected to represent a constituency in this house, that is a big job at the present time, and any member who comes here and tries to do that job is going to have to work at least sixteen hours a day. On the other hand, if I feel that my maximum contribution can be made in the armed forces and I decide that that is where I am going, that is a fulltime job also, and anyone who undertakes to do the two jobs can do neither one of them well. With all due respect to those who are in uniform, I think a decision should be made one way or the other as to whether they belong here or in the service, because no man can do both jobs. It is done in England, some will say. It is all right in England, because the armed forces in Britain are in the front line, and when you are in London or in any other part of England you are at the front.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Many members of the armed forces are in the British house every day.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member for Cape Breton South would not suggest that these two hon. gentlemen should resign their seats in this house?


Clarence Gillis: That is entirely up to themselves. I am merely pointing out that either one of these jobs is a full-time job, and when you try to do both one of them suffers. I know this statement may not be popular, but I make it in passing and I am not particularly anxious whether it is popular or not, if it is correct. I think it is correct, and I am prepared to make it. I do not intend to allow anyone to create the impression that certain things are being done that are not being done. Definitely, the forces require direct representation in this house; and as far as this group is concerned, it is prepared to give it to them. I would welcome in this chamber men, who I know have definite ideas with respect to the future and the things they are fighting for, sent back after a free election, to put forward their programme. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, from conversations and correspondence I have had with them, that we of this party would see eye-to-eye with them on almost everything. Until that is done, the illusion is not going to be created that the

The Address-Mr. Gillis
armed forces have direct representation. There are many things of which they complain, as every hon. member knows. For example, there is the question of dependents' allowances. There is an angle which should be straightened out, and if I represented exclusively the armed forces I would draw attention to it; in fact I have done so on several occasions during the past two years. I refer to the practice of discontinuing the allowance to dependents when the man is absent without leave for more than twenty-one days. There are a number of such cases at the present time. If the absence is longer than a couple of months the allowance is cut off. It is a pathetic situation. The man is away; the woman has a family, and often she is put in the position where she is obliged to place the children in a home. It is a crying shame, if the army accepts the responsibility of taking a man and placing him in the forces and he commits an infraction of military law, that his dependents should be punished for it. He himself should be punished; but he is not, because his food and clothing are provided for, and even after he is picked up he is no worse off. His wife and family, however, have to go through a period of misery and degradation waiting for the allowance and the straightening up of the situation. There is quite a lot of that, and it is something which should be taken care of. The attention of the house has been drawn to it on many occasions.
Again, the increase of pay looks very nice on paper and is a good gesture, but it is not working out as it should), and it is not what it should be. My understanding was that the soldier was to receive twenty cents additional and that his pay would be increased to $1.50 a day without any strings on it, but I find that quite a lot of strings are attached to it. He must be in the army for four months before he gets the first ten cents, and then only upon the recommendation of his commanding officer. When he has been in the army for six months he receives another ten cents, again upon the recommendation of his commanding officer. Discretionary powers are placed in the hands of the commanding officer. If he recommends it, the man gets the ten cents; if he does not consider him an efficient soldier, the extra twenty cents is withheld. If he has a crime sheet or has been confined to barracks, he is not considered an efficient soldier, and accordingly he does not get the increase. Also, he must make application for it. Consequently there are strings on this increase, and I contend that there should not be, if the government meant to award the increase of pay to the armed forces. I had accepted the statement as I saw it in the 72537-111
press, and I did not know the facts until I came to Ottawa, since the opening of the house. There is unfortunately quite a lot of friction in connection with the administration of this matter, and there should be service representatives in the house to take care of it.
I am concerned about the treatment of the soldier. The soldier has a definite place in the future of this country. I do not like the present trend of events, and I am particularly anxious that the soldier is given everything that we think he is fighting for. I do not want to see any antagonisms created in the mind of the fellow who is overseas to-day and will come back here some time. There are elements in this country that would like to use him for their own purposes, and there are developments which may make this possible. I believe every hon. member would be well advised to see to it that those at present in the armed services, both men and women, are well taken care of, and that everything we can- do for them is done. Let us not make gestures that we are going to do something and then put all kinds of administrative stop-blocks which build up antagonism. Far better not to do anything than to put forward an attractive paper programme and give it an administration which will not make it workable.
The Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) is sitting opposite. He knows the problems of rehabilitation, the plans necessary to deal with them, and the run-around they are getting. There is resentment right across the country. I am not speaking here to-night for the purpose of creating antagonism or helping to break that machinery down. I want to see it work; there is no other hon. member who tries harder to make it work than I do. But the administration with respect to the whole programme is not what it should be. It is developing many illusions which I do not like to see developed, and making it possible for people to capitalize on it whom I do not want to see capitalizing on it.
I make these observations in passing on account of the fact that someone has said that the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne represent in this house the armed forces. If the soldiers are to be represented here, I want to see them represented in the way I mentioned, namely, by being sent here by a free election, nominated by the troops themselves, and having their own programme. It will then be our duty to see that that programme, embodying the hopes and aspirations of the services and brought direct from them to this house, is carried into effect.
The Address-Mr. Gillis

I now wish to say just a few words to my hon. friends to the right. I do so because they have invited our attention. We of this group endeavour as far as possible to deal on their merits with the matters before the house. Nevertheless, when someone brings us into the picture by criticisms which we do not think are legitimate, or tries to misconstrue what we stand for, we are obliged to reply to them. I notice that my hon. friends to the right have acquired a new name-the Progressive Conservative party. I am not particularly anxious about the tag. It does not make much difference what label you put on a thing; it is the basic principles which count, and whether they can be applied or not. It seems to me that the major job of that particular party at the present time is to get in between the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and the Liberal party. Their technique is clearly expressed in this chamber 'by each member of the party as he rises and through their official press, the Telegram, the Globe and Mail and the Montreal Gazette. For the past two or three months these newspapers have consistently referred to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, not as such, but as the "socialist party". The socialist party is, of course, a left wing movement, and the Liberal party is a right wing movement, and therefore the Progressive Conservative party is going to get in the centre with a sound and sensible programme for the people of Canada. What I want to make clear is this. The leader of the Conservative party-


Angus MacInnis: Which one?


Clarence Gillis: The one in the house at the present time. He is the leader. The one outside is, in my opinion, just an organizer. He is not doing very much leading, he is organizing. The leader of the official opposition did a very good job. His initial performance was good; he made a nice speech, and I believe he means what he says. But my job to-night is to try to warn him. He is fishing in troubled waters. There are many sharks, and an innocent chap like him is apt to find himself in a lot of trouble.
They have tried, to prove to the people of Canada that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation is bringing to Canada some foreign ideology, a mysterious something imported from, other parts of the world. Let me call attention to the -fact that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party ini Canada was born out of the needs of the Canadian people. It represents the efforts of the Canadian people for the last thirty years to lay down a political expression for themselves in Canada. For at least twenty-five years I have

had some knowledge of the different labour parties across Canada, from British Columbia to Nova Scotia. I know that in 1932 they came to the realization that there was no solution for our problems in the provincial fields, and consequently men and women who were active over that period of time met in Calgary and examined the problem on a national basis and set up a national organization, because our problems are national and not provincial. That is where the C.C.F. was born.
It was a federation of all the existing political organizations of labour and of farmers in the country at that time, and they drafted a programme based on the economic set-up in Canada, couched in language which is acceptable to the mentality of the Canadian people. Better than that, they meet in convention every year. That programme and policy is reexamined by the rank and file of the Canadian people, and if it is necessary to change it they do so, but the control is completely in the hands of the people. If we do not like Coldwell next year, we shall replace him by democratic vote at the convention. Complete control is in the hands of the people, and that is as it should be, but we have gone a step further. We have taken no chances on building a bureaucracy from the top that can hold a convention in 1919 and not hold a convention any more. The people have nothing to say under such an organization. We have rooted ourselves into the economic organization of the people and have affiliated our party with the trades unions as they did in Britain. The C.C.F. in Canada is fallowing the British pattern, and the only way to make a political organization a democratic organization is to have its roots in the economic organizations of the people and the control in the hands of the people. That is the C.CJF. in Canada to-day. Farmer, industrial worker, affiliate, meet in convention, draft a programme and elect a leadership, and that will be done year after year. There is no other way of building a democratic political organization. There is no chance of a dictatorship or of a state controlled society growing out of that kind of organization. Make no mistake about that. That is why we are so anxious to anchor ourselves to the Canadian people and keep control of the political organization completely in the hands of the people.
With respect to the question of socialism, I am not ashamed of being called a socialist. After considering the question for a long time, and making an examination of the system under which we now live, I have come to this conclusion, and I do not want our friends

The Address-Mr. Gillis
across the way or to the right to make any mistake about this. What we are witnessing in Europe to-day is the last struggle of a dying system going out the hard way. Organized society lasts only as long as it serves the need of the people. There is no doubt about that. There was barbarism and then savagery and feudalism, and this system took over from the feudal system. It was born to solve one of the first problems of man, that of production, and it solved it 100 per cent. For many years prior to the outbreak of the war we had everything in abundance necessary to feed, clothe and house the people and afford them luxury, but unfortunately control was in the hands of a small group and they withheld it from the people. When it no longer served the needs of the people it travelled its cycle. It will travel the road as the other systems have done. It will go out either by evolution or by revolution, one way or the other. It went out in Europe, unfortunately, in some sections, by revolution. It was extended in others in the only way in which it can be extended. This system cannot continue to function except in the way that Hitler is making it function, and I challenge anyone to contradict that statement. It is an extension of the capitalist system, the last stand1, the boss with a gun at the head of the worker, extracting his profits. That is not my opinion; it is the considered opinion of everyone who has studied the question. I am simply expressing the opinion of men who have made a thorough analysis of the situation. That is their description of it. We are fighting a war against that. That is what we are fighting against to-day the continuation of this order of society. We must be cognizant of that in Canada. They are in Britain; I have no doubt about it. I have watched developments there, and they are marching in the right direction, as they are in Australia and New Zealand. But we are not doing that in Canada, and that is why I am alarmed at the situation. The trend of events in Canada is the reverse.
What is the difference between capitalism and socialism? It is not difficult to understand if you have lived on wages most of your life and have run into the system the hard way. It is very plain and simple to me, as it is to the average worker. You call this system capitalism because the dominant factor in the system has been the protection of capital. Every one of our laws was designed to protect capital, while human values were given no consideration. A good example of it is this. If you bought a farm, or a piano, or a radio, or anything else, on the instalment plan, and were taken ill and your income ceased, at the end of a month or two months or a year you
would be called before a judge, and he would say to you, "You agreed to pay a certain amount of money on a certain day." You might reply, "I am not working; my family are suffering; they have nothing to eat, and I cannot meet these instalments." But you may have nearly paid for the commodity or whatever it might be. No matter; the judge will tell you that you agreed to pay, and your condition of affairs is given no consideration. The mortgage is foreclosed, and they will take your house or piano or radio from you, because the dominant factor in the system has been and now is the protection of capital as against the recognition of the rights of man. That is the plain and simple truth.
On the other hand, why would you call the new order of society, socialism? For this reason, that we would change the existing laws, and we would so frame the laws of the country as to make the dominant factor in the system the protection of society itself, the people. We would make human values take precedence over monetary values. We believe in abundance where there is abundance, and in the organization of society there would be abundance for everyone wherever it was possible to produce it. And it is possible to produce it. You would not have to cut off the head of anyone here, but there is a small group at the top that claims and controls and withholds from the great majority the things that are necessary, and someone has to take hold of that situation and so reorganize society as to distribute back to the people the things produced under the system.
That is my understanding of socialism. Would we build a state-controlled machine? No; I would be the first one in this house to fight that with every means at my disposal. But I know the programme and policy of this party is not that. As I have said before, it is control from the bottom. If you understand what statism means, you have it now in Canada. The present government is administering absolutely and exclusively a complete state-controlled order of society, with absolutely no representation from the ordinary common people of the country, who have nothing to say with respect to the writing of our laws. To-day the controls are completely in the hands of one group.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is nonsense. I represent the common people of this country as much as my hon. friend does.


Clarence Gillis: It is not nonsense.


Thomas Miller Bell: Thirty-five thousand
orders in council.
The Address-Mr. Gillis


Clarence Gillis: In my opinion the Minister of Pensions and National Health, under the present circumstances, has about as much say in making the laws of this country as I have. I see the laws of this country being made to-day by controls set up on the outside, and who are in on these controls? Neither the Minister of Pensions and National Health nor anyone else on that side of the house is writing these orders in council; they could not do it. They are being turned out somewhere on a mimeograph, and who are in on these controls? Well, there is Canada Packers, there is International Nickel, there is Dominion Iron, Steel and Coal, there are Simpson's and Eaton's, and all the big monopolies of this country in on the controls. There is no common, ordinary representative of the people, expressing the viewpoint of the great majority of the people, who has anything to do with the turning out of these orders in council.
I am not quarrelling with the controls; I realize that a certain amount of control is necessary in war time. I am quarrelling with who are controlling, what they are controlling for, where they are going and where we are going to wind up. The same people are in complete control to-day who brought about the situation which led to what we have over in Europe at the present time, with the same short-sightedness, selfishness, and fear of social changes. Therefore we have the present situation, and they are in there taking no account of the common ordinary people of this country, of their needs, their hopes or their aspirations. Some hon. members opposite tell us that we are never going back to what we had when this war broke out, and I agree with that statement. But they stop there; they do not tell us what we are going to have when the war is over.


Thomas Reid: No man can tell you that.


Clarence Gillis: I can tell you; it will be what we have now. We have complete regimentation, and that regimentation is going to remain.


Mr. FULFORD:: What does the C.C.F. advocate but absolute regimentation?


John Horne Blackmore: Just listen and you will find out.


George Taylor Fulford: I have listened to that for years.


Clarence Gillis: The C.C.F. advocates equal representation on these controls. That is the answer, plain and simple. If you take Dominion Iron, Steel and Coal and give them charge of the fuel control board and the making of your fuel control policy, then take the man who digs the coal, the man who

manages the mine, the man who negotiates contracts for the people who mine the coal, and give them equal representation on that board, as they do in Britain.


Humphrey Mitchell: Have we not done that here?


Clarence Gillis: We certainly have not done it here.


Thomas Miller Bell: It is the last thing in the world the Department of Labour has done.


Clarence Gillis: And if Canada Packers have their representatives writing orders in council in connection with their own particular interests, take in some of the men in the plants, who may have equally good ideas about production; take in some of your farmers, directly from the farms. These are the things to do. We are not quarrelling with the controls, but we want representation on those controls, representation by the man who produces on the land and in industry. What is wrong is that there is no such representation. That is a good example of statism, but that is not what we are advocating. There is no one in Canada to-day fighting harder against that sort of thing than we are. We want an equal share of these controls. That is the only thing necessary.
I leave these thoughts with my hon. friends to my right, because as the situation is today there is absolutely no difference between the two old parties. One is out; the other is in. If one is not fooling the people successfully, there is an ace in the hole; the money will be sent behind the other party. They* will put in a Mr. Bennett or a Mr. Graydon or someone else who will carry on the little show, and the opposition will cross to the other side. Then the other party will say, "Well, now we are out, but we are going to get in again. We will wait until those fellows fall down on the job and then go in again." There is absolutely no basic difference between them; fundamentally they are exactly the same and will be as long as we have an economic dictatorship in this country, as we have now and as we have had all during my lifetime, with control of the resources of the country in the hands of one small group. By virtue of the money it controls and the industry it controls that small group can swing elections to suit itself, can bring on depressions when it sees fit. If you want to be progressive you must get over here and join this party; you must accept a programme that means social change. At present there is no change. It is immaterial to me which party sits on either side of the house;

The Address-Mr. Gillis
behind, the scene sits the invisible government, just watching.- When one party is not doing the job well enough to suit it, and in its interests, then it gives its money to somebody else and that party comes in at the next election. That is the situation. I just want to leave these few thoughts with my hon. friends here, because I have a good deal of respect for the present house leader of the opposition. I know that he is honest and that it is just a matter of talking and explaining things to him. Then I think he will be on the right road.
I rose particularly to deal with another matter which gives me great concern, namely, the situation in industry itself. On one other occasion I rose in this house and drew attention to the possible developments at Kirkland Lake. One of my friends on the Montreal Gazette criticized me roundly later on, saying that I predicted such and1 such, that I told the house what was going to happen. My only thought in bringing these matters to the attention of the house is to try to offset them. In the present circumstances I do not think strikes, upheavals and stoppages of work should be permitted to take place. They should be stopped before they occur, and that can be done if common sense and a little judgment are used. To-night I am going to refer to the steel strike, which really was not a strike but a spontaneous walk-out; it was not a called strike in that the officials of the organization had nothing to do with it. I bring up this matter for this reason, that five thousand of the men involved in that walkout live and work in my constituency; that is the steel workers at Sydney, Nova Scotia. For that reason I followed developments very closely. I know all the things that were done by the steel workers' organization, both national and international, with respect to finding a solution of that problem, without success. I have seen those steel workers referred to in the press as saboteurs of the war effort, as doing a disservice to the war effort, and there is no doubt that the walk-out did not help the war effort. But the responsibility for that walk-out does not rest with the steel workers' organization or with the men involved. I place the responsibility squarely at the door of the government, and particularly the Department of Labour.


Humphrey Mitchell: Does my hon. friend think he is helping the present situation, which we have more or less clarified, by raising the question here this evening? The matter is before the national war labour board at the request of the steel workers. Does the hon. member think he is helping the situation by
criticizing the government or any other agency at the present time, after we have just pacified the situation?


Clarence Gillis: Yes, I do.


Humphrey Mitchell: With the consent of the steel workers.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, I do, and for this reason: If I had any indication whatsoever that that matter was settled, or that it would be settled satisfactorily, then I would not be saying anything about it. But-


Humphrey Mitchell: When my hon. friend says this, does he not question the good faith of the national war labour board? In advance he makes the statement that the matter is not going to be settled. I think that is a reflection upon the board. It is a reflection upon labour and upon the representative of the employers on the board.


Clarence Gillis: I cannot take any other attitude, and for this reason. I have in my hand the order in council which was passed. This is order in council P.C. 689, which was passed on January 26, 1943. In it there was a settlement, or an armistice. The situation, as it stands to-day, is not a settlement.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member is talking arbitrarily. We are trying to make a settlement.


Clarence Gillis: But the order in council prevents it. That is the reason why I have mentioned it. This order in council prevents a settlement. I will read only the last clause of it. It states:
It is understood that the government will adhere to its price-ceiling and wage-stabilization policy.
That is the very thing that brought about the present trouble. If this order in council means what it says-and I think it does-then the adherence to the wage-stabilization and price-ceiling policy is going to precipitate the trouble all over again.


Mr. SLAGHT:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Clarence Gillis: Yes.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Does he realize that the men themselves agreed to the present status quo in an effort to settle the matter, without further trouble?


Clarence Gillis: No, they did not.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Of course they did.


Clarence Gillis: No, they did not. I happen to have been pretty close to the Sydney steel workers. They accepted this agreement with
The Address-Mr. Gillis

a proviso, that if their full terms and their full demands were not met within thirty days they would resume the walk-out.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Yes; but they accepted it in the hope that a peaceful solution would be reached.


Clarence Gillis: Yes.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Is my hon. friend helping matters by raising them here while the steel workers, as well as the government, are endeavouring to work it out?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I would
suggest that you give the hon. member who has the floor the opportunity of placing his case before the house, and then the hon. gentleman opposite may make his speech afterwards. These interruptions should not be counted in his forty minutes.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is a false statement.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: The hon, member did not
protest.


Thomas Miller Bell: He did not sit down.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I will not sit down, on your dictation.


Thomas Miller Bell: I did not say that the
hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) should sit down. I was saying that the hon. member who is speaking did not sit down while the hon. member for Parry Sound was interrupting him.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: He is not sitting down now to hear you talk, either.


Thomas Miller Bell: But I did not interrupt him.


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


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is not fair.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: There have
been innumerable interruptions.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member may
proceed only with the consent of the house.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I think he should be allowed to go on. I interrupted him.


Clarence Gillis: I draw this to the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and of the house. I know something about these matters, and if this order in council means what it says, then you are going into that trouble all over again. If I had the time I could prove conclusively to the Minister of Labour, by documents and so on leading up 
to the trouble that that condition existed with the steel workers from April, 1941. They started in on this in April, 1941, and there was no walk-out until January 12, 1943.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not wish my hon.
friend to leave the impression that the matter came into the hands of the federal Department of Labour in 1941. Let us have that clear. I do not care what the hon. member says, but I would make it perfectly clear that when the matter came to the federal Department of Labour-and I am not making any criticism about any other department, or the machinery of the board-they got the commission as soon as it could be established. And1 of course the strike took place before they had received the report of the commission.


Clarence Gillis: This matter was in process
of negotiation before the present Minister of Labour took office.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Clarence Gillis: It was under negotiation.


Humphrey Mitchell: You know what labour
negotiations are; they are continuous.


Clarence Gillis: From 1941, when the first application w'as made before the Department of Labour, it has gone through the process of negotiation, until January, 1943. I think the men were patient and long-suffering. But that is not what I am concerned about. I know definitely that it was the adherence to the price-ceiling and wage-stabilization policy that precipitated the whole matter. The commission under their terms of reference were prevented from bringing a settlement back. They met, not to decide as to whether the wages asked were justifiable, or whether the company could pay the wages the steel workers were asking, but they met to determine whether PC. 5963 gave them the privilege of making any changes from the basic rates. They found that under that order in council they could not make any changes in the basic rates, and consequently, with a minority report, they came back and reported accordingly. That order in council is the thing which precipitated the whole walk-out. If we are to adhere to that, and use it as a basis for the next inquiry, then the war labour board has no authority to do more than what was done by the Barlow commission, and we shall have it all over again, even before it starts. That will be the case, unless the government is prepared to give the board broader reference, and permit them to negotiate the matter on its merits. I do not want to see the steel workers of Sydney go out again. I do not want to see them go out at

The Address-Point of Order
Trenton or at Hamilton. I think the Minister of Labour will have to recognize that right across Canada to-day there is unrest. It is to be found at Arvida. There are 600 on strike at Wallaeeburg, and Hamilton is seething.


Humphrey Mitchell: That does not give the straight story. The hon. member knows that the Arvida dispute is a jurisdictional one. It is an inter-union difficulty. The question at Wallaeeburg is an inter-union dispute.


Clarence Gillis: It is a question of union recognition.
. Mr. MITCHELL: It is a question of interunion dispute, or what they call a jurisdictional dispute.


Clarence Gillis: If I had the time-


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


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He has had about ten minutes of interruptions.


Thomas Vien: Has the hon. member
finished his speech?


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I will close now. There is a good deal I should like to say on the question, but if my time has expired I shall not transgress the rules of the house.


Mr. PERLEY:: Mr. Speaker, I move the
adjournment of the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: Yes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Gordon Graydon: I hesitate to rise at this time, Mr. Speaker, but there was an arrangement made, which the acting leader of the government will perhaps confirm, whereby the hon. member for Qu'Appelle would move the adjournment at this time.


James Angus MacKinnon: That is correct.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Speaking in a personal capacity, may I point out that in the last three or four days we have adjourned the debate ten minutes, twenty minutes or thirty minutes before the hour for adjournment. I strongly protest against adjourning a debate at 10.30 p.m.


Thomas Miller Bell: I suggest that what
the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) says is right. We ought to continue. But may I suggest this, that if an opposition member wishes to adjourn the 72537-12
debate he should be given the same opportunity for adjournment as is given to a government member. Last night the house was adjourned at 5.45 p.m. by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), and I have no doubt the hon. member for Qu'Appelle thought he should have the same privilege to-night. If we are going to have sauce for one goose, we should have it for both geese on both sides of the house.


Thomas Vien: I would inform hon. members that the motion is not debatable.


Gordon Graydon: On the point of order, if I may. I do not think we on this side of the house should be put in an impossible position sudh as has been attempted to-night. Ordinarily we would go on till eleven o'clock, and I think it is our duty to do so. I endorse what the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) has said. There is no one more regretful than I that the speaking arrangements have fallen down to some extent on this occasion, but I want it to be quite clear that we will not countenance this sort of thing again. On the other hand, this does seem to be an exception and time might be made up on another occasion. I want it to be quite clear that we are not in favour of having early adjournments. However, it has been done, and perhaps with this example in mind we will make this the last for this session.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In view of the arrangements that have been made I will withdraw any objection I may have had.


Mr. CRERAR:: Earlier in the evening the government whip said to me that the present list of speakers would be exhausted with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). He said also that the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) intended to speak this evening but was indisposed with a sore throat. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) asked me if under the circumstances we would be prepared to adjourn at 10.20 p.m., and I expressed the opinion to him that I thought it was a bad practice.


Gordon Graydon: We are both agreed on that.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have not been present at the previous sittings of the house this week, and I was not aware that the house had been adjourning before eleven o'clock. I suggested to my hon. friend who leads the opposition that we might adjourn after the hon. member for Cape Breton South had spoken. Perhaps



Privilege-Mr. Lapointe (Lotbiniere)
we can do this to-night, but agree unanimously that it will be the last occasion upon which the closing rule will be violated.
Motion (Mr. Perley) agreed to and debate adjourned.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Thomas Vien: I have the honour to
inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, February 4, 1943.
Sir, I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Thibaudeau Rinfret, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the senate chamber on Friday the fifth of February at 3 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.
On motion of Mr. Crerar, the house adjourned at 1027 pun.
Friday, February 5, 1943