1944-02-01

STANDING COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health) presented the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house, as follows:

Standing Committees

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Abbott
Anderson .
Claxton
Diefenbaker
Douglas (Weyburn)
Dupuis
Evans
Fair
Factor
Fournier (Hull) Gershaw
Hill
Kirk
Laloude
MacNicol
McCuaig
McDonald (Pontiac)
Mutch
O'Brien
Pinard
Pouliot
Power
Roy
Slaght
Weir-29.
Gibson Gladstone Gray Gregory
(Quorum 10)

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Bonnier
Boucher
Bryce
Chambers
Cleaver
Cloutier
Cote
d'Anjou
Donnelly
Douglas (Queens)
Dubois
Duroeher
Factor
Fauteux
Fontaine
Gershaw
Gibson
Ginmies
Gladstone
Graham
Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Hazen
Knowles
Laeombe
Lockhart
Macdonald (Halifax) Macdonald
(Brantford City) MacICcnzie
(Lambton-Kent) MacLean (Cape Breton North-Victoria) McGregor Mellraith Marier Matthews May hew Parent Poirier
Ross (St. Paul's)
Roy
Senn
Shaw
Stokes
Telford
Tomlinson
Vendot
Wood-50.
Healy Hlynka Hoblitzell Howden Jutras
(Quorum 15)
BANKING AND COMMERCE Messieurs
Authier
Black (Cumberland)
Blackmore
Blair
Breithaupt
Claxton
Cleaver
Coldwell
Donnelly
Dubuc
Edwards
Eudes
Fontaine
Fraser
(Northumberland) Fraser (Peterborough West)
Graham
Gray
Hanson
(York-Sunbury) Harris (Danforth) Hazen Hill
Jackman
Jaques
Jean
Kinley
Laflamme
Lafontaine
Leclerc
Macdonald (Halifax) Macdonald
(Brantford City) Maclnnis
MacKenzie (Neepawa)
Macmillan
McCann
McGeer
McGibbon
Mellraith
McNevin
(Victoria, Ont.) Marier Martin Maybank Mayh.ew Moore
Perley	Slaght
Picard	Tucker
Ross (St. Paul's)	Ward-50.
Ryan
(Quorum 15)

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Abbott Authier Black (Yukon)
Black (Chateauguay-Huntingdon) Boucher Bourget Burton Clark Cote
Cruickshank
Dechene
Denis
Desmond
Ferland
Fontaine
Fournier (Maison-neuve-Rosemont) Fraser (Northumberland)
Fulford
Gladstone
Golding
Grant
Graydon
Green
Hanson
(York-Sunbury)
Henderson
Homuth
lsnor
Johnston (Bow River) McCubbin
McDonald (Pontiac)
McGeer
Mclvor
McNiven
(Regina City) Marshall Matthews Mullins Mulock Noseworthy Purdy Rheaume Rickard Roebuck
Ross (Hamilton East) Ross (Souris)
Slaght
Tripp
Thauvette
Veniot
Ward
Winkler-50.
(Quorum 15)

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Authier	Kirk
Bence	LaCroix ((Quebec-
Bertrand (Terrebonne)	Montmorency)
Black (Cumberland)	Laflamme
Bourget	Little
Breithaupt	Lizotte
Burton	Lockhart
Chevrier	MacKinnon
Corman	(Kootenay East)
Cote	McCulloch
Crerar	Mclvor
Douglas (Queens)	McKinnon (Kenora-
Dupuis	Rainy River)
Emmerson	McNiven
Eudes	(Regina City)
Factor	Maybank
Farquhar	Mills
Fournier (Maison-	Mullins
neuve-Rosemont)	Nicholson
Fulford	Nielsen (Mrs.)
Gauthier	Nixon
Golding	O'Brien
Gregory	O'Neill
Hanson (Skeena)	Poirier
Harris (Danforth)	Pouliot
Hatfield	Roebuck
Healy	Ross (Calgary East)
Howden	Ross (Souris)
Howe	Shaw
lsnor	Sissons
J ackman	Turner
Jean	White
Johnston (Bow River)	Whitman-61.
(Quorum 20)
Standing Committees
[Stage Direction]
AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION Messieurs
Authier	Lalonde
Aylesworth	Leader
Bertrand (Prescott)	Leclerc
Black (Chateauguay-	Leger
Huntingdon)	Lizotte
Blair	MacDiarmid
Bourget	MacKenzie
Bryce	(Lambton-Kent)
Cardiff	McCuaig
Choquette	MeCubbin
Clark	McNevin
Cloutier	(Victoria, Ont.)
Cruickshank	Matthews
Deehene	Mullins
Desmond	Nielsen (Mrs.)
Diefenbaker	Perley
Donnelly	Poirier
Douglas (Queens)	Queleh
Dubois .	Rennie
Evans	Rheaume
Fair	Rickard
Ferron	Ross (Souris)
Fontaine	Ross (Middlesex East)
Furniss	Ross (Moose Jaw)
Gardiner	Rowe
Golding	Senn
Gregory	Soper
Hatfield	Tustin
Henderson	Ward
Kirk	Weir
Laflamme	Whitman
Lafontaine	Wright-61.
(Quorum 20)	
STANDING ORDERS	
Messieurs	
Bertrand (Prescott)	MacLean (Cape Breton
Brunelle	North-Victoria)
Cardiff	Marier
Denis	Marshall
Dupuis	McLarty
Edwards	McLean (Simcoe East)
Eudes	O'Neill
Golding	Rennie
Graydon	Ross (Moose Jaw)
J aques Knowles	Stokes-20.
(Quorum 8)	
MARINE AND FISHERIES	
Messieurs	
Bradette	Maclnnis
Brooks	MacKenzie (Neepawa)
Brunelle	Macmillan
Crete	McLean (Simcoe East)
Deehene	Neill
Farquhar	Noseworthy
Ferron Green Hanson (Skeena) Hazen	Poirier Reid Pottier
Hill j	Roy
Kinley	Ryan
Noseworthy	Stirling
Kuhl	Telford
Lafontaine	Tomlinson
Lapointe (Matapedia-Matane	Tripp
Leduc	Tustin
Macdonald (Kingston	Veniot
City)	Warren-35.
(Quorum 10) [Mr. I. A. Mackenzie.)

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs Leduc Little MacNicol McCann McCulloch
McDonald (Pontiac) McGibbon McKinnon (Kenora-Rainy River) Nielsen (Mrs.)
Parent Sanderson Sinclair Tripn
*	Turner
Ward
River) Warren
White-35.
(Quorum 10)
[Stage Direction]
Messieurs Pouliot
Ross (Middlesex East) Ross (Moose Jaw) Rowe Shaw
Sinclair-12.
(Quorum 7)
Adamson
Authier
Bence
Black (Yukon)
Blanchette
Bourget
Crerar
d'Anjou
Edwards
Esling
Evans
Furniss
Gillis
Grant
Hansell
Hurtubise
Johnston (Bow
Lafontaine
Blanchette
Claxton
Esling
Hlynka
Jutras
Pinard
INDUSTRIAL AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Messieurs
Abbott
Blackmore
Bruce
Church
Cloutier
Cote
Dubuc
Fournier (Maison-neuve-Rosemont) Gingues Goulet
Hanson (Skeena)
Homuth
Jean
Lafontaine Leger MacICenzie (Neepawa) Macmillan
MacNicol McCann McGarry McNiven
(Regina City) Massey Mills Mutch Neill Nixon Nosewortliy Pottier Roebuck
Ross (Calgary East) Ross (Hamilton East) Rose
Sanderson Stirling Turgeon-35.
(Quorum 10)

[Stage Direction]
(Members to act on the part of the Commons) Messieurs
Bertrand
(Terrebonne)
Bonnier
Bourget
Casselman
(Grenville-Dundas)
Castleden
Chambers
Chevrier
Corman
Crete
d'Anjou
Denis
Dubois
Dupuis
Durocher
Edwards
Emmerson
Esling
Evans
Fauteux
Ferland
Fraser (Peterborough West)
Furniss
Gillis
Goulet
Grant
Green
Healy
Hlynka
Hoblitzell
Hurtubise
Kuhl
Leader
MacDiarmid
MacKinnon
(Kootenay East) MacLean (Cape Breton North-Victoria)

Standing Committees
McGregor
McNevin
(Victoria, Ont.) Mills Moore Muloek Purdy Rheaume Ross (St. Paul's) Sinclair
Sissons
Soper
Tripp
Tucker
Tustin
Weir
White
Whitman
Winkler
Wood-54.

[Stage Direction]
(Members to act on the part of the Commons) Mr. Speaker and Messieurs
Black (Yukon) Dupuis Edwards Farquhar Furniss Goulet Howden Jaques Lanamme Lafontaine Macdonald
(Brantford City)
Maclnnis
McGregor
Melvor
May hew
Pinard
Purdy
Rheaume
Thauvette
Tucker
Tustin-22.

[Stage Direction]
(Members to act on the part of the Commons) Mr. Speaker and Messieurs
Adamson Aylesworth Black (Chateauguay-Huntingdon)
Bruce
Cardiff
Casselman
(Grenville-Dundas)
Castleden
Coldwell
Emmerson
Eudes
Factor
Farquhar
Fontaine
Fournier (Maisson-neuve-Rosemont) Gershaw Goulet Graham Green Hansell Henderson Howden
Hurtubise
Jaques
Jean
Lizotte
Macdonald (Halifax) MacKenzie (Neepawa) MacKenzie
(Lambton Kent) Macmillan Marier Martin May hew Moore Poirier Pouliot Purdy Raymond Reid Rickard
Ross (St. Paul's) Thauvette Warren Winkler Wood-45.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) moved that the report be concurred in. Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister) moved:
That the standing committees of this house shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Transport) moved:: That Standing Order 63 of the House of Commons, relating to the appointment of Standing Committees of the House, be amended by adding to the Standing Committees of the House for the present session a Standing Committee on Railways and Shipping owned, operated and controlled by the Government, to which will be referred accounts and estimates and (bills relating thereto of the Canadian National Railways, The Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, and Trans-Canada Air Lines for the present session, for consideration and report to the House; provided however that nothing in the resolution shall ibe construed to curtail in any way the full right of discussion in Committee of Supply; and that the said Committee consist of: Messrs. Donnelly, Dubuc, Durocher, Emmerson, Ferland, Gray, Hanson (Skeena), Harris (Danforth), Hazen, Howden, Jackman, Lockhart, Michaud, McCulloch, Maybank. Nicholson. Parent, Pouliot, Roebuck. Ross (Middlesex East), Sanderson, Shaw, Sissons.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of . Pensions and National Health): I wish to table two orders in council, one amending the regulations made under the Department of Pensions and National Health Act, and the other amending regulations with regard to allowances under the War Veterans' Allowance Act.
Mr. GRAYDON:: Has that anything to do with the north west field forces?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: No. One has to do with increases in allowances under the War Veterans' Allowance Act, and the other deals wdth allowances given to those who have been serving and are still under treatment. It provides in a word that they shall continue to have pay and allowances of the rank, with a ceiling of the rank of lieutenant, until treatment has been completed.


Gordon Graydon: I do not know how comprehensive this is, but many complaints have been registered by members generally with regard to the situation and I hope that this clears it up.



SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON REVISION OF STANDING ORDERS

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That a special committee consisting of Messrs. Black (Yukon), Fauteux, Golding, Hanson (York-Sunbury), Isnor, Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre), Maclnnis, Mcllraith, Maybank, St. Laurent and Queleh, be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in revising the standing orders of the house with a view to simplify, accelerate and expedite its business, and to report to the house during the present session.
Standing Orders


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the Prime Minister if it is possible to have this committee sit at an early day in order that we may be able to do something in connection with the rules of procedure before the session ends?-I mean a considerable time before the session ends, because I do not want the committee to bring in its report at the end of the session and have a discussion on it drag on into another session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that the purpose in having the motion introduced at this early stage of the session is that the committee may get to work just as soon as possible. I would hope that it might have some recommendation to make to the house in the course of a few weeks or days. Certainly there is every desire on the part of the government to have the committee report as quickly as possible.


Gordon Graydon: The sooner the better.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, that is right.


Mr. J. SASSEVILLE ROY (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, if I am within the. rules I should like to say a few words about the formation of this committee that the government proposes to establish. In his speech yesterday the Prime Minister spoke at some length and offered the suggestion that Wednesday sittings be done away with in order to give members the opportunity to do more work on committees, and also to give more time to the members of the cabinet to look after their very important work. What I want to know is this: how are the members who are not members of the committees to make the contribution they should like to make in order to help the administration of the country? On February 22 of last year I suggested that members from the province of Quebec opposing the government should be given places on those important committees, but my suggestion was turned down. If we are to take it for granted that the opposition should be represented on all committees that have to do with important matters affecting the country, then I suppose, according to the same principle, members from the province of Quebec who in this house are opposing the government should be given the opportunity to make their contribution and bring their views to those committees. Therefore, if my request is in order, I would ask that opposition members from the province of Quebec be nominated to the important committees that the government intends to establish before long.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I understand this motion is debatable, and I desire to say a word in reference to it. I had the honour of serving on a committee which in 1928 revised the rules of this house under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker Lemieux, with the help, as a friend of the court, of the present Clerk of the House of Commons. We thought we had done a pretty good job at that time. I regret that the country as a whole, as I understand it, now thinks there were some grave errors and omissions in the work of that committee. I agree that as a result of the demand of public opinion the whole position should be reexamined, and I am glad that the Prime Minister has brought forward this motion.
I sympathize to some extent with the point of view of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Roy), but in connection with a matter of this kind I fear a large committee would not be as effective as a small one. I hope that while there may be some disadvantage-none is apparent to me, at all events-the Prime Minister will adhere to the principle of a small committee. I think it can do more effective and more continuous work than a large committee.
The position taken by the hon. member for Gaspe illustrates what is taking place in this house with a multiplicity of parties. We do not need to tell members of this house what difficult situations arise as a result, but such is democracy and- we have to meet it. At the same time a situation of this kind, which has to do with the internal economy of the house, makes it impossible to give representation to every political party that springs up ephemerally, and temporarily I hope, in this House of Commons. Therefore I am going to support the motion as put, in the hope that useful work will be done by this committee, but without any great 'hope that there will evolve any revolutionary departure from the rules; because after all this is the people's parliament, the high court of Canada, a deliberative assembly wherein the people's representatives meet to express the point of view of those who have sent -them here, and I strongly deprecate the curtailment of the right of free speech.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to say a word or two in respect of the motion before us, may I make an observation or two which I believe will represent the sentiment of a good many of those who sit in this house. I am in support of the motion, but I believe if all the committee does is to readjust a few minor rules, the full importance of the committee's work will not be realized. I fancy it makes very

War Appropriation
little difference whether or not a member is permitted to speak half an hour or forty minutes, or whether or hot we sit on Wednesdays, or whether or not certain language may or may not be used, and the rules and regulations adjusted accordingly. I should like to see the terms of reference extended in order that a more complete democratic form of parliamentary procedure may be brought about. I appreciate what the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) said when he pointed out that this is the people's parliament. That may be true in theory, Mr. Speaker, but it is not true in practice. We all represent the people, but because of certain party affiliations we can only act as a sort of sounding board, and when votes are taken it does not make very much difference what the people's representatives say.
I believe that the terms of reference to this committee should be extended to look into the matter I have just referred to. The government of this country should be the servants of the people; they should be the servants of parliament. They are not. We cannot vote along certain lines for fear that the vote may be interpreted as a vote of want of confidence, upon which the government would resign. I do not think that should be so in our parliamentary practice. I think we should be free to vote in whatever way we desire, and the government should become the administrative body to put into effect what parliament desires. It does not work that way in practice, as we know; the government seems to be the big boss of the representatives of the people. I wish the work of the committee could be extended in order to place this parliament upon a more practical basis as representing the will of the people, so that the government would become the administrative body to put into operation that which the representatives of the people desire.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the text of the resolution does not go far enough. This committee should consider the whole question of parliamentary, constitutional, cabinet and law reform. After all is said and done we are now in the fifth year of the war, and parliament has to do very little work indeed. We have appointed outside boards and commissions to such an extent that we have abrogated the functions of parliament, and the so-called supremacy of parliament has become a myth. I believe that with all these controls there is very little business for parliament to do except the holding of post mortems; the money is spent before the estimates reach this house. I believe the work to be done by this committee should embrace the subjects I have 100-5
mentioned. If we had a rule similar to that of the British parliament, under which on the orders of the day supplementary questions might be asked, five-sixths of the debates in this house would be eliminated.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: I should like this committee to consider the suggestion that when the hour of worship is called here the general public should be'welcomed. This is the only place in Canada, so far as I know, where the doors are locked against the general public wrhen we meet together for the worship of God. Surely the general public need it as much as we do.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
. Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide, inter alia,
1.	That sums not exceeding $3,650,000,000 be granted to his majesty towards defraying any expenses or making any advances or loans that may be incurred or granted by or under the authority of the governor in council during the year ending March 31, 1945, for-
(a)	the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada;
(b)	the conduct of naval, military and air operations in or beyond Canada;
(c)	promoting the continuance of trade, industry and business communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against war risk or in any other manner whatsoever; and
(d)	the carrying out of any measures deemed necessary or desirable by the governor in council in consequence of the existence of a state of war.
2.	That the governor in council be empowered to raise by way of loan under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, such sum or sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of $3,650,000,000 as -may be required for the purpose of defraying such expenses or making such advances or loans, the principal and interest of any such loan to be a charge upon and payable out of the consolidated revenue fund.
3.	That the governor in council be empowered to reexpend, advance or loan moneys that may be received by way of refund or repayment of advances, loans or expenditure under the War Appropriation Acts of 1939 (second session), 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
[Stage Direction]
Dominion Elections
Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask if this is the standard resolution that has always preceded the introduction of the war appropriation bills?


Mr. ILSLEY:: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does it differ in any particular?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State) moved:: 
Norman Alexander McLarty: Replying to the first part s>f the question of the leader of the opposition,

I may say that the regulations governing the 1940 general election Were passed under the War Measures Act. My hon. friend will remember that there was not a very lengthy session of parliament in that year, and consequently such regulations could not be considered by this house. I am advised and believe, from the fact that no complaints were received at that time, that the procedure then adopted worked satisfactorily and well. However, conditions have greatly changed since then. In the first place the number serving in the armed forces has increased very substantially, and they are widely dispersed all over the world. The government is anxious that the fullest opportunity be given those serving in the armed forces to exercise their franchise in the selection of those whom they wish to represent them in parliament. That is the whole purpose of the motion, and perhaps this statement of government policy will answer the second portion of my hon. friend's question.


Gordon Graydon: In other words I take it that there will be no proxy system in the next general election?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think it would be a little unfair to tie the hands of the committee. The regulations which have been drafted by the chief electoral officer with the collaboration of Mr. Harry Butcher, a former member of this house who served on the committee which sat in 1937 and 1938, and who I believe enjoys the esteem of all hon. members of this house, will be submitted to the committee for consideration, and I suggest that at this time it would be unwise to endeavour in any way to tie the hands of the committee by making any commitment as to the particular procedure which might be followed.


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air):: Perhaps I may say a word, since I was to some extent responsible for drafting the regulations governing service voting in 1940. I should like to point out to the house that these regulations will be somewhat more difficult of application under present circumstances. For instance, referring only to the Royal Canadian Air Force, in 1940 there were something like five hundred of the personnel of the air force overseas. At the present time it runs closer to fifty or sixty thousand, and they are widely dispersed over every part of the globe. So that the machinery which was set up in 1940, which I think all parties agreed was reasonably efficient and which at one time was almost unanimously considered by the house and the country to be fair and reasonable, will have to be considerably modified and altered.

Dominion Elections
Then other suggestions have been made with respect to the methods and manner of taking the vote. For instance there has been a suggestion made, one which I saw in a fairly widely publicized book by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) that the members of the forces should be represented in this house by members of parliament at large, a certain number of members elected over and above the 245 for which the constitution provides. Of course that presupposes a constitutional amendment. Also, if I may say so-and I am not prepared at the moment to discuss the question on its merits-it comes perilously close to the fascist system, the corporative form of government, so close, in fact, that I am astonished to find my hon. friend promoting it.
It has some disadvantages, and from the standpoint of draftsmanship great advantages. The drafting of the legislation certainly would be easier if we were simply to say that the members of the aimed forces serving overseas would be represented by, let us say, one member for every 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 as the case may be. As a matter of fact I am informed that in the last war the province of Saskatchewan did have three members at large, one of whom was for Canada, one for' Great Britain and one for France. So that the mechanics of that method would be comparatively easy. It would be very easy to make a provision whereby any, we will say, twenty-five members of the forces could nominate any other member of those forces, and after being duly certified as being a member of such unit he would be a candidate. I presume the whole 200,000 or 300,000 soldiers would vote for a certain number of candidates at large, each having the right to vote for ten or twenty members, as the case might be. So that from the point of view of mechanics or draftsmanship, if I had anything to do with the drafting I would welcome it. But I do not know that the country as a whole would support the setting up of a sort of military caste of some twenty or thirty members, in addition to those for whom provision is already made in our constitution. Nor perhaps would the men themselves like to be deprived of their right to vote in the constituency in which (hey had formerly voted. I suggest this procedure is something which might be studied by the committee. I bring these points forward so that they may be called to the attention of members of the house. The regulations made in 1940 are not in themselves perfect. They will have to be modified and amended, and any other method ought at least to be considered.
100-5J
There is a further suggestion-and again from the standpoint of mechanics or draftsmanship, it probably presents even greater facilities than any of the others, and it has to do with all due respect to my hon. friend the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Gray-don), with a sort of proxy system. The suggestion I received was that the regulations called for the right of every member of the forces to vote by proxy, and automatically that there should be inscribed on the electoral lists of the appropriate riding or electoral constituency wherein the next of kin reside, the name of the service man, with the designated next of kin as proxy. This has been explained to me only vaguely, but it would work out something like this: Tom Jones resides on Metcalfe street, Ottawa. His name would be given to the chief electoral officer by the records office of the Department of National Defence, whichever branch might be applicable, and the details would be inscribed on the list with respect to next of kin. Every member of the forces has next of kin. The next of kin also would be inscribed on the lists as being the persons having the right to vote.
Here a new inconvenience, however, is presented, because a great many of those boys might fear that their mothers or fathers, as the case may be, would be so strongly attached to the old political parties that they might not exercise that right to vote as they would exercise it.


Gordon Graydon: The soldier might be afraid his mother and father had gone C.C.F.


Charles Gavan Power: He might. On the other hand, an arrangement might be made, particularly if any such legislation were brought into effect now, whereby the member of the forces might be given, the option or the right to state on some approved form, possibly by cable, that he wished some other man to act for him, or some other person who necessarily, I think, would have to be within certain kindred limitations. Because otherwise John Bracken might go around and get a lot of proxies and get into the House of Commons.


Gordon Graydon: He will get in anyway, but he will want their votes, not their proxies.


Charles Gavan Power: I suggest again, however, that this is a method which is worthy of some study. When I was explaining some of the difficulties to someone who had never been in a political election in his life, he thought it was the common-sense thing to do.
To revert to the 1940 regulations, I fear that with the armed services dispersed as they now are, a delay of some considerable
Dominion Elections

time in an election would be involved. It would probably make the electoral period longer. Because one of the greatest complaints-I should say one of the very few complaints received at the last election-was that it was impossible to notify troops of the political allegiance or affiliations of the candidates. The troops received a list; and in the next election I presume they will receive a list of anywhere between 750 and 1,000 candidates. In many instances members of the forces have been away from Canada for three or four years, and the new men who have been coming up in the various parties could not possibly be known to those troops. The result would be that the men overseas would not know the political complexions of such candidates and even with the utmost possible use of cables I fear it would be impossible, for instance, to let a lone airman, a man lost in the wilds of the Hebrides, or-


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: Order.


Charles Gavan Power: I am an oasis entirely surrounded by Scotland, so that I must not talk about the Hebrides. In any case, in an isolated place like the Hebrides, or somewhere in Burma, or the Gold Coast in Africa, it would be an extremely difficult job to let the troops know who the candidates are. So that it may be necessary to have voting by parties. That is, we would allow a man to vote for a party. The candidate would then be designated by the leaders of those parties.


Gordon Graydon: Then my hon. friend
should explain or should describe who these new parties are.


Charles Gavan Power: That presents another difficulty. For instance, at the time of the last election the man who voted for my hon. friend in his constituency voted for a national goyernment candidate. This time he will see the name of Gordon Graydon and he will say "Who in-"


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles Gavan Power: "Who is he?" And there will be other difficulties, too. If leaders of parties are allowed at will to designate candidates as being the men to whom will inure the votes of persons who vote for the Progressive Conservative, Liberal or C.C.F. or other parties, as the case may be, we would have the spectacle of my hon. friend from Gaspe (Mr. Roy) nominating as his candidate the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). When considering that I did suggest to the draftsman that there should be a proviso in the legislation whereby the hon. member for York-

Sunbury could repudiate his designation by the hon. member for Gaspe. The leader of the Bloc Populaire or the leader of the Canadian party could nominate the Prime Minister of this country as a candidate in Prince Albert. I do not think that that would help the Prime Minister very much.
These are things that I would draw to the attention of the house in order to indicate that while the 1940 regulation, by the admission of everybody, worked well, they would be difficult of application where the troops are so widespread and where communications are so difficult. I really believe that any method or manner which appears to have some common sense in its make-up should at least be studied by the committee.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I am not clear as to whether the former elections act provided that all members of the armed services are entitled to vote, or must they be twenty-one years of age?


Charles Gavan Power: All members.


James Arthur Ross: Irrespective of age?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Mr. SAMUEL FACTOR (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say only a word with reference to the suggestion of the minister, as to the consideration of the problem of providing direct representation by the services. If it is the intention of the government that the committee is to consider this wide problem, I submit that the terms of the resolution are not broad enough. It merely instructs the committee to study the elections act.


Gordon Graydon: It does not even go that far.


Samuel Factor: With a view to preserving the rights of the service personnel. I submit further that it should not be within the province of this committee to study the rather interesting problem suggested by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). I suggest that that problem is in itself a modification of a problem which is so wide that it should not be included in- the terms of reference of this committee. I would appreciate it if the minister would enlighten the house on that particular phase of the problem


Charles Gavan Power: I did not draft this resolution, but I was under the impression that it would cover any method which would protect the right of the soldier. It states that the committee is "to consider the Dominion Elections Act, together with any existing regulations relating to the taking of the vote of the members of the active service forces of Canada"-those are the 1940 regulations-"with

Dominion Elections
a view to preserving, continuing and safeguarding the full rights of franchise of the personnel of the armed services serving at home and abroad and establishing the required procedure for exercising same." The committee is to study the elections act and the regulations and then establish regulations and procedure. It is "to survey all aspects of the problem."


Richard Burpee Hanson: That has nothing to do with representation; it would involve a constitutional amendment.


Gordon Graydon: This does not seem to me to be a question of representation by electoral districts in Canada. The Dominion Elections Act provides the machinery by which the vote is taken, and it is restricted entirely to that. I think the minister will find that he is on pretty broad ground when he talks about changing the method of representation in the House of Commons.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not advocating that. I am merely suggesting that it should be something for the committee to study. I think the phrase "to survey all aspects of the problem" would give them that power, perhaps with a little good will on the part of the chairman and the members of the committee, and on the part of the house if it were necessary to have the reference widened. Personally I should like to see it studied, although I do not think that I would support it.


Gordon Graydon: I agree with what the minister says with respect to that.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I must point out to hon. members that we are not in committee.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to say a word, since my name has been brought into the discussion. I have no intention of debating this question now. I am a member of the committee that will be studying the whole problem, and my opinions will be reserved for the discussion of that aspect of the question. I merely wish to say a word with respect to the observation that it smacked of regimentation and so forth.


Gordon Graydon: Fascism.


Clarence Gillis: The corporate state is
nothing more or less than totalitarianism in its initial stages. Nothing was further from my mind. On many occasions I have heard hon. members stress the fact that the opinions of those in the services were absolutely essential at this time. Since the outbreak of war we have changed completely the functioning of government in many directions under our war measures acts. If we are honest in our
declaration that we want the opinion of the service man in this house, then that is where he should be. I do not think that an amendment of the elections act with respect to the franchise alone is going to give us the real opinion of the man in the services who is now in a theatre of war; it will not bring that opinion into this bouse. In order to get that, I think the first thing that will have to be done is to give those in the service a full opportunity of discussing the issues involved in the election. I see no other way of doing it except to grant to the men in the services the same democracy with respect to the exercise of their franchise as we have in Canada. My own opinion is-I am not saying that it is the policy of this group-that the man in the services should have the privilege of nominating his own candidate over there. He should have the same right as we have to elect our representatives in Canada. Men from the scene of operations should be sent back to this house to guide us, and to let us know their hopes and aspirations. I am still convinced that that is the correct thing to do. I do not think any man or any woman should be asked to cast a ballot on any question unless he or she is thoroughly familiar with the issues involved.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay the house at this time, but there is one point I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members. When the vote is extended to the members of the armed forces they should be given the right to cast, that vote as a secret ballot. I am thinking back to the time when the plebiscite was taken. Under the system adopted at that time it was possible for a vote to be traced, and I think that procedure should be done away with.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask
your indulgence for a moment? The hon. member for Cape Breton South has raised the question of bringing the opinions of those overseas to bear upon this matter. Will the minister give an undertaking that if we pass this resolution now, and it is found that the terms of reference are not broad enough to cover what the Minister of National Defence for Air thinks it Should, the committee will ask for a widening of its powers? Also I should like to know if we will be able to have soldiers from overseas or from Canada appear as witnesses before the committee to give some indication as to what they desire in connection with the point raised. After all, we are only civilians.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think it would be extremely unwise
Labour Conditions

for me to give any undertaking as to what the decision of the committee may be, or upon what basis they will operate. The committee has the right at any time to refer back to the house if it is found that the scope of its reference is not wide enough to enable it to perform the duties it feels it should perform. The house can be asked to widen the terms of reference, but that is a matter that should be considered at that time. As to bringing in men from overseas or from the service in Canada, I would point out that the resolution is quite wide. The committee is to be given power to send for persons, papers and records, and to sit while the house is sitting. In other words, there is no limitation on the power of the committee to summon whomever they think could give information that would be of assistance in their deliberations.


Gordon Graydon: We ought to know what
the troops themselves want.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to forward to the Minister of Labour an item in to-day's Toronto Globe and Mail entitled "Labour Pool", written by the correspondent of the Boston Herald in connection with manpower for our Canadian forests. I was not able to give the minister notice of the question. Perhaps he will not be able to give me an answer to-day, but I wish to serve this notice so that he may be able to give me an answer to-morrow. The item, which seems to give authentic information, says that there is a labour pool available for work in Canadian forests and that United States interests are anxious to get a part of that labour pool-


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I can answer that question now, without waiting until to-morrow. There is not a labour pool.


Gordon Graydon: Then the minister's
answer to my question is that there is no available labour pool such as is indicated in this item?


Humphrey Mitchell: No, we have no pool.



INQUIRY AS TO LAY-OFF AT TORONTO SHIPBUILDING YARDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Munitions and Supply. I have not sent him notice of the question, and if he can give an answer to-morrow it will be satisfactory. In the meantime he may be able to straighten out a difficult situation that has arisen in the Toronto Shipbuilding yards on account of the lay-off, last Thursday, on seven days' notice, of carpenters and some other trades. The question I desire to ask is this: Is the principle of seniority rights for these employees in the Toronto Shipbuilding yards being followed and is any consideration being given to the returned soldier preference by contractors for the department in those yards?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: I shall be glad to make inquiries.



INQUIRY WITH REFERENCE TO PREMIUM ON GRADE A AND GRADE B-l CARCASSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture based on a press release of January 22, which recites the intention of the government to pay a premium of $3 on grade A carcasses of hogs and a premium of S2 on carcasses of grade B-l. The next sentence is ambiguous and capable of two or three interpretations. The fact that this premium is already in operation is my reason for asking the question on the orders of the day rather than putting it on the order paper, because I have had many inquiries about it. The sentence to which I refer reads:
The premium of $1 formerly paid by the packers on grade A carcasses will be paid on the carcass grade value for export bacon.
This has created some confusion. I would ask the minister, first, whether it is intended that this premium of SI on grade A carcasses should be paid by the packers or by the government? Second, will the premium be paid on all grade A carcasses or only on such carcasses as are exported?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, the present position is that the plan as announced on the 22nd of January is in substitution for one not yet put into effect. The announcement previously made indicated that it would take two or three weeks to get the plan worked out, but we

The Address-Mr. Roebuck
found within a few days that there was going to be so much difficulty in meeting the situation with regard to individual farmers if something were not done immediately, that on January 22 we asked the packing plants and others who were taking deliveries of hogs to make payment of the premium of $3 on A's and $2 on B-l's when deliveries were made as from the next Monday morning. But at the same time we indicated that the SI premium which had been previously paid on A's will not be paid after the final set-up is made. In the meantime the SI premium is being paid by the packing plants and other purchasers of grade A hogs. But after the plan is set up, it is intended that the SI premium will be spread over the two classifications, A's and B-l's, which are the export grades, in some proportion which will be reasonable in relation to the value of A's as compared with B's. Then there will be an A price and a B price, as well as prices on grades below. The premiums of $3 and S2 will be paid by the government only on A's and B-l's. The present intention is that they will be paid in the form of a warrant which will be attached to the cheque which the farmer receives for his hogs so that he will be able to take it to the bank and cash it along with his cheque.


Mark Cecil Senn: I did not get the minister's idea exactly. May I ask whether this premium of SI will be paid by the government or by the packer?


James Garfield Gardiner: There will be no premium at all after the plan is finally announced, except the premiums paid by the government of $3 and S2. The SI will be part of the price for A's and B-l's divided between the two in some proportion to be determined on a basis of value.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, January 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. L. D. Tremblay' 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. A. W. ROEBUCK (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, may I, notwithstanding the well-chosen words-perhaps I might borrow the adjectives of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and say the amiable words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Graydon) in reference to the form of this debate-nevertheless conform to the ancient and delightful parliamentary custom of offering felicitations to the mover (Mr. Tremblay) and the seconder (Mr. Tucker) of the address. It was an excellent custom, and they were excellent addresses. But I should like to go further than is dictated by ancient custom and offer a word of commendation and compliment in respect to all the addresses which have preceded mine. They were all good addresses. And why not? Why should they not be good addresses? Eveiy one of them was delivered by the leader of a political party, six or seven of them, and of course, with the status of leadership conferred upon the individual, one would expect that his speech would be broad in scope, well delivered, and so forth.
The Lon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) has just now referred to the multiplicity of parties, and I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, if the time will not shortly arrive, in the course of the political development which is now on our hands, when we will all be leaders of a political party. Two hundred and forty-five of us, each leading his own party, would surely improve the quality of the debates and we could adopt as our motto "Every man his own leader".
I have observed in the addresses of all the leaders who have spoken so far-some of them leaders of parties of one, but nevertheless leaders-a certain delightful and inspiring flavour of international politics. I cannot say whether that is the result of the status of leadership, or whether it comes from the divinity that doth hedge a king, or what it is. But I have noticed it with a great deal of interest. Or perhaps it was the evidence that I saw in these addresses of the growing importance of this assembly and the recognition of the fact that we who sit here are representative of a nation-Canada's status within the family of nations. I hope that is so.
Not being myself a leader but just one of the rank and file of the common people, I of course can accept a statement of policy laid down by somebody else; and so I wish to say that I approve very highly the statesmanlike pronouncement which was made in this house yesterday afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). It is in my judgment a sufficient answer to the question propounded by the noble lord from across the sea as to the future of Canada within the commonwealth of nations and in the world at large.
There was a time in this country when politicians and rank and file were prepared to accept their international thinking from titled gentlemen in Downing Street, and there are still, Mr. Speaker, some colonial-minded people in Canada. We have been slow, very slow, in
The Address-Mr. Roebuck

The Address-Mr. Roebuck

benefited from these activities. Nevertheless, riots, disorder and violence have characterized the conduct of the Arab majority ever since the emigracion began. In 1937, due to the violence of the Arabs, a proposal was made to partition Palestine into two states, one Jewish and the other Arab, but it was rejected by both sides as impracticable. Then in 1938, after a conference in London of both Jewish and Arab representatives failed to reach some compromise agreement, the British government brought down what is known as the Chamberlain white paper. Some of the facts set out in that white paper are interesting. It says:
Since the statement of 1922 was published, more than 300,000 Jews have immigrated to Palestine, and the population of the national home has risen to some 450,000, or approaching a third of the entire population of the country. Nor has the Jewish community failed to take full advantage of the opportunity given to it. The growth of the national home and its achievement in many fields are a remarkably constructive effort which must command the admiration of the world and must be, in particular, a source of pride to Jewish people.
Then a little further:
The methods employed by Arab terrorists, against fellow Arabs and Jews alike must
receive unqualified condemnation.
Those are the facts set out in the Chamberlain white paper; yet in the face of those facts and for purely political reasons- I mean "political" in its widest sense-this is the statement of policy which follows:
Jewish immigration during the next five years will be at a rate which, if economic absorptive capacity admits, will bring the Jewish population up to approximately one-third of the total population of the country.
And the next paragraph:
After a period of five years no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it.
I submit to this house that this is the most perfect example of Chamberlain appeasement one could well imagine. It is appeasement in this, that it submits to the very violence which it condemns. It is appeasement in that it not only submits to the violence of the violent but it does so at the expense of the innocent. That, I take it, is Chamberlain appeasement at its worst.
I am not the only one who holds these views, or who has raised his voice in protest in regard to what is expected to happen at the end of next month. The matter was debated in the British House of Commons shortly after the paper was issued in 1939. At that time, referring to this provision that there shall be no more immigration into Pales-
[Mr. Roebuck.!
tine without the acquiescence of the Arabs, Right Hon. Winston Churchill made this statement:
Now, there is the breach; there is the violation of the pledge; there is the abandonment of the Balfour declaration; there is the end of the vision, of the hope, of the dream.
Mr. Amery, who was a member of the war cabinet at the time the Balfour declaration was issued and was later colonial secretary, made this reference:
It is a repudiation of the pledge on the strength of which the government of Palestine was entrusted to our hands.
In the House of Lords the Right Reverend Cosmo Gordon Lang, Archbishop of Canterbury, made a denunciation practically as strong. He said:
If the Arabs are willing to allow an extension over that one-third of the population, another of the wonders of the world will have occurred. The position therefore is that the Jews are reduced to the status of a permanent minority. I venture to think that it was precisely from this permanent minority that they hoped to escape.
You may ask why Canada is especially interested in this problem of Palestine. In part my answer has been given already. In this country there are from 150,000 to 200,000 Jewish people, and the Zionist Organization of Canada has actually invested in Palestine an amount estimated in the neighbourhood of $5,000,000, in addition to the private subscriptions to various industrial and agricultural enterprises. This $5,000,000 was invested by the Zionist Organization on the strength of its members' faith in the Balfour declaration. We in Canada have a right to demand fair play and justice to our own investors.
In addition, of the twelve million Jewish people outside the axis countries, about one and a half million are in the armies of the united nations. Even in Canada, with our smaller population and much smaller army, we have some 14,000 Jewish boys under arms. I submit that this house, this nation and the allied nations as a whole must keep faith with these men.
Furthermore, Canada is a member of the league of nations; and so I hark back to what I have said: with power there goes responsibility. With responsibility there is sometimes call for action. Canada is a member of the organization which gave to Great Britain her mandate over Palestine. Accordingly, Canada has a right to point out, if she so desires, that the white paper is noit a proper and just rendering of the Balfour declaration, and that, as a practical matter, the closing of the doors of Palestine against one of these large branches of the refugee group is not in the

. o
The Address-Mr. Adamson
best interests of the world at large, is not a Christian act, or a statesmanlike act. Canada is to-day a world power. She can no longer stand aside accepting the immunities of childhood in an adult world.
Our own position in connection with refugee emigration is not such as to provide a salve for an injured conscience. I have already said that some 3,500,000 Jewish people have been murdered by the nazi butchers, within those areas controlled by Hitler and his gang. Of that number 1,500,000 are scattered to the four winds. May I ask this question: How many of this group of refugees have found refuge on the soil of Canada? The last figures available, those for 1942, show a grand total of Hebrew immigration into Canada for the year ending March 31 of that year of 111 persons. That includes men, women and children. I draw attention to this figure of 111 persons out of the 1,500,000 scattered by Hitler.
Of course all the 111 were not refugees. That is the total of Hebrew immigration or, to be more exact, immigrants who professed the Hebrew religion. In the year before the number was 284. Surely in Canada, with our great heritage of 3,500,000 square miles of territory, we have room for more than one or two hundred persecuted people fleeing for their lives from nazi butchers. I should think we could have found a space in this great heritage to extend a helping hand to more than 111 of such people, or rather that portion of the 111 who were actually Jewish refugees.
At the outbreak of war Canada deliberately and purposely closed her immigration offices in Europe and, I believe, in Asia. The one exception was the office in London, England. We also withdrew our immigration officials. I am delighted to note that within the last two or three months we have reopened our immigration office in Lisbon, Portugal, and the immigration officer there has been charged, I believe, with the responsibility of devising methods of carrying out programmes of relief and help. I do not know what the returns are, because I have seen nothing published about his activities. I have been told, however, that Canada has offered to extend a helping hand to some few of those refugees who have found asylum in Portgual, but that so far as the Jewish immigrants are concerned they preferred to go on to Palestine, where the door is still open, and may continue to be open for a short time after March 31.
I say that because in a debate in the British House of Commons in November of 1942, the colonial secretary gave assurance that the full number of 75,000 immigrants would be permitted as had been promised by the Chamber-100- 6 J
lain white paper, notwithstanding the passing of the exact date. And so the gates of Palestine are not yet closed. I am hopeful that an expression of opinion, even so humble as mine, coupled with many othef such expressions, may result in a reconsideration of this subject, and that Canada may make representations along the lines I have suggested. I am encouraged in that thought by the statement by Lord Halifax, speaking in Washington on January 17 of this year, on which occasion he expressed a doubt as to whether Great Britain would actually carry out the formal declaration of the white paper and close the gates of Palestine on March 31. It would seem therefore that the situation is not hopless- indeed, far from it. It is my view that were public opinion aroused in Canada, and that were our government to express, even in the mildest of terms, some of the thoughts I have v*oiced, as Churchill has put it, the vision, the hope and the dream of a national home in Palestine for the descendants of the writers of the Bible may yet be preserved.
Since in my opinion the opening of an immigration office in Lisbon was in response to an awakening public conscience, so do I hope that a further awakening may lead to Canada's still further liberalizing her immigration, policy. I am not advocating that the immigration bars be thrown down, because that is no longer possible in the world as we know it to-day. But aside from the immigration problem, I do believe that Canada should, and I hope will, extend a hand, along with other Christian nations of the world, with a view to saving as many as possible from the fury of the nazi butchers.


Mr. A. R. ADAMSON (York West):: Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) opened his address with a condemnation of the Halifax proposals, he proceeded to discuss at length the problem of immigration into Palestine, which, as I understand it, is a subject solely the prerogative of the United Kingdom parliament sitting at Westminster. I do not want to labour this point, but there has been discussed at length to-day in this house an issue which is not one of our prerogatives. I agree with the hon. member for Trinity that this question of Palestine is of importance to those of the Jewish faith in Canada; yet if we are to consider ourselves as a nation, as the hon. member states we should, we cannot wholly disregard or abandon our responsibilities to the commonwealth in connection with a deliberative jurisdictional measure. I shall have more to say on this a little later but the hon. member for Trinity gave me the opportunity of saying a few words now.
The Address-Mr. Adamson

When I listened yesterday to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) expound the theme of the supremacy of parliament I thought of some other places where his remarks, instead of being received with the adulation of a mechanical majority, would have brought forth active and violent signs of derision and displeasure. The theory of parliamentary supremacy is all important to the future of the country, because a docile parliament subservient to the rule of the leader has always been the first step to the loss of individual freedom, to dictatorship, and eventually to revolution. That is the danger to-day in Canada, and nowhere is it more evident than in the smoke-screen which is the speech from the throne.
To say that the speech from the throne recognizes the importance of the war is theoretically correct. It recognizes the importance of the war in exactly the same way as the president of a great corporation recognizes the loyalty of the employees in his annual report. In other words, he does it in a stereotyped paragraph, thanking them for their work during the past year and hoping that they will continue to show the same commendable consideration in the future.
Great concern was expressed yesterday by the Prime Minister about the war. I think he was correct in expressing great concern about the war. But a statement was issued some weeks ago by the premier of Quebec to the effect that in conversation with the Prime Minister he had reached the conclusion that we were on the easy road to victory. The main part of the speech was an election manifesto of a unique and in many ways dishonest nature. It did two things. First of all it sets up the vision of a promised land knowing that the attaining of that will require machinery and constitutional changes, the former not being at present available and the latter requiring provincial agreement about which there is very great doubt. In other words, it is like giving a man a cheque for a million dollars and then telling him to go out and get somebody to sign it.
Another point about the speech from the throne is that it endorses the inflationary theme of compensation without contribution. In other words, something for nothing. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has often and effectively used the words, "work and save", but they have now been changed to the jovial exhortation of "multiply and prosper."
At the very time the government endorses a plan of putting more purchsaing power into the hands of the people instead of providing a high and continuing degree of employment,

it brings down an order in council freezing the wages of labour in all its three categories, organized, unorganized and salaried. To aggravate matters, it uses the danger of inflation as an excuse in the very first paragraph of the order in council. Yet it brings dowm a programme which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered as anything but inflationary.
At the beginning of the war labour freely and wholeheartedly gave a pledge that it would not use its final and most powerful weapon, namely the strike, until the war had been won. How has labour lived up to its pledge? I believe the figures will show that during four and a half years of the war the number of man-days lost in Canada through disputes has been less on a per capita basis than those lost in any other part of the world. My own district of West York is one of the greatest industrial and railroad ridings in Canada and as far as I am aware there has not been one man-hour lost through labour disputes. This is a record of which I am extremely proud and jealous.
Now in the fifth year of the war when the problem will soon be not so much getting labour as providing employment there has been issued a highly provocative and contentious order in council known as the wartime wages control order, 1943, the provisions of which go into effect on February 15, two weeks from to-day. I should like to say a word or two about the provisions of this order which I consider to be not only provocative but completely indefensible in the light of labour's freely given pledge. The first objection is to the composition of the national labour board. I shall quote from the order in council so that the house can see what I mean. Besides the chairman and the vice-chairman, who are to be appointed by the governor in council, there are to be two other representatives of the public, then only one representing the employers and one representing the employees. With two members representing the public, who would be government appointees, there would be four members appointed by the government. The operative members, or those representing the employers' and employeees, would be outnumbered two to one, while labour would be outnumbered five to one. I think that is an entirely undue weighting of the officials on that board and that labour as well as management should receive a greater proportion of representation.
The regional boards are in a slightly different position, but the same objection applies.

The Address-Mr. Adamson
My next objection, and this is one of the most important clauses of these regulations, is that the power of the board is supreme over any court in the land. It takes precedence over any court, no matter where the court is situated and no matter what the circumstances may be. I will read the clause. The directions are final and conclusive in any court.
Any finding, direction or order given or made under the authority of this order by the national board, or by a regional board, until varied or revoked by the national board on review or appeal, shall be final and conclusive for the purpose of any proceedings in any court taken pursuant to this order and shall be accepted by and shall not be subject to review in such court.
That is a habit to which we have been accustomed through order in council. I think it is untenable and an unwise practice in this connection.
The next objectionable feature is the method of appeal from the decisions of the regional boards. This is the appeal clause:
Any person interested in or affected by any decision or direction of a regional board may appeal to the national board if the regional board making such decision or direction grants leave so to appeal.
In other words you are tried by a board and the only appeal you have from that board's decision is dependent upon the board's allowing you to appeal. That, I think, is not good legal practice, nor is it justice.
The next clause which I consider indefensible is the anti-strike clause, clause 35. It is a long clause and I shall read only a portion of it. But first let me say that after the record of labour in this dominion in this war, now in its fifth year, to bring down a clause like this which is like a red rag to a bull and would infuriate anybody is ,extremely bad policy. The clause sets out the penalties as follows:
Every employee who strikes or takes part in
any strike to obtain an increase of wages . . .
I shall not read it all, but it goes on:
.	.	. or for the purpose of obtaining any
direction from or of influencing the decision of a war labour board constituted under this order or in protest against or to obtain any alteration in any such direction . . .
Then these are the penalties:
. . . shall be guilty of an offence and liable upon summary conviction to a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than one hundred dollars or to imprisonment for a term of not less than one month nor more than three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment in respect of each day or part of a day . . .
that he is on strike.
In other words, the individual is subject to three months imprisonment for going on strike for one day or one hour. That legislation, Mr. Speaker, I contend is as restrictive and as dangerous as anything that Germany has ever had before the reichstag was abolished.
Now I come to the worst clause of all of these regulations, namely clause 36, which deals with the prosecution and the methods to be used in the prosecution. It sets out a principle that is absolutely indefensible and that is so absolutely bad that we might think we were no longer in a British country. I will read the operative part of the clause:
Where, in any prosecution of any person under this section, it is proved that such person incited, encouraged or aided any employee to go on or continue any strike the burden of proof that such strike was not in contravention of this order shall be upon the accused.


Humphrey Mitchell: Finish the clause.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Certainly. It goes on:
This provision shall not deprive the accused of the benefit of any reasonable doubt-
Reasonable doubt, mark you.
-which may exist after all the evidence has been put before the magistrate or justice by whom such prosecution is tried.
In other words, the man has to prove he is innocent. Reasonable doubt is ou the side of the government. That is absolutely indefensible to have reasonable doubt attaching to the accuser and I protest against it. I am perfectly certain that this country will also protest against it. It is something new in British justice, something new in all our ideas of a court of law. We have taken away the right of a man to appeal. We have said that the ruling of the board takes precedence over any court and we have virtually said that the accused is guilty unless he proves he is innocent. I give the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) warning that if this goes into effect on the fifteenth of the month it will be one of the greatest causes of labour unrest that we have seen in Canada. I sincepely hope that he, in consultation with the leaders of labour, who are reasonable men, will have these provocative, indefensible and dangerous clauses amended.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that an extensive opportunity will be given for discussion of the so-called commonwealth council plan. This question cannot be dismissed after the manner of Doctor Pangloss in Candide, by saying that this is the "best of all possible worlds," after the horrible experiences we are now under-
The Address-Mr. Adamson

going. It is not perfect by any means, and to reject all suggestions for change as coming from "imperial intriguers" is to continue the petty colonial outlook which has characterized our foreign policy since the last war. As an example of this I am going to quote a paragraph with reference to something that has happened in the very recent past. I quote from'a journal known as Labotir, the journal of the American Federation of Labor and particularly of the Railroad Brotherhoods. It is discussing the world being staked out by a monopoly, the Duponts, the Imperial Chemical Company, and I. G. Farbenindustrie. The words I shall quote are not the words of a labour leader, they are not the words of an isolationist senator or member of congress. They are the words of the assistant attorney general of the United States. He is talking about monopolies and he is reported as saying:
To illustrate what he meant by dividing the world into "industrial colonies", Berge showed the effect of the cartel on Canada. He said that in order to protect the markets of the British and American companies, Canadian Industries Limited was restrained from doing any exporting or expanding. The effect, he declared, was to throttle Canadian industry and to treat Canada as a colony.
That is the present situation. We have seen in the last few weeks the closing of our greatest explosives plant. Did it have, any connection with our being treated as a colony, or did it not? These are questions which we shall have to discuss and to answer in this house.
That is all that my time will allow, but I will say this finally. I disagree with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party (Mr. Coldwell) in throwing out all discussion without adequate opportunity for this house to debate at an early date the proposals made from time to time that we as Canadians play our full part and have our voice fully heard, not only through the channels of government but through the channels of the people's representatives, first in the councils of the commonwealth and eventually in the new world order which we hope to see.


Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley) :: First of all, may I say that I did not understand the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), in his speech, to throw out any discussion. If my, memory serves me aright, he invited my good friends of the Conservative party to bring in Mr. Bracken to discuss any matter with him.
It is probably unique for me that I shall agree with a great deal of what the hon. mem-

ber for York West (Mr. Adamson) has said. I am in accord with the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck), to this extent, that I entirely disagree with what he said. We have heard a good deal to-day about the criticisms of Lord Halifax in regard to what he said in our country, and yet in the same speech I hear so much criticism regarding Lord Balfour in his own country. I am expecting any day in this house that Lord Helpus will get up and tell us something else.
I am speaking to-day with reference to the labour situation, which the previous speaker also discussed. In this regard I am fulfilling a promise I made to organized labour not only in my own riding but in Vancouver. I will not go into the details of the different sections of this famous order in council, but I do say that, as far as my riding is concerned, I think the government would be well advised to reconsider the order. I have had the pleasure during the last two years of representing Vancouver North in the absence of my colleague, the hon. member for that constituency (Mr. Sinclair). He has been kept out of the house and will not be here for a couple of days, and in case there should be a vote before he returns I may say that I am expressing his opinion as well as my own on this subject. That riding, I may observe, is the most highly organized from the labour standpoint in the province of British Columbia.
During my service in the army in the last war I did not have the privilege of being court-martialed as some of my friends of the Conservative party may have been. But even in the army a man is innocent, until he is proved guilty by court-martial, and it is a most ridiculous piece of legislation to make a man prove his innocence. Moreover, it is unfair to labour that it should have only one man on a committee of six on which three can form a quorum. That is not sense. It follows the line of argument that we have seen advanced-rather, not an argument but a line of policy-whereby no man who was an actual producer in agriculture was permitted to serve on the board so that there might be a reasonable representation of that calling there.
Speaking for the Fraser Valley riding and, I may add, for Vancouver North as well, I strongly urge the government to reconsider that legislation. In our opinion, in my opinion at any rate, it does not conform to the true principles of Liberalism as I learned them from my father.
I want to say something now on rehabilitation, and I might as well get my say in now with regard to the revising of the rules of

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank
the house. I wish I had the gift of standing in my place here and, while reading my speech, appearing not to do so. Some hon. members are very adept at reading their speeches from their desks, and I hope that a ruling will be given one way or the other, because I am going to give the house this warning, without intending to tread on the toes of any of my good friends among the members, that I shall use mj>
prerogative under the rules.' Every time I see a member reading his speech in the future I am going to draw the fact to the Speaker's attention. I am not referring to leaders or ministers, but to private members. If speeches are read I am going to appeal to the Chair, which I have a right to do as a member of the house.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take in the ministers too.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Land Act by order in council. There are approximately fifty soldier members in. this house and it seems to me there is no reason why we could not settle these matters in the nouse or in a committee set up for that purpose. I would urge, as I say, that there be no more amendments made to the Veterans' Land Act by order in council. I think the government has made a good move so far; but I have spoken to soldiers who have come back from this war and to veterans of the last war and they are entirely dissatisfied with the act as it stands at present. I think the soldiers are reasonable enough to realize that no act, when it is first introduced, can be perfect. The government and the people of Canada should bear' in mind that from a straight economic point of view it is good business to have a satisfied settler irrespective of the fact that it may cost a little more. I hope the government will take that into consideration when they offer amendments to the Veterans' Land Act.
I should like to say a few words on the subject of family allowances. Probably this is dangerous ground for a member to tread on, especially when he has no children of his own. It may be thought that I am prejudiced; but I think every member, particularly those representing rural ridings, should take into serious consideration the passing of family allowances. I wish to make my point clear in that regard. I am entirely in accord with the principle and I hope the bill will be passed at this session. However, I believe before it is passed-I speak now from the point of view of a representative of a rural riding in British Columbia, and I think it applies to all western Canada-a floor should be placed under agricultural prices. I think that principle holds good for all of Canada. I shall give the house an example of what I mean by that. In the province of Quebec tomato juice can be produced very cheaply. Incidentally, no tomato juice is produced in my riding. Tomato juice can be produced in the province of Quebec at ridiculously low wages in peace time. They run their canneries on slave wages in Quebec, and in Ontario too. We in British Columbia are proud of the fact that during the time the present Minister of Pensions and National Health was a member of the government of that province we passed minimum wage laws. We believe in proper and adequate wages in British Columbia. We cannot compete with child or slave labour as practised in the past in some parts of eastern Canada in producing farm produce. The same thing applies to labour and industry.
,!
In my opinion there should be a floor under agricultural prices and a standard minimum wage across Canada. Why should a particular province in Canada be allowed to pay one ' dollar a day and board to a logger? We pay reasonable and decent wages. These matters must be taken into consideration. As far as I am concerned naturally I intend to vote for family allowances, but to the best of my ability I am going to see that a proper floor is placed under farm prices. I am not a union man because I cannot qualify. However, I have every sympathy for them and I am going to see to the best of my ability that the wage standard is not set on a basis of family allowances. As I understand it, family allowances are intended to benefit the children and are not to set the standard of wages or farm prices.
My good friend the hon, member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) is to follow me and I do not want to take up any more time because I understand he desires to speak at some length. To support my argument in favour of a floor price under agriculture I should like to quote an extract from the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization of Thursday, June 10, 1943. This should be very interesting to every member in the house and not only members representing agricultural districts. The quotation I shall give is from the evidence of Doctor Barton, deputy minister of agriculture, and is found on page 116:
Of course, the only justification of any bonus is because of war-time requirements, hinder ordinary conditions those areas would take their choice of either staying in the canning business or get out of it on the basis of the cost of production, depending on how the market is available to their various products.
In other words, certain provinces in Canada where there are very large families could go on competing at a very small wage with the rest of Canada where an adequate wage is paid.
I may not get another opportunity to speak in this debate; but I should like to say that I am not always in accord with the leader of the Conservative party, yet I agree with what he said yesterday in regard to the standing army, speaking for my riding at least. We should like to know just why this immense standing army is kept in Canada and is not made available for service elsewhere. I think we are entitled to know that. We have many of them in my riding and in my district from eastern Canada. They are stationed there. Frankly we enjoy having the camp there and I must admit they are well behaved soldiers; but I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of my riding can see no earthly reason for these

The Address-Mr. Gillis
men being there when there is a tremendous shortage of labour in the mines and elsewhere. They can see. no earthly reason why that immense standing army should be kept on apparently after two years service when apparently they have no intention of serving beyond Canada. We are not afraid of the Japs attacking us in British Columbia at the present time. If we have not got them licked by now we shall not be able to help ourselves.
We have heard some discussion on the re-, fugee problem. We have a few refugees. We should like to get rid of them. Probably it would be a good idea to make Toronto the centre for refugees and to send them therefrom all over Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I urge that the government give serious consideration to reconsidering the so-called labour code. After having listened to labour men representing between twenty and twenty-one thousand in the city of Vancouver I came to the conclusion that in most instances they were quite reasonable in their demands. I very much fear that this government will have serious trouble in Canada if the order in council as it stands at present is enforced. We cannot afford to have any trouble in Canada at the present time.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) for his cooperation in hurrying through his speech in order to give me an opportunity to say something before the dinner recess. I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne; I think they made very excellent contributions to the debate and laid the basis for a thorough discussion of all the matters referred to in that speech. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) emphasized the necessity of getting through the business of the house as quickly as possible. I quite agree; and in my remarks this afternoon I shall be as explicit as possible in dealing with the points contained in the speech from the throne which I intend to discuss. I have no intention of dealing with all its ramifications, but before I get through I believe the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) and I may be talking to each other. That may give the minister some indication of what I intend to talk about.
In attempting, however, to hurry through the business of the house, we must not be unmindful of the fact that the speech from the throne is a very important part of that business, in that it forecasts the legislation that will be brought down. As I understand
it. any measure having to do with the affairs of Canada will be based upon the principles contained in the speech from the throne; and while we may hurry along with minor matters, I believe the measures outlined in the speech from the throne require thorough analysis by this house. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has made a broad analysis of that speech and has touched briefly upon practically everything it contains, setting out the views of the members of this group pretty thoroughly.
At this point I should like to say that I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck), and in my opinion the discussion he carried on was timely; as a matter of fact it is long overdue. Last session the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and I put on record our opinions concerning the matters discussed this afternoon by the hon. member for Trinity, and I am heartily in accord with everything that was said by the hon. member. Without wasting time in elaborating the matter further I merely wish to place myself on record as endorsing the stand he took this afternoon in regard to the Jewish question and the part Canada should play in endeavouring to rescue what is left of these people from Hitler and those associated with him in the occupied countries.
This afternoon the hon. member for Fraser Valley and the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) commented briefly upon the new wage order. I am not going to discuss that order at this time, but I endorse what they said in regard to the restrictions and totalitarian set-up of that legislation. Later on, when it is his turn to speak, at least one member of our group will make a thorough analysis of that order. It is a document the implications of which cannot be thoroughly discussed in the course of a fifteen or twenty minute address; but, as the hon. members pointed out, it has laid the basis for a continuing disruption of labour relations in this country which in my view may have serious repercussions in the future. As I have said, I am not going to go into the matter at this time; I merely want to place myself on record as supporting what these hon. members have said and to advise the house that hon. members of this group will continue that discussion when the opportunity arises.
In his remarks the Prime Minister made the statement that the main emphasis must continue to be on the winning of the war, and I heartily agree. While it is good policy for us to lay our plans for the future, we must not forget that the war is hot yet won



S2 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Gillis
and that there is terrific fighting ahead, with terrific sacrifices to be made by the people of this country. During the past six months I have been disturbed to find prominent men warning the people of North America, both in the press and over the air, that the war might come to a sudden end. Such propaganda is, in my opinion, designed for only one purpose, namely, to prepare the people for a negotiated peace. That is not in accordance with the policy enunciated by the united -nations, when they declared that only the unconditional surrender of the totalitarian powers will be accepted. Those who carry on the sort of propaganda that I have mentioned are doing a great disservice to the war effort of all the united nations. We must emphasize the fact that we still have to win the war. Let the people of the North American continent make no mistake about it; that is still their major task, because the termination of this war upon any terms other than the unconditional surrender of Germany and its allied powers will mean that we have lost this war and laid the basis for the next one. Nothing else can happen. In the countries of Europe that we are endeavouring to liberate there is no one but Hitler with whom to negotiate a peace, and any negotiations with him mean further appeasement and the acceptance of at least some of the ideas that he intended to foist upon the world. Therefore, in this respect I think the Prime Minister was absolutely correct when he emphasized the fact that certain opinions being expressed tend to take the minds of the people away from the real, main issue, which is the prosecution of the war to the fullest possible extent until we bring about the complete capitulation of Germany and her allies.
In my remarks this afternoon I intend to deal specifically with a most important matter which is closely related to our whole war effort and to the question of what will be the position of Canada when this war is over. In my view the two questions to which we should give the greatest consideration at this time, in an endeavour to see that the least possible disturbance is caused and the greatest possible good is done to those now in our armed services, are the matters of demobilization and reconstruction or rehabilitation. These two questions will require considerable machinery if we are to do a job on them and carry out our duty as we shall be expected to do by those now in the armed services. We must not lose sight of the fact that we in this house are privileged to talk about reconstruction and what will be the future of society on this continent, because the boys and girls in the armed forces, par-Gillis.]
ticularly those serving in theatres of war, recognized that the totalitarian military machine must be kept as far as possible from our shores and made their contribution by getting into uniform and crossing the ocean. They are there to-day. They have been successful in their mission, and have stopped the onward march of Hitler and those with whom he is associated. They are on the offensive to-day, and while the struggle may yet be severe, nevertheless they have guaranteed to us on this continent the privilege to do something about the future structure of society in Canada.
Next to the importance of winning the war, I think emphasis must be placed on the care of those who have made it possible for us to say that in the future we intend to reconstruct this country along democratic lines, and those of a Christian civilization. To them we owe the first obligation in the matter of rehabilitating Canada.
That is our first and main task. There is one paragraph in the speech from the throne which sets out the fact that a broad and comprehensive programme writh respect to the reestablishment of service personnel returning to Canada has been developed, and that it applies not only to the armed services, but to the merchant navy. This would lead one to conclude that the government is now completely satisfied with the machinery now functioning, and that it believes such machinery is adequate to take care of this matter. I was disappointed, and I believe the government was presumptuous when it included the merchant navy in the present scheme of rehabilitation. I say that because, with the exception of extending the privilege by order in council of coming under pensions regulations for disability they are not included in the present set-up of reconstruction and rehabilitation, and must be considered as a separate unit.
We are led to believe that they are included ini the scheme. However, before the house rises I say it should extend to that particular branch of the service every benefit which is now enjoyed by the personnel returning from the fighting services. In my opinion the programme is totally inadequate, and it is not working. I do not say this by way of criticism, or for the purpose of hearing myself talk or of advancing any particular political philosophy. I believe the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), under whose department this scheme has been functioning, has been working as hard and as conscientiously as any other minister or any other member of the house. I have always found him cooperative, and quite prepared to do anything he could to adjust grievances arising from the
[Stage Direction]

The Address-Mr. Gillis
regulations administered by him. I am frank, to say that about the minister. But the machinery, as it exists now, leaves much to be desired. It is my view that the machinery in the Department of Pensions and National Health is inadequate, that the department is understaffed, and cannot handle a large-scale demobilization. The personnel of the branch will have to be increased to some considerable extent.
1 am not satisfied, either, with the methods employed by army boards who board men out of the services and place them under the jurisdiction of the Department of Pensions and National Health. I refer to those men now returning from overseas with disabilities. I was pleased to hear the minister table this afternoon an order in council which provides that when a man is discharged from the care of the Department of National Defence to that of the Department of Pensions and National Health he will be maintained on full pay and allowances until such time as assessed for disability pension and he is boarded out of the army completely. That is a step in the right direction. It represents the correction of a very sore spot, and one concerning which I had intended to speak. However, since the minister has notified the house that the grievance has been corrected, there is no necessity for any further elaboration.
I should like, however, to call to the attention of the Minister of Pensions and National Health some thoughts in connection with the administration of the Pension Act. I would remind him that in 1940 the pension committee of that year broadened the provisions of the act so that it might embrace the new forces. There was one section which had been carried for twenty-five years and which militated greatly against men who came back from the last war. I refer to the section which dealt with the men who were suffering from nervous disabilities and diseases. On seventy-five per cent of occasions, when men would appear before pension boards with disabilities of that description, the stock decision of such boards was: disability is of congenital origin, and no pension is indicated.
Hundreds of men were thrown to one side on that basis. The minister will recall that the 1940 committee removed that section from the act. I now draw to his attention the fact that while' the provision has been removed, those who are to-day administering the regulations are administering them on the old basis. He will find that a large number of men who are returning from this war-and let us remember that this is a shock-war to an even greater extent than was the last one-are suffering from nervous disabilities. When they
apply for boarding they find, in practically every instance, as shown by the decisions I have seen, that decisions are made along the same lines, namely that their disabilities are of congenital origin. The wording, of course, is a little different. At the present time the soldier is discharged and examined for pension, and if he has a disability of that description it is classified as pre-enlistment.
These men joined the services in A1 condition. They saw service in England, and have endured bombing. As a result their nerves have suffered. How can any board examining a man w7ho when he enlisted, was classed Al, and who after eighteen months in the service appears before it with a nervous condition, make the decision that the man who at the time of application is in class E, is suffering from a disability of pre-enlistment origin? The point is that this is an accusation against those who examined such men upon entering the services, and an indication that they were totally incompetent for the job they were performing. We must accept either that assumption, or the one that the boards are still administering the old section which we thought we had removed from the act. I mention these facts so that the minister may make a check with those who are boarding service personnel returning from overseas.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is my hon. friend referring to the medical examiners of the pension board?


Clarence Gillis: Those who board the service personnel for pension purposes.
There is another sore spot to which I would call the attention of the minister, namely that connected with those men who are being discharged for. compassionate reasons. It may be that as a result of some extenuating circumstances at home a man may be discharged from the services. Such man, however, is not given the benefit of any of the present regulations. In fact one instance, affecting a member of the navy, was drawn to my attention. This man was discharged in Halifax and, although his home was in Vancouver, because he was discharged on compassionate grounds he was not given even his transportation expenses to his home. He had to solicit the necessary funds for that purpose. And, vice versa, I have heard of men discharged at Vancouver who have had to travel to the other side of the country.
I believe that is a wrong procedure. Such men are suffering aggravation greater than those who are coming back to normal homes. Who is more in need of Assistance than the man who comes back to a normal home?

The Address-Mr. Gillis

He volunteered; he endeavoured to do his duty, but circumstances over which he had no control compelled him to leave the service and he is now treated as though he had never been in the service. I think the minister should endeavour to check up on that particular case.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be glad to do so. I will look into all the points my hon. friend has mentioned.


Clarence Gillis: I bring these to the minister's attention because I know he is interested in these matters. He is the one minister who has his finger on rehabilitation matters and these things come within the jurisdiction of his department. I am quite satisfied to leave this particular grievance with him.
Another grievance is in connection with the decisions that are given when men receive injuries or disabilities while serving in Canada. A man may be discharged as medically unfit; but in every case I have seen, even though the disability is admitted the decision is that the disability was incurred on service but was not attributable to military service. The two statements cannot be reconciled. I know of one case that is perhaps a little outstanding. This boy was ordered on a clothing parade and half a dozen of them got into a jeep. While they were riding along the jeep crashed into a pole. This young lad who was not driving received a fractured skull and lost the sight of one eye. He was hospitalized and discharged, but the decision was that his disability was not attributable to military service. Since that time this man has had a stroke and his case is up for another hearing. 1 do not think there should be any differentiation between the man who receives a wound overseas and the one who is injured in Canada while actually on parade. There are quite a few cases of this description.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was that case before me?


Clarence Gillis: The minister was written to about that.
There is another matter in the field of rehabilitation that requires overhauling. The throne speech would lead us to believe that the machinery for the placement of men discharged from the service was adequate and satisfactory. The minister will remember, as will other hon. members who were on the pension committee back in 1940, that welfare officers were to be appointed. As I understood it, these welfare officers were to look after the employment problem facing the men returning from service; they were to
[Mr. Gillis. J
work in conjunction with the officials in the unemployment insurance offices. This machinery has been partly established. J; There is one placement officer in Nova Scotia; I believe there is one in New Brunswick, and perhaps there are two in Ontario. I notice the minister is smiling. Last session he intimated he was making an appointment to the Sydney office, but that has not been made as yet. I have no doubt it will be made soon.
The number of these welfare officers should be increased. If they are to do a proper job there should be one welfare officer in every unemployment insurance office. This is necessary in order that the preference which has been delegated to those who return from overseas or from the service in Canada is carried out. If we are not to have proper machinery there is no use in doing anything about it. The machinery we have to-day is totally inadequate.
The work of these placement officers was to be supplemented by the appointment of citizen committees in every section. These committees w-ere to supplement the work of the placement officers in probing fields of employment for those men who are coming back. Little was done about .this until November of last year when a committee was convened to consist of the mayors of some of the towns and cities across Canada.
' These volunteer committees are to return to their respective communities and endeavour to take care of the employment needs of the men who return from the services. That machinery is not going to work. These committees are not responsible to anyone. They have no machinery with which to work; they have no offices and they have no authority to do anything for anyone. I think it is a complete waste of time to expect volunteer citizen committees throughout the country to take care of this question of demobilization and rehabilitation. This machinery might have worked a year ago when there were just a few dribbling back, but I visualize the time when there will be total demobilization of alt the service personnel. I think the time has arrived when we should have the proper machinery and the proper administrative authority which would be responsible to some department of government.
I think the suggestion in the speech from the throne that three new departments are to be set up is a good one, and these questions of reestablishment and rehabilitation should be centred in one of these departments. In my opinion this idea of citizen committees should be forgotten and immediate steps taken to increase the number of welfare officers in order

The Address-Mr. Gillis
to have one in ever}- unemployment insurance office. It would be their duty to find available employment and to see that preference is given to the ex-service men. They should provide advice and guidance in the whole field of rehabilitation. They would have the proper places in which to work and would be responsible to some one. There must be sufficient personnel to handle this problem. Under the present set-up the ex-service man is coming back and is being routed through the regular employment offices. This will continue if the present economic set-up as visualized by the people in power to-day is carried into effect. In addition to the men coming back from the services there will be a million war workers. The present machinery is totally inadequate and does not differentiate between those who have a preference and those to whom no preference has been given.
There is another point in connection with the rehabilitation of veterans to which I should like to refer. Some provision has been made for vocational training and guidance for those coming out of the service who have sufficient elementary education to fit themselves into the present scheme, but there are hundreds or perhaps thousands of boys coming back who have not the degree of education to enable them to take advantage of the present vocational training schemes. I have run into quite a number of them. These men are discharged as medically unfit and they apply to the selective services offices for a job. They write to Halifax to Colonel MacKenzie for a rehabilitation grant or vocational training, but word comes back that nothing can be done about vocational training. Many of these boys have never had jobs and that is the situation they find themselves in to-day. I think there is adequate machinery in the country and it should be used, and used immediately, to do something for this category of ex-service men. I refer to the schools that are now operating. One is in North Bay, and there are three others where illiterate personnel in the service are given an elementary education. The schools are working efficiently and have a very good system. I had the privilege of going through the school at North Bay, and I highly commend it. I think that branch of our educational work should be not only continued but expanded, in order to give this class of boy an opportunity to reestablish himself as a useful member of society. Without such an opportunity he is in the middle of the street; there is no prospect for him. nothing for him to do, and certainly the developing situation with respect to employment leaves much to be desired so far as he is concerned. I leave those thoughts with the minister.
It is not possible for me to tell the whole story, Mr. Speaker, in forty minutes. I have been trying to provoke the minister's thought. I have a lot more to say but my time is limited.
I should like to say a word or two with respect to the machinery of demobilization. That matter will have to be considered. We owe it to the boys who are overseas at the present time and who have been there, some of them, for a long period, to consider what is going to happen on demobilization. There is no doubt that we shall have an army of occupation when the war is over. If that is the case, I think service in such an army should be on a voluntary basis and that reinforcements for that army should be on a voluntary basis. Furthermore, we may have to maintain a large standing army, navy and air force to meet our international obligations in the field, of world peace. I think the first choice to serve in such an army, navy and air force, to man and operate it, should go to those who are now serving in an actual theatre of war. Those who are serving at home, while they are making a valuable contribution, have not suffered as have those who have been in actual combat with the enemy. Those who are in service at home are in a position to keep their finger on everything worth-while in the country, and if anything develops which means a future for them they have the opportunity to get there first. But those who are serving overseas have not that opportunity, and so I would like those who have served overseas in an actual theatre of war to be given the first choice to serve in such a force. The Canadian government should insist that our army of occupation retain its Canadian identity and be manned by Canadians, with Canadian officers to look after those of our boys who may desire to serve in that army.
As regards the matter of discharge, undoubtedly considerable machinery will be necessary. We should not do what was done in the last war. Then, when we came back from Europe, we were split up into different camps. Personally I was with a Vancouver unit when the wind-up came. We were taken back to England and shipped to demobilization camps in north Wales. It was not a very nice place to be. But they closed our pay books there, and we were fed very poorly.
I think it should be the policy of the Canadian government as soon as hostilities cease to bring our boys back from Europe as soon as possible; that is, those who want to come back, and the procedure of demobilization should be gone through in Canada. I think the camps we now have all across the

The Address-Mr. Gillis
country are adequate for that purpose. Once the men are back in Canada they should be sent to their respective military districts for demobilization.
But before demobilization or discharge there is one thing we should do. Every man in the service on coming back to Canada should be given a month's furlough to allow him to go home and look over employment conditions in his own part of the country. That would enable him to make up his mind where he would like to go. After the last war the men were permitted to take their discharge in any part of Canada or the United States. But we should remember that the employment situation is going to be complicated after this war and we should see to it that every man who comes back has the training necessary to fit him into the employment picture so that he may be able to make his best contribution. In that connection vocational training is very important, and I leave the thought with the minister that we have machinery now functioning in Canada which could be used effectively just by reversing the present process. I mean that we have army personnel or induction boards which consider the aptitudes of a man who is entering the service and route him into the branch where he can make his best contribution. The personnel in charge of this work has been trained for four years and has cost a considerable sum of money. It is doing good service, I am informed, and if it can route men who are entering the service into the branch where they can render the best contribution, then it seems reasonable that, on demobilization, it could route the men who are leaving the service into gainful occupation or into opportunities where their services can best be used. That would merely be a reversing of the present machinery.
The schools now operating, army, navy and air force, should also be fully utilized, as well as the schools set up by industry. All these schools should be expanded, if necessary. The Canadian Legion's war services educational personnel which has been largely absorbed by the defence organizations, should also be fully utilized, because they have a highly trained personnel whose services should be taken advantage of. We should not be political about the thing at all but see that that machinery is used to the best advantage in the period of demobilization and rehabilitation.
It is almost six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and my time is about up. I have much more to say. but I shall reserve it for another occasion.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, having followed rather closely' the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) yesterday, when he was discussing the speech from the throne. I was surprised at his avoidance of discussion on the topics contained therein. I was also surprised that he, did not attempt to answer the important questions put to him by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) with reference to army organization. the resignation of General Mc-Naughton, and many other weighty matters. However, he did say that his ministers would answer those questions, and in view ol that statement I would have thought that, probably this debate might be greatly curtailed and the progress of the house facilitated had those ministers concerned been prepared to make such statements and to answer the questions that, were asked, instead of having the debate adjourned, as it was last evening, by a private supporter of the government.
VV Pile I fully realize that our first concern must be, as pointed out in the speech from the throne, the winning of the war, my remarks this evening will have to do chiefly with the matter of agriculture, since the speech from the throne suggests that a floor price should be set up for that industry. That is a principle which we have fostered for some time and I sincerely trust that the floor price will not be too close to the cellar. Many factors must be taken into consideration before that floor price is established.
A year ago, discussing the speech from the throne, I asked for the appointment of a food minister. I am more convinced than ever to-day that had such a minister been appointed, a great deal of the waste that has taken place in connection with foodstuffs during the past year would have been avoided. During the debates of 1940, 1941 and 1942, I pleaded with the government to guarantee the wheat producers of the country, as a basis of parity, a quota basis, at least $1.25 a bushel. This the government did on September 28, 1943-and remember the new year's crop commences on August 1.
This announcement was made on September 28, well into the marketing season. Many people v/ere compelled by force of circumstances to deliver a large portion of their crop in order to pay' expenses. This they had done, having delivered on open market owing to the price existing at that time. At the same time that the price was announced on that day, it was announced that the government would pay a bonus of fifteen cents a
FEBRUARY 1, 194-1	S7
The Address-Mr. Ross (Souris)
bushel on barley and ten cents a bushel on oats, and this was paid to the producers of oats and barley who had delivered this product in that crop year, on open market, on exactly the same basis as the wheat producers had delivered wheat. And remember that those who had delivered wheat were in most instances people who by force of circumstances were compelled to make delivery ini order to pay expenses. Those who had the resources to carry on stored their product in most cases on the farm, so that they could take advantage of the SI .25. That was most unfair to those who were least able to bear the loss.
I maintain that the wheat producers should be entitled to settlement on exactly the same basis as the producers of badey and oats who were paid that bonus, because they were the people who really needed it. They needed it more than those who had the means of storing the product on their farms so that they could take advantage of the $125.
I have never been able to understand the reasoning of the government in settling for wheat on the basis which they adopted. Some got a fraction of a cent. It depended upon the spread on the day they delivered their wheat. I do not understand it and it is most unfair. I say therefore that the wheat producer is entitled to settlement on exactly the same basis as the producers of oats and barley.
The cost of agricultural production , in Canada has greatly increased since the outbreak of the war. There is to-day a great disparity as between United States and Canadian prices in both grain and live stock, and these constitute an important factor in food production for the united nations. May I quote some of these prices. They are the figures at January 27:
Chicago wheat . "	barley .
"	oats ...
"	rye ...
Winnipeg wheat barley " oats . rye ..
Per bushel * $1 71|
.	1	22J
.	781
.	1	30|.	1	25.	64f*.	51|+
. 1 28
* Plus 15 cents bonus, t Plus 10 cents bonus.
And rye is not controlled in Canada but sold on the open market as in the United States. It will be noticed how closely these prices approximate each other on the Chicago and the Winnipeg open market. Wheat, oats and barley are controlled by 'the government of Canada. The government, after three or four years, have failed to set a reasonable price
for the producers of wheat, but on September 28 they did set a price of $1.25 a bushel in order to prevent a further rise in the price of wheat in comparison with the rising price in Chicago.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the floor. It is not a price.


James Arthur Ross: It is the floor paid the farmer at this time and he receives the participation certificate.


James Garfield Gardiner: Wheat is selling higher than that.


James Arthur Ross: The object has been to prevent a further rise in prices, but we do not know what is in store in the future. We hope that we shall receive the Chicago price. So much for grain.
Now take live stock. On the same date these were the figures:
Per
hundred
pounds
Chicago slaughter steers	
$17	00" . hogs choice, 200	to 330 lbs. 13	75*" sheep	
15	85" lambs	
16	00Winnipeg slaughter steers	
12	25"	hogs, 140	to 170 lbs	16	30f"	sheep	
4	00"	lambs	
11	00
* Live weight.
f Dressed weight.
The Canadian hog dressed is approximately 75 per cent and is now to be bonused $3 per head for the choice hog. However, the penalty of $3 for a hog dressing out over 185 pounds is extremely txnfair, and this should be on a graduating scale of fifty cents for each five pounds in excess of this weight. I have maintained that the penalty is a distinct racket for the packers.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is off now.


James Arthur Ross: I am glad to hear that. It is a step in the right direction, and I am pleased to know that the minister contemplates an agreement over a period of years with Great Britain for bacon. That is moving in the right direction. It was on for some years and should have been off long ago.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was on by agreement between the producers and the packers. The government have nothing to do with that.
Mr. ROSS' (Souris): I think t.he packers certainly dictated the rule; there is no doubt about it. Since 1938 hog prices in Canada have increased fifty-seven per cent, oat prices have increased 241 per cent, barley prices have increased 245 per cent, and farm labour
ss

The Address-Mr. Ross (Souris)
wages have doubled. Little wonder that last fall, when the government announced a bonus on oats and barley, and said that hog production should be decreased in Canada-I think the Minister of Agriculture had something to say about this, because there was a shortage of help on the farms; every session he has maintained that we had plenty of help on the farms in western Canada-there was a scramble by the farmers all across the prairies to market brood sows after this announcement.
The farmer who grows his own barley and oats and feeds his hogs on his own farm is not entitled to the barley or oat bonus. That is another discrimination. By this policy the government have added to the man-power and transportation difficulties of Canada, which are already numerous. Last October 20, the Winnipeg stockyards and abattoirs were completely swamped with hogs, some 17,000, and at two packing plants alone some 5,000 sows, many of them heavy in pigs, and in some cases they had farrowed in transit. The same situation occurred on several occasions and at several points in western Canada last fall. This is something that should never have been allowed to happen in this country at a time such as this.
During the war years there has been a tremendous increase in hog production on the prairies where the same producers grow the feed and finish the hogs on the same farms. In 1943, Alberta had not only the highest swine population in the history of the province, some 2,337,700 hogs, but the highest ever recorded by any province in the Dominion of Canada. This was quite a record and I think it is something which we had been advised to do over a period of years. We were told that the grain should be marketed through the live stock. These farmers are to be congratulated upon the advance they had made in this respect. Then in the midst of that we had this announcement from the government which completely demoralized all their plans. It was certainly unhealthy and something which I think should have been prevented had we a properly organized food ministry in this country. While they have accomplished that fine record in Alberta the province stood very high in the dominion in the percentage of man-power and woman-power contributed to the armed forces of Canada. It was one of the leading provinces and I think it speaks highly for Alberta and for the other prairie provinces.
Following the government's announcement on Canada's decreased hog production for 1944, the Right Hon. Colonel J. J. Llewellin, Minister of Food for Great Britain, arrived on the scene and somewhat straightened out

our muddle, stating that Britain required every pound of Canadian bacon that could be sent across the Atlantic. As I say, the Minister of Food for Great Britain landed here and made that statement, and I am happy to think that our government and our department have since then tried to rectify this muddle, many months too late, after the harm had been done. It is only a guess, but I will venture to say that the people of the prairie provinces had decreased their hog production by twenty-five per cent; it is only a guess, but that is all anyone can say at the present time.
May I refer to the poultry and egg production. The production of poultry and eggs has shown a very great increase in Canada. We are asked for a further production of ten per cent in 1944. At present prices of eggs and poultry feed there will be a decrease rather than an increase in a year's time. On, account of very abnormal weather early this winter there was a very large egg production in this country, when the authorities set the present' prices of eggs, and as a result many poultry producers have already changed their plans for 1944 production, because the return, for eggs is out of line with the cost of feeds and labour. While we have an immense egg production today there will be a decrease rather than an increase a year hence as a result of these prices.
Butter fat with bonus is approximately forty-four cents a pound in Canada. Butter fat with subsidy is approximately 54-9 cents a pound in the. United States. Much has been said in past debates in this house about the Canadian farmer's share of the national income. For the period 1926 to 1940, 74 -2 per cent of the national income went to the workers and to the farmers of Canada. Labour constituted five-twelfths of the population and received 62-4 per cent of the national income; the farmers constituted four-twelfths of the population and received 11-8 per cent of the national income. That is what they received for their work and their capital investment, which is considerable. There is some disparity there. The average monthly farm wage for the three prairie provinces has increased during the war from $30.13 to $61.17, and the harvest daily wage from $2.86 to $5.56. To be on a par with organized labour it should be further increased, as I pointed out to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) in the debates on April 2, 1943, which may be found on pages 1808-9, and on May 20, 1943 at pages 2928-9. I believe that farm labour should be guaranteed the same basis of remuneration, as organized labour in this country, but there is a great disparity.

The Address-Mr. Ross (Souris)
However, to do what I suggest there must be a great deal more national planning for agriculture in Canada than there has been hitherto. The farmer must receive a greater return in money for his products in order to pay the wages to which- I have referred. Many of the men on these farms operate mechanized machines, and they are just as important as organized labour in this country and should be entitled to the same remuneration. However, as I have said, much greater planning on a national basis in this country is required.
There has not been anything like equity of sacrifice or contribution throughout Canada during these four and a half years of war. Neither is there equity of return to the agricultural producers of food as between the various united nations. In the west we have a man who operates a farm just across the line between the United States of America and Canada. It takes ten steers to buy an automobile in the United States of America. It takes twenty of the same type of steers to purchase the same car in Canada. He thinks he is going to -have a difficult time to make good Canadians out of bis sons who have assisted him to operate that farm-. I think we should be attempting to do something about this discriminatory situation.
The Prime Minister said in his remarks yesterday that the end of the war may yet be a long way off. After the war we must feed the overrun countries, and this will require careful national and international planning. We should have a food ministry for that purpose.
May I for a moment refer to the inequitable distribution of man-power for the armed services of this country and put on the record the1 percentages for the military districts up to September 30, 1943, because it is remarkable that the provinces with the greatest contribution to the armed forces are the provinces that are making the greatest contribution to the food production of this war:
Military District	Percentage
1.	London, Ontario	
37-32.	Toronto	
42-73.	Kingston	
38-74.	Montreal	
23-55.	Quebec	
17-76.	Halifax	
41-87.	Saint John, N.B	
41-310.	Winnipeg	
39-511.	Victoria	
42-412.	Regina	
35-713.	Calgary	
38-1
I think these figures are significant.
There are other matters that I should like to discuss at this time, the chief of which is the Canadian army organization. I have never been satisfied that Canada with its population could maintain an army on the basis
which we have attempted and put it into active combat as an army and properly reinforce it. I have had doubts for some years. I have questioned the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) with regard to it. I do not wish to discuss this matter further until we have a statement from, the minister. I say there has always been a doubt. The Prime Minister has suggested that he should answer this question and make a fuller statement on the resignation of General McNaughton, who is responsible for the very fine and efficient training of our armed services. However, as I say I prefer to await the statement by the Minister of National Defence on these all-important matters.
There is another point to which I should like to refer, that of the extension of the insurance principle to all members of the armed forces on active service. I have raised this question in this house in other debates, and have pointed out that following the declaration of war in 1939 this principle was applicable in this country, -but that for some reason it was deleted by order in council in May of the following year. It seems to me if there is any meaning to this new order we have had placed before us in very vague terms in the speech from the throne, this insurance principle shotdd be made applicable to all members of the armed forces who are on active service anywhere.
I was disappointed this afternoon when a committeee was set up to deal with the election act and the taking of the votes of the soldiers overseas. I do think the terms of the reference should have been made broader, and at a time like this our election act should have been overhauled. Personally I think we should have the transferable vote for single member constituencies. Hon. members may not realize that of the 245 members of this house seventy-four are here by virtue of having received a minority vote in their constituencies. In a democratic nation, which we think is progressive, it is certainly time to correct that situation. I am the more surprised that nothing has been done in this regard because of the fact that in the chart or guide mentioned by the Prime Minister, which he brought forth in 1919, something of this kind was advocated. Surely at this time we should overhaul the election act and make provision for the transferable vote in single member constituencies. In times like these it is not good enough to have so many hon. members sent here as a result of minority votes, and I still hope that something may be done along this line this session.

The Address-Mr. Ross (Souris)
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to sum up what I have been saying. I advocate the appointment of a food ministry, in order to see that everything possbile is done to produce the necessary foodstuffs for the united nations, both for the winning of the war and for the relief of the overrun countries following the victory. I advocate the reinstatement of the insurance principle for all members of the armed forces on active service anywhere. I advocate the adoption of the transferable vote in single member constituencies at this session. I advocate that 'here should be made available a much larger allotment of agricultural machinery, which is so badly needed for the production of foodstuffs in this country. Finally I advocate that farmers be allowed storage charges for the grain held on their farms within the quota on the same basis that the government allows storage charges to the elevator companies for the grain they hold


Mr. LIGUPRI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):: Mr. Speaker, we have in this house an official whose loyal sendees merit the attention of parliament; a doctor of law, a king's counsel, a member of the Royal Society of Canada, who has been Clerk of the House of Commons for almost twenty years. Doctor Beauchesne recently published the third edition of his "Parliamentary Rules and Forms," the work of a master, covering almost nine hundred pages. This wonderful work was prepared by the author primarily for the use of members of this house, and I wish to extend to him my deep gratitude and satisfaction, and to express the sincere hope that the French translation of this most useful work will be made available without delay. Both languages are official in Canada, and we are only claiming our right when we ask for. this translation.
The programme for the present session denotes the anxiety of the government in the face of the serious problems which exist in this country. Never since 1935 has the speech from the throne been of such an election character. Who does not recall the anxiety of the Bennett government, which was in power at that time? The Prime Minister of that time sought, by a supreme effort of social legislation, to remedy what was impossible to remedy. He had gained power by virtue of so many promises. The government which followed, was satisfied with denying its formal commitments while asserting candidly that it could not keep them any more. It even asked its voters to forget about its pledges and heaven knows under what circumstances and

through what means. This was done by obtaining the monopoly of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in spite of the most elementary justice. The head of a certain party is now complaining about the C.B.C. Why did he not do so when the plebiscite was held? The leaders of the four main political parties in Canada then tolerated the most shameful dictatorship, which gagged thousands of citizens. Through their action they were responsible for making the fight unjust and unequal in favour of the "yes" and against the "no."
As regards the social legislation introduced by the government, history repeats itself with this difference, that the former government made its calculations in peace time while this government adds, subtracts and divides in war time.
The government says that the first of its ends is to win the war. The second is to face post-war conditions. In order to attain this end, it must do better than move a whole complexity of social legislation. In order to win the peace, it must remedy the social upheavals which it has caused. Four hundred thousand men have abandoned their farms. More than 100,000 women also have abandoned the land in spite of the numerous warnings given by our best economists. The government is doing even worse. It insists upon calling back for a revision of their medical examinations the young farmers, who must fill out the new forms in order to obtain a new postponement. This is a loss of time, and a source of annoyance and bother for the agricultural class which, more than ever, needs all its help and all its time.
The sessional programme refers to a price ceiling on agricultural products. Why not set a price ceiling on foodstuffs which are sold by trusts at prohibitive prices. One can find the proof of this statement in the statistics published about five days ago by the federal department of agriculture. These are the figures:
Wholesale prices of milling by-products per carload and per ton: Barley flour from $38 to $40, and crushed oats from $42 to $44.25 on the Montreal and Quebec markets.
And when the crooked intermediary has drawn his benefits the farmer pays $2.75 to S3 for a hundred pounds of by-products.
Am I not right when I assert that we must set a ceiling on the foodstuffs rather than on the fanner? When the farmer is undergoing considerable sacrifices'in order to maintain his production he is being exploited by the trusts of dairies, of milling companies and of flour and foodstuffs dealers.

The Address-Mr. Lacombe
The mover of the address in reply paid tribute to the proposed expropriation of the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company by the Quebec government. If this scheme is like the so-called expropriation of Beauharnois, the ratepayers of the province will again be terribly deceived. Furthermore this expropriation will not help the farmer. I do not think it will help the labourer, because state trusts so far have not resulted in anything but deception and exploitation. I am against the expropriation of private enterprise by the state. It is a bad form of socialism, because the governments take advantage of the nationalization of private industries in order to gratify their friends, to the prejudice of the people. Proper laws, and the control of public authorities. will be more effective. The best example is the. expropriation of private radio stations by the government. The servile and unworthy Canadian Broadcasting Corporation handled the population of this country with unfairness and arrogance during the plebiscite campaign in 1942.
The liquor trust in Canada is, along with this society, the most detested trust which ever existed in this country. As a result of the guilty complicity of the government this state monopoly sells for excessive prices hard liquors hardly deserving that name. Before Christmas and the New Year one could see in the streets of large cities hundreds of persons of both sexes crowding around the stores of the liquor control boards, in order to obtain for very high prices a little bit of water with a few drops of alcohol added. This is the shameful condition brought about by a hypocritical system of rationing. Many people state that this is the worst swindle of all time. The small and the poor are exploited to the utmost, while the clubs and friends of the regime apparently can sell very dearly old wines and hard liquors which they can accumulate, and still accumulate through a violation of restrictions and rationing established by the federal government. It was not worth while imposing rationing when one knows that families which did not purchase ten cents worth of alcohol a year have obtained their ration books, and now buy all the quantity authorized by the regulations. Can this be called healthy social legislation?
Is it a sane social measure to allow female labour in war-time industry, while infant sons and daughters are dying in nurseries? The family is the very foundation of society, as is stated in the speech from the throne. What has the government done so far to protect families in this country? During more than ten years the last two governments have tolerated in Canada a state of affairs which is very depressing for a father and his sons.
More than a billion dollars was spent in direct relief. No money could be found for public works, no salaries for labourers, no work for our sons and daughters. The treasury was empty, for constructive works. But on account of the participation of Canada in this war the government suddenly discovered $10,000,000000, and more, for destructive work. The unemployment problem was partly solved by the mobilization of our youth in the armed forces. As regards the fathers, compelled by sickness to abandon their jobs in war factories, do hon. members know what fate is theirs? Here is a typical instance: During twenty-seven months a man is employed in a munitions factory. He pays his unemployment dues. He is threatened by tuberculosis. When he becomes sick, he is dismissed. He asks for his unemployment allowance. He is turned down because, owing to his health, this man cannot be recommended for another employment by the selective service. If he were refunded the amount of the dues which he paid, he could support his wife and his three children. But, alas, this man who is a victim of the conditions of labour, where he breathed during eight hours every day the poisonous atmosphere of a munitions factory, will have to beg for his firing, or live on public charity. He will be lucky if he is not dead, before a measure of health insurance is adopted. Can hon. members see the injustice this man is suffering because the unemployment insurance which took part of his salary away from him keeps it for healthy labourers who are unemployed? Why is it that in spite of the so-called excellent law more than 100.000 people in Canada were unemployed last December? That is an unbearable situation in a country where approximately ten per cent of the population are in the aimed services. The figures given in the January, 1944, issue of Canada at War confirm these striking facts.
(Translation):	Think of it Mr. Speaker,
the advocates of immigration even have the impudence to urge the government to permit refugees or immigrants to enter this country. Not a single immigrant, not a single refugee, from whatever country he may come and of whatever descent he may be, should cross our boundaries. Why, at a time when one must request the government's permission before he can work, and when, in spite of that, unemployment is rife in this country; when the government do not permit any one to transfer from one job to another without their authorization; when the government allow the family to be broken up as a result of the employment of mothers in factories; when the government ration essential goods; when they even ration
The Address-Mr. Lacombe

farm implements and the maple products; when they begrudge the sugar with which young Canadians sweeten their cereals, and they set up Tuesday as a meatless day, taking no account of the fact that in the province of Quebec and wherever there are Roman Catholics in Canada, Friday is a day of abstinence; when the government have already ordained that one shall wear only one pair of cuffless trousers because that is a practice which is followed elsewhere and must be imitated, since we have ever had and will always have in our midst satisfied colonials; when an army of more than a million men and women will have to be demobilized within two years, perhaps one year, and, who knows, even within a few months; when all those men and women say to the government: you could find money to arm us for war, well, equip us now for peace; when hundreds of thousands of men and women shall have to be demobilized from war industries to rejoin civilian industries that will be unable to absorb them,-a fact of which no intelligent man is unaware,-when the government shall, at last, to keep their solemn promises and their sacred pledges to reappoint in the civil service the employees they have mobilized; when the government shall have to reestablish on the land all the farmers they have kept and are still keeping in the army in spite of our countless protests: when the government shall have to restore the complete land settlement system they had built up at a considerable cost and which they have let go to pieces against the walls of the war plants in our cities; finally, when the government shall have to give back to every one his due, refund war loans, war savings certificates and fill up the abyss into which our yearly billion-dollar gifts have forever disappeared; in view of all that, I do say that there is not and will never be room for a single immigrant in Canada.
It would be criminal to -listen to the advocates of immigration, who are all in the pay of international finance and who frequently receive favours from communists and proponents of world revolution.
May I, at this stage of my remarks, place on record in the debates of the house two of the several resolutions which I have received from most of the thirty-three municipalities of my constituency of Laval Two-Mountains. They read as follows:
Resolution in "opposition" to the proposed immigration of European refugees to Canada in violation of the laws of the country.
Whereas according to the Montreal Gazette, page one, the Dominion Minister of Immigration, Mr. Crerar, made the following declaration on November 3, 1943:

"Canada offers a home to refugees. An immigration agent is being sent to Europe, and the dominion government will consider sympathetically the immigration to Canada of an indefinite number of refugees."
Whereas it is a well-known fact that the United Jewish Refugees & War Relief Agencies, with head office at 1121 St. Catherine St. West. Montreal, has circulated among the public a petition asking that Canada open her doors to all the refugees from the European continent, and that it is endeavouring, under the patronage of Senator Cairine R. Wilson, to obtain in Canada 500,000 signatures for this purpose.
Whereas in so far as such immigration will take place mostly in the province of Quebec, there is cause for alarm.
Whereas on January 7, 1944. the Canadian Press released a news item bearing the following heading:
"Canada has agreed to accept a limited number of immigrants.
Refugees who come to Canada from the Spanish peninsula, according to a decision reached recently, will be given refuge for the duration of the war."
Whereas the fact of thus allowing refugees to enter the country is not only a further encroachment upon the prerogatives of the people, but w'ill be the cause of social disturbances now and after the war.
Whereas this question has not been submitted to the House of Commons and members of parliament should have the opportunity of voicing their views on this matter before such a policy becomes effective. It is unanimously resolved by the council of the municipality of Ste. Monique. Two Mountains county,
1.	That the above-mentioned municipal council is opposed to the suggested immigration plan and to any immigration on a different plan than that which has prevailed in recent years.
2.	That in any case, no amendment to existing laws and regulations governing immigration should be made unless parliament has had an opportunity of discussing the matter at the next session.
3.	That this resolution be given publicity.
4.	That copy thereof be forwarded to the Prime Minister of Canada, to the Premier of Quebec, to the Quebec provincial leader of the opposition and to the dominion and provincial members of the constituency.
Dated January 22. 1944.
(signed) Chs. Henri Giroux.
Mayor, -
Chs. Ed. Leonard,
Secretary.
Municipality of Ste. Monique, county of Two Mountains.
The other resolution was addressed to me by the municipal council of St. Elzear de Laval. Moreover, it is drawn up in the same terms as the one which I read a short while ago.
Is that clear enough? Will the government understand where lay the interests most dear to our people, or will it give in to natiohal and international conspiracies hatched in secrecy and all of them detrimental to Canada? That remains to be seen.

The Address-Mr. Rose
Mr. Speaker, it would be quite useless to put into effect family allowances, social insurance, a health insurance scheme and all other measures mentioned in the speech from the throne, if the Government were to render all social legislation ineffective through an immigration which we do not want in the least. All our efforts in the field of social legislation would be wasted if economic upheaval should ai'ise simultaneously with these measures, excellent though they are in themselves.
In closing, I will say a few words about the international body contemplated by the government for the purpose of promoting peace when the war is over. I fear greatly that Canada will count for very little in this body, and once the struggle is over, we ought to attend to our own affairs. We can no longer afford to maintain a whole staff at a new League of Nations where Soviet Russia may be the ruling power because she will then hold sway over all of central Europe. When that time comes, we will be poor enough to stay at home and straighten things up in our own house. Do you think that our sacrifices in men and money will weigh veiy heavily in the balance at that particular time? Ask Lord Halifax if I am wrong in my forecast. For the last hundred years, there has flourished here a school of colonialism whose professors emeritus hail from London and from our own country as well. For those people, Canada's participation in the war is forgotten as soon as it has become an accomplished fact. The heroism of our soldiers is to them a laughing matter. Their mission is to ignore the sacrifices of a whole nation. When our sole rampart against military and financial imperialism is the Westminster Statute which is and has always been nothing but a hoax, we are indeed to be pitied. Is it not true that for the last century Canada has been steadily going back to the colonial status? Under the Union, the governing body was neither in London nor Washington. Under Cartier and Macdonald, the administration at Ottawa and no one else, was master of our destinies. We have become the incense-bearers of the empire to whom, on our knees, we pay a colonial tribute of a billion dollars a year. This gesture is devoid of all nobility and greatness.
Mr. Speaker, one more word and I am thrbugh: let us remain at home after the war, for we may fall to still greater depths, to an abyrss from which I wish to guard my country.


Mr. FRED ROSE (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. ' To me as a newcomer they
were symbolic of the growing national unity, a unity between English and French-speaking Canada. They were symbolic of Canada at war; for as soldiers they expressed the sentiments of the armed forces and their relation to the problems of the home front.
I am especially appreciative of the remarks made by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) regarding the participation in the war of men hailing from new Canadian stock. It is a better understanding between the national groups of Canada, between peoples of all races and religions who make up the population of our country, that will lead to a strong and democratic Canada.
Likewise, in our international relations it is the conviction of our party that the Teheran, Moscow and Cairo conferences have laid the basis of a great new epoch of human developments. I quote from the declaration of the Teheran conference:
We express our determination that our nations shall work together in the war and in the peace that will follow. As to the war, our military staffs have joined in our roundtable discussions and we have concerted our plans for the destruction of the German forces. And as to the peace, we are sure that our concord will make it an enduring peace. We recognize fully the supreme responsibility resting upon us and all the nations to make a peace which will command good-will from the overwhelming masses of the peoples of the world and banish the scourge and the terror of war for many generations. . . . We shall seek the cooperation andi active participation of all nations, large and small, whose peoples in heart aud mind are dedicated, as are our own people, to the elimination of tyranny and slavery, oppression and intolerance. We look with confidence to the day when all the peoples of the world may live free lives untouched by tyranny, according to their varying desires and their own consciences.
Here we have a great charter for victory and a better world, not only a charter based on the big powers, as some tend to interpret the Teheran conference declaration, but for all peoples large and small, a charter which shall become the rallying point on a national and international scale.
Before the Moscow, Teheran and Cairo conferences there were danger signs which led many to start speaking about "world war No. 3". There was loose talk about Anglo-Saxon powers running the world. Appeasement raised its head in the form of Darlans, Peyroutons, and similar hirelings in Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece and Austria. An attempt was made to force upon the peoples of Europe the type of leaders who had ruled on behalf of wealthy cliques and had sold their people down the river. The heroic people of China were given all sorts of sympathy and very little else. In fact, in certain of the united
The Address-Mr. Rose

nations circles it was considered indiscreet to attack the emperor of Japan. To-day, following the conferences, there is a vision of free peoples who are fighting to reestablish democratic rule and who, although hesitantly, are getting some help from the leading powers within the united nations. We see the world war becoming one of national liberation. A good example (5f this we see in Yugoslavia, where, instead of a country run by the Serbs, all of the nationalities on an equal basis and with equal opportunities are fighting heroically and winning world recognition. They have established a national assembly of their own.
This is the new age which we see coming into the world at the present time, although with difficulty. The Italian people are, through the Italian commission, gradually winning some possibility to join with the peoples of the united nations in fighting against the nazi murderers for the establishment of a democratic regime, purged of those elements that have dragged their country down to their present difficult condition. In the far east, a free China will be a powerful force for world peace and will go a long way in influencing and securing freedom for hundreds of millions of Hindus, Burmese and other peoples.
As for Canada, I want to emphasize that our own prosperity, freedom, peace and security depend upon a world living under similar circumstances. If one needed any proof of the truth of this, we saw it in the case of the present war. No amount of isolationism could have left us undisturbed.
We have contributed very substantially towards Hitler's plight at the present time. But, as stated in the speech from the throne, "the German army is still very strong." The hardest battles are still coming; and our job is to have an eye on the ball, the battles against the nazis and the Japanese, rather than to fight for parties and advantage. In the face of this test of strength before which we stand, the measure of national unity which we have had in the past should be continued for the duration of the war and for the immediate post-war period.
Unless we are able to preserve national unity, we shall, in our petty quibbling, let down our boys in the armed forces and bring them back after victory is ours into a state of unrest and chaos. I appeal to all parties to work in this spirit of comradeship. That is the spirit of our heroic men in the services, the men of the merchant marine who deliver the goods, the hundreds of thousands of war workers, men and women, who spare no effort to see that we have the goods to deliver. I appeal
(Mr Rose.]
to all parties to unite in combatting the forces that would rob us of democratic progress in a free world.
Voices are raised by certain individuals, one of whom the horn, member for Dorchester rightly characterized as "le tapa-geur". These are voices that I would call the voices of inhumanity. We have just had a veiy fine example of it in the previous speaker, the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe). These people, consciously or unconsciously, do the work of the enemy, who in the face of certain defeat, tries to resort to the old worn-out bogey of bolshevism to split the united nations. They take up every argument from the enemy's baggage. Irresponsibly they speak of the impossibility of international unity. They say it will not last; it cannot last; Russia will betray us. And certain scribes of the newspapers use their poison pens to slander the soviet people, whose glorious efforts mean so much to every one of us, to every one of our families. Indeed, many of us would not be here if it were not for their heroic efforts. In the nazi manner they concoct plots and talk about a hundred thousand Jewish refugees who are going to chase the French-Canadian farmers off their land. They discover plots of international Jewry, but Jewry is not the only one who plots. There is freemasonry, and when you say that "free" you want to emphasize it. They resort very openly to Hitler's weapon of antiSemitism. These elements, although small, are a threat to national and international unity. They are a threat to Canada and Canada's well-being.
Another group are unprincipled enough to resort to any trickery to defeat the desire of our people for a better Canada and a better world. They are the elements who have raised the bogey of socialism and confiscation of savings, and I would not be a bit surprised if in the very near future they said that the socialists were out to nationalize women.
Mr. Speaker, the issue to-day is not what these people call free enterprise versus socialism ; the issue is democratic progress versus chaos and insecurity. Our party, the Labour Progressive party, stands for socialism, but we are realistic enough to know and to understand that the vast majority of Canadians are to-day not yet ready for it. We consider that at this time the fight for social progress is a fight in which the people will learn, through their own experience, whether or not they want socialism. The essence of socialism is democracy, and it will not come until the majority of Canadians learn through their experience that socialism is the system they need.

The Address-Mr. Rose
It is in this spirit that I welcome the promises of far-reaching reforms contained in the speech from the throne. Without such reforms, and others which have been omitted, we cannot hope to have national unity. The promise of family allowances is good. 1 am not surprised to find people who have been talking about family allowances taking the attitude today, not exactly that they oppose such allowances, but that they are not so good. Well, I do not believe that the people in Quebec will fall for any such talk. They will accept family allowances no matter what party introduces the principle. They will be glad to have it. But family allowances must not replace measures for increased wages for labour. Family allow'ances must not become a bonus to employers, but must be a few extra dollars to people whereby they can buy more milk and more nutrition for their families.
I also believe that family allowances should not be limited to four, five or six children. I do not know how many it is to be, but if it is good for six children, what 'will the seventh, the eighth and the ninth do? And in our province there are large families. It is unjust to stop at five or six. The issue of family allowances should not be raised as against improving wages. When I speak of wages I think of those paid in our province which are still very low in comparison with those paid in other provinces. I have in mind the thousands of textile workers. For the past year they have been carrying on a just fight to get increased wages. Some of them earn wages as low as 22 cents an hour, and family allowances must not stand in the way of these people getting a just increase in wages. Something has to be done about these textile workers in our province. They have been patient-so much so that one member of the house said to me: "Je pense qu'il y a quelque chose qui ne marche pas dans cette union"; "there is something wrong with the union." There is nothing wrong with the union, if they do not want to bring workers out on strike at the present time. They could 'have done it. Would that have been just? Would that have been the way for them to get increases? It is the duty of the government to see to it that large concerns like Dominion Textile deal with labour on an equal basis just as a small man does. It is in this regard that I deplore the absence in the speech from the throne of the assurance of a democratic labour code. Promises were made quite a while ago. If the federal government has not the power to deal with this key problem to national unity, what confidence can the people have in the power of the government to apply other measures mentioned in the speech from the throne? I have been told,
I may be wrong, that the Premier of Quebec suddenly became what we call provincial autonomy conscious in regard to labour problems and rushed to introduce a bill in Quebec which has won the condemnation of labour forces in the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec. One small group has approved it, the Catholic syndicates, but they stand to lose very little in any circumstances.
I realize that parliament is limited in its power to apply certain measures, but I believe that the time has come when we as a sovereign nation should have the power to amend our own constitution, having full regard for the cultural and religious rights of Quebec. I believe the people of my province will approve measures that will result in improvements in their welfare. Too often have autonomous rights been used by unscrupulous politicians to keep the people of our province in a state of inequality. No doubt the same constitutional objections could be raised in connection with the housing problem. I know that this constitutional problem exists; but again, what are we to do? We have a catastrophic housing problem in the city of Montreal. I am going to quote to the house letters I have received. Some five thousand people may be out of their homes by May 1, 1944. As hon. members know, under order 294 a family can be told to get out of their home if somebody has enough money and makes sufficient profit to buy that home. That home can be taken from them on six months' notice. Where is that family to go? I say it is a criminal act against the war effort. I have received all sorts of letters from people and have had many people come to visit me. Before I cite the cases I should state that there has been an amendment to order 294 whereby only the person who buys the home can force the occupants out of it within six months. In Montreal about five thousand families will be without homes unless we do something about the matter.
Here is a case which I shall call Mrs. A, a French-Canadian woman who is operating a rooming house. Her husband is in the merchant. navy and has been torpedoed four times. She has sixteen roomers in her house. They have been ordered to get out. Where are they to go? Here is the case of another woman whom we shall call Mrs. B. There are in her house eleven people and nine children. Her eldest daughter whose husband was recently killed overseas lives with her. They must move. Where are they to go? Here is a man with a family of five; he has one son in the navy and another one in the army overseas. They have nowhere to go. I shall read
The Address-Mr. Rose

a letter from one woman because I believe that-letter best describes the condition of these people:
I am a widow, a semi-invalid. I have occupied the residence at . . . for over sixteen years.
I will not read it all.
For fifteen years my son, a dentist-


Mr. LALONDE:: The hon. member is supposed to give the name.


Fred Rose: I shall start again:
For fifteen years my son, a dentist, Captain J. B., has had his office at this residence. He is now overseas with the Canadian active army in the dental corps. Now here is my problem. After having lived in this house for such a length of time I have received a letter asking us to vacate the premises by May 1, 1944. Now where can I go? When my son left and said "au revoir", with the help of God, he asked me to take good care of his office. Now, I telephoned the company where all his machinery was bought and they told me that his X-ray, dental chairs and other equipment is best in a sunny, dry room, because when left in storage damage can be done to rubber tube in X-ray. Can you please help me in this difficult situation? I have another son in the air force. While these boys are in uniform fighting for their homeland (also for the home of this selfish landlady) the dentist's office and all of the furniture the other son bought is about to be sold1 for very little.


Maurice Lalonde: Who wrote that letter?


Fred Rose: I can give you the address, if you wish: Mrs. Boness, 4580 Park avenue.
(Text): There is no limit to the number of examples that I could cite, but I have not the time. However, I will say that we have a very serious situation there. We have in Montreal between 1,200 and 1,400 families living in garages and warehouses. That is a terrible situation when one considers what it means to the health and morale of people who work in war industries. In addition to that, we have, of course, slums galore. In my own constituency we have about thirty families living in a lane that was condemned many years ago. What that does to the health of the people is nobody's business.
I shall now give the, house some figures given to me by a doctor dealing with tuberculosis patients. In one small part of my constituency we have over a hundred cases of tuberculosis. Much of that is attributable to bad housing conditions. Let us compare the situation in the neighbouring constituency of Cartier with that of other areas on the island of Montreal. There ninety-three out of a hundred thousand die of tuberculosis as compared with twenty in Notre Dame de Grace and forty in Westmount. The St. James

division has an infantile mortality rate of eighty-one per hundred thousand to forty-nine in Notre Dame de Grace and thirty in West-mount. That is quite a difference and lives are dear. We cannot take them too lightly. What are we going to do about this housing problem? First I say the government must see to it that there are no evictions on May 1, and any measures necessary to prevent this should be taken. I can see no justification for any human being, just because he is fortunate enough to have the money with which to buy a house, moving in and throwing out another family from its home.


Mr. BONNIER (Translation):: Where will those who have money to buy a house go to live? On the street?


Fred Rose: I shall answer your question later.
(Text): They have tried to take houses and change them into apartments. I have had people tell me that a family of ten would be put out of a home which would be converted into two small apartments, in which I do not see how more than ten people could live, so why should that money be expended? What is solved by this action? This is no solution at all; we need more drastic measures. Under the War Measures Act we have power to build the five thousand homes which I would say are badly needed in the city of Montreal. Where is the money coming from? Well, I am happy to see that the war budget is a quarter of a billion dollars less than last year, so perhaps we could find some money there. Then the government must have the power, though here again there may be a constitutional problem, to undertake a big building scheme, which is very greatly needed. Men are being laid off in factories; materials are available, and such a scheme could be undertaken to-day. In addition to anything done to provide people with houses which they may rent at the rates they are able, to pay, we should also make it possible for people to build homes. We have a credit bank for business men, so why not extend credit to people for this purpose. Many aspire to build their homes; this is their dream, so let us help make that dream come true.
I could mention many more matters, but I should like to emphasize these, because I believe they are measures that are needed at once, measures which would bring results. They are vital to our war effort; they are vital to the morale of our people in view of what is to come. What I have outlined, however, is only a small portion of what we must undertake in order to give work to our people. We should draw up a huge public works

The Address-Mr. Gershaw
plan to include such things as the development of the St. Lawrence waterway, the development of our vast hydro electric power resources, rural electrification, the development of our natural resources, the modernization and reconstruction of our cities, the abolition of slums, the rebuilding of libraries and hospitals, and the development of modern highways to give our people work. Again I may be asked where the money is to be found. Well, during this war we have proved that we can find the money if we look for it and work hard enough to get it.
Then, Mr. Speaker, as a sovereign state we should look to the development of our foreign trade through the more direct handling of mutual aid for the reconstruction of devastated areas. We are an important country from the point of view of production, but what very often happens? We get the orders; we are assigned something; we are just a small contractor, though we have a large production. If we are to have trade; if we are to be a power in the world we must have our own say as to where and when we are to export, as to which countries we are going to help. We cannot be told by others. Look at the United States; through lend-lease they have helped a number of countries, but they have also advertised American goods. Where do we stand? I believe that the aid we grant should be given more directly to the countries involved. We must win their good will to-day for trade to-morrow, for we shall need plenty of trade if we are to give work to everyone. We might increase trade through long term credits to the people of Europe, and let me repeat that we can stake out our share of that trade to-day by dealing with those countries directly rather than indirectly. We are a sovereign nation; let us act as one.
I understand that we are playing quite an important role in the operations of the united nations relief and rehabilitation organization. We are going to supply quite a large amount of material in that connection; in fact if I am not mistaken the head of that commission is a Canadian. We are proud of that, but I understand that all these arrangements are to be handled by the military authorities. I believe they should attend to the war and leave the rehabilitation authorities to handle rehabilitation matters. Then we shoqld let the people know who gives them the goods they receive in their time of need. Yes, we have shown in time of war that we are an important country; we have proved that we can make an important contribution to the world, and we must continue to do so in time of peace, but we must be united and we must be strong.
In this connection I should like to refer to an issue which is being used too often in Canada to divide our people; that is, the issue of anti-Semitism, the issue of racial discrimination, which was used by Hitler to make barbarians' out of decent human beings. We have quite a lot of that in Canada. There is no use in adopting a hush-hush policy; I do not believe in it. Recently I have seen some literature which has been distributed in Quebec w'hich is a disgrace to a civilized nation. Jews are painted almost as people with horns, and this literature is being distributed throughout the countryside, where some people have never seen a Jew, so they may actually believe that they are exactly as this literature says. I have had negroes come to me and ask, "Why cannot we get into that dance hall? Why cannot we get jobs? Why do we have it so hard in the air force or the army?" We have the amti-Catholic agitation being carried on by certain people in Ontario. I say that for the sake of unity in Canada the time has come when a royal commission should be set up to investigate all these anti-Canadian activities which are splitting us asunder when we should be strongly united.
I now come to the end of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, which I believe have been made in the spirit in which the Labour-Progressive party wants to work; that is, in the desire to contribute toward a democratic and prosperous Canada. Sometimes I think that certain parties should forget the idea that- they have a monopoly on contributions of this kind. We all have a contribution to make for the sake of Canada, for the people of Canada and toward a united effort. So let us go forward to build the type of world that was foreseen by our great leaders when they met in Teheran not so long ago.


Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all, congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply, upon the eloquent way in which they performed their difficult task. I should like also, if I may, to extend a welcome to the new member for Cartier, Montreal (Mr. Rose), who has just taken his seat. He has expressed himself very clearly, and I hope he will continue to contribute something worth while to the good work of this assembly.
The war has been going on for a long time, and I wish at the outset of my remarks to pay tribute to the record of the government in handling our war effort. This has been mentioned in editorials of many publications, and people from coast to coast are realizing that those who are guiding and directing the efforts of the Canadian people are doing a splendid job, and are deserving

The Address-Mr. Gershaw

of recognition and credit. Standing close to where you now sit, Mr. Speaker, Madame Chiang Kai-shek said that Canada had contributed more per capita to the war effort than any other of the allied countries. Credit for this is due to the patriotism and the enthusiastic response of thousands of Canadian men and women who have set aside their own affairs, and rallied to the service of their country. All honour to those who have courageously joined the armed forces, or spent long hours labouring in industrial plants! All honour to those who have continued to produce the food supplies of this country! Often they have been poorly paid for so doing. Often they have worked at tasks almost beyond their physical ability. And let us never forget the contribution the women have made in so many different capacities, often working long hours in their homes, providing comforts for the soldiers.
The contribution the people of Canada, working as a united nation, have made to the war effort has amazed the world. Let us look at some of the departments of government. The navy, starting with fifteen ships, and some 1,774 men, has expanded until it now has more than 600 ships and more than 70,000 men and officers. An English magazine, Shipping, says that this is an all-time record; it has never been excelled. That navy has patrolled and guarded our shores. Its ships have sailed the seven seas, side by side with the vessels of the British fleet. They have convoyed forty-seven per cent of the material crossing the Atlantic to the united nations.
A United States publication says that if these convoys had not been kept running the allies would have lost the war. A vast Canadian army has been organized.. Thousands of airmen have been trained. Those airmen fly four, five or six miles into the thin, cold air. Their efforts are hampered by sleet, clouds and storms. They are harassed by enemy action. They are performing deeds almost beyond human endurance. Indeed, they are making a mighty contribution to the destruction of Hitler.
Then, in connection with the Department of Munitions and Supply, Mr. Churchill when speaking in the United States referred to our output as Canada's massive production. The holding of the price ceiling has been one of the most difficult and, politically, most costly, tasks in so far as the present government is concerned. The New York Times recently said that against war-time inflation Canada's defences have been the best of any of the allied nations. These things have required thought and planning, and it is not by accident that the stores in Canada contain nearly

all commodities that are required. It is not by accident that the Canadian dollar retains about four-fifths of its pre-war purchasing power.
Mistakes have been made, and before taking my seat I shall enumerate some of them. Legislation, which has proven to be good, and will stand as a monument to those who have put it on the statute books, has been passed. I shall refer to some of that legislation. But there are still great problems to be faced, and great dangers and difficulties ahead. This is no time for complacency. This generation must move, not backward but forward, to greater economic and political freedom. All are now agreed that a mistake was made during the ten long years of depression when, in Canada and in other countries, many people were unemployed and were on the breadlines. All are determined that this condition of affairs shall never arise again, and ex-service men, particularly, will never endure or permit the recurrence of such a condition of affairs.
To prevent a return of those days of depression, reconstruction committees under the direction of hon. members have been planning to bring about a condition under which there will be full employment, so far as it is humanly possible to arrange it. There has been planning to revive the coal industry in the little provinces down by the sea, to reclaim land in the central provinces, irrigating the dry prairies wherever it is possible to do so. There is planning for shipbuilding and the development of fisheries of the coastal provinces. Everywhere in Canada roads, schools, hospitals and bridges will be built, and particular attention has been paid to the building of homes in rural and urban districts.	-
There is one other problem which must be faced-and this I wish to emphasize as my chief object in speaking to-night-namely that agriculture must be put on a paying basis. Anyone going into the homes of average western farmers will realize that the returns in that industry are not as good as those in other industries. People on the farms plan for better buildings and better conditions. They entertain the hope that their children can be educated, so that they may enjoy a better life. But dreams on the farms seldom come true, because of the many hazards which must be faced. If we took man-hours, woman-hours and child-hours required to produce agricultural products we would find that their values are not comparable with values in other industries. It is quite true that at the present time statistics may show that farmers have more money than they have ever had. But they are frustrated, and they have been

The Address-Mr. Gershaw
exasperated by the many seemingly needless orders which are issued. An order in council will come out which is difficult to understand; it will be long and confusing. Then an amendment will come out and a short time later the order in council may be cancelled. This is all most confusing.
Recently we heard of a bonus on oats and barley. The first announcement was received with consternation in the feeding districts. Later on, the order in council was explained and then a few weeks later a further explanation was issued. But it is still not satisfactory because the man who has oats or barley and who feeds those grains cannot obtain the bonus. We are continually receiving telegrams-I received one to-day-with regard to marketing conditions. There is difficulty in getting a clear understanding of the bonus on hogs. Many of these things are so confusing that the farmers feel discouraged.
In the district whence I come there was a complete crop failure in 1943; even the grass did not grow. In order to meet a condition of this kind I would once more bring to the attention of the house the necessity of irrigating these dry areas. They have a maximum amount of sunshine, the soil is fertile, the only thing required is water. I want to thank the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) for sending out engineers to compile complete records on the engineering phase of one irrigation scheme in southern Alberta. When the war ends it is expected that there will be some measure of employment, and it is to be hoped that these projects will have reached a stage where tenders can be called for and the work started at once. If that is done it will provide homes for those who have been faced with failure or perhaps for those who are returning from the war. It will provide traffic for our railways and provide work for the building trades, for our coal miners and for live stock feeders.
We all want to live as long as we can and we all want to enjoy as much health as we possibly can. Nutritionists tell us that the foods that we generally lack are dairy products and fruits and vegetables. These are the products of irrigated districts. By the development of these districts and the putting in of quick freezing plants these products would be available all year. This would be a great blessing to those who live in parts of the country where such products are difficult to obtain. There are some cooperative processing plants in the district, but there is a danger of their being put out of business. They are not government inspected and thus they do not qualify for the bonus which is being paid for hogs at the present time. This is not fair.
100-7i
I should like to refer to some of the legislation which I believe is working out well and which will prove to be a credit to the members of this deliberative assembly. In. May, 1941, when payrolls were good and when many people were employed the unemployment insurance scheme was placed upon our statute books. The workers now have an equity of $180,000,000 -in that fund. Employers, employees and the government all contribute. An employee receiving 120 a week pays thirty cents a week. If he has worked five years and becomes unemployed he can receive $10.20 a week if he is single or $12 a week if he is married for a period of fifty-two weeks. The government is paying the dues of the men in the armed services. If they go into an included occupation -when they return they will find themselves in good standing.
As I mentioned when an amendment was being considered last session, it is unfortunate that invalidity and sickness insurance was not included in the Unemployment Insurance Act. The workmen's compensation boards in the provinces look after accident cases, but those who are sick, those who are disabled by any means other than accident find it very difficult when a calamity of this kind overtakes them. Wages, salaries and profits in this country are not sufficient to enable anyone to meet these hazards. I do hope that this problem will be considered under unemployment insurance.
Because of the action of the Alberta government and the dominion government, pioneers in Alberta who are over seventy years of age may now get $30 a month from some source. This problem of old age pensions is mentioned in the speech from the throne and I do hope that something more will be done. I contend that casual earnings should be allowed to reach a higher figure than is allowed at the present time. The years that go by take a toll from the human system and whether we will admit it or not, age creeps up upon us all. When a person reaches the age of sixty-five years he is no longer able to do strenuous work, and so I hope that legislation will be placed upon our statute books to give some relief to those who have readhed the age of sixty-five years and are able to qualify otherwise.
A short time ago a dominion inheritance tax was imposed. Wealthy estates are taxed heavjly, but the tax is light on the smaller estates. Those below $5,000 are exempt altogether; a widow is exempt up to $20,000, and each child up to $5,000. Near relatives get more out of an estate than do distant relatives. We impose an income tax up to ninety or ninety-two per cent on large incomes, but we have made the burden light on those who are least able to pay. Our income tax is lower

The Address-Mr. Gershaw

on the lower incomes and higher on the higher incomes than is the tax in either the United States or Great Britain. For example, a man earning $700 in Canada pays $13; in the United States he would have to pay $40. and in Great Britain, $45. But if a man has an income of $30,000, in Canada he would have to pay $18,396; in the United States $13,761 and in Great Britain, $18,217.
Vocational training in this country has been a great success. Thousands of young men have been taught trades and have proved to be very useful during this war. They will be most useful after the termination of the war. Vocational braining is being planned for those who return from service overseas. During the last war this type of training was available only for minors and those who were injured during the war, but now it is available for all who can benefit by it, men and women alike. During the time these people are taking training, or when they are convalescent or out of work, they are paid an allowance. A single man can get $10.20 a week, while the married man with children will get a higher rate. The married man with four children can get $24 a week. In Australia and New Zealand these rates are slightly lower and they are paid for only thirteen weeks, whereas in Canada payments may be made for fifty-two weeks, and in cases where education is being continued, for as long as four years.
Thousands of contracts are awarded every week for guns, tanks, ships, planes, motor vehicles, et cetera. There is no preferred or patronage list in connection with these contracts. Anyone, everyone, is allowed to tender; and precautions are taken which show that care is being exercised in the handling of these contracts. For instance, every contract for over $2,000 has to be approved by the head of the branch; every contract or agreement over $5,000 by the deputy minister, and every contract over $15,000 by the cabinet. In addition to that there is a purchase investigating committee. This is a group of business men who go into every contract and every agreement to see that there are no weaknesses and no favouritism. In addition, cost accountants check all agreements and contracts and they are responsible to the auditor general. Also we have a parliamentary committee on war expenditure that may dip into any one of these contracts.
Canada has taken a leading part in international conventions, at Hot Springs and other places, looking to a freer exchange of goods, and with the purpose of feeding the starving people of Europe when they are liberated
fMr. Gershaw.]
from the heel of the oppressor. Already half the people of Greece are living on Canadian wheat.
The average Canadian, Mr. Speaker, does not want to embark on vague experiments. He wants victory to come as soon as possible. He wants to be assured of a decent standard of living when victory is won. He *wants this war to bring a lasting peace. Toward those objectives we in Canada must keep driving with all the courage and fortitude that we can muster, if we would have that future wherein our childreen can walk in ways of peace and happiness. Truly a glorious opportunity lies before our people; they can rise to heights to which they have never before attained. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has said, "if we in this country keep our heads and pursue high objectives, we shall achieve results in the post-war world which will amaze civilization."


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, the framers of the speech from the throne which is now being debated have missed their vocation. They should have followed the vocation of window-dressing, because the speech is the most expert piece of windowdressing which I have seen in this parliament.
The main matter before the country to-day is, what is to become of Canada and the British empire after the war Yet there is no eut-and-dried foreign policy, nor is there an announcement of any empire policy at all.
In referring to the speech from the throne the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) referred yesterday to various imperial conferences which have been held, in 1926, 1937 and other years, when Canada took the position that we had no commitments but that parliament would decide. But parliament did not decide anything except to enter the war ten days late.
It seems to me that the issue in this debate is not one of Canada's autonomy, her status, or her sovereignty. There is no intention on the part of the mother of parliament to interfere with any of these things. Some of those who have spoken thus far seem to have searched Old Mother Hubbard's cupboard for skeletons of the past, and dragged into this debate a great many things which should have been forgotten long ago, and should not be resurrected, if we are to win this war, at a time when unity is so badly needed. The war is primary; nothing else matters now. The domestic questions which this country has to deal with, although they are of great importance, can be deferred until we know whether we are going to win this war and whether we are going to have collective security or not. The position

The Address-Mr. Church
of the Prime Minister is not altogether consistent with the policy in which, I am convinced, all the people of Canada of all parties believe, in what he said was primary, namely the winning of the war. What is the object of going through two world wars like these in a little over twenty years when we shall have the very same condition of affairs again unless the dominions are united with the mother country in the post-war world to come? Britain cannot exist without the dominions. Her very life is at stake; she has to import twenty-five out of twenty-seven raw materials, and she is dependent upon the dominions. Unless they are a unit in their foreign policy and empire policy, the outlook for the empire and for the mother country is very dark. The dominions must hang together or they will hang separately, because none of the dominions is able ta "go it" alone. Together they are the greatest in the world. We have seen what has happened to the small states in Europe; they have been overrun by the mechanized hordes of the German and other dictators.
One of the great prime ministers of France said a few years ago that Britain was the hardest country in the world to make a treaty with; she always spoke with so many voices. With Canada's present sovereign status, hardly a day goes by that some ambassador is'1 not sent out to this or that country, all over the seven seas. These people used to be called ministers or envoys extraordinary, and a great many of them were extraordinary. In the twenty years between the two -wars we created a number of ministers plenipotentiary. Now as full ambassadors they have brand new uniforms -at the country's expense, if you please-and there are so many of them that the government has a hard time to find anybody left in Canada to take the job. Dear knows who the next one will be or where he will be sent. This is one phase and one consequence of the policy of isolationism and separatism which Canada has pursued.
The right policy for this country was laid down by the Progressive Conservative party, and they have adhered to it since 1844. It is a consistent empire and foreign affairs policy. Some people are talking about "British imperialism." The word "imperialism" is a misnomer. It is used by the same people who in the period betrveen the two wars forgot all about German imperialism, opposed rearmament, and thought we could depend for peace and security on Geneva. It is the humbug of Geneva which -was largely responsible for this second war. We in Canada owe everything we have to the mother country. For two years after 1939 she went it all alone with the help of the dominions, standing
against the dictators of the world, and we here, the people of Quebec especially, owe her a great deal. Had the enemy sailed up the St. Lawrence with his land, air and sea forces we would have had no defence at all. Yet there are some who wanted to reduce our military estimates to one dollar-some who are now going through the country posing as super-patriots and criticizing "British imperialism." They never said one word about German and Japanese and Italian imperialism, and the menace of it before this war, as they preached pacifism and disarmament.
Sir John A. Macdonald laid down the policy of this party when, speaking to the electors of Kingston on October 5, 1844, he made the following statement:
It is my firm belief that the prosperity of Canada depends upon its permanent connection with the mother country, and I shall resist to the utmost any attempt from whatever quarter to weaken that union.
Forty-seven years afterwards, speaking in February, 1891, in his last campaign during his last illness, he reaffirmed that doctrine, which has been the policy of every government since. On that occasion he said:
For a century and a half this country has grown and flourished under the protecting aegis of the British crown. Under the broad folds of the union jack, we enjoy the most ample liberty, we govern ourselves as we please, and at the same time we participate in the advantages which flow with association of the mightiest empire the world has ever seen. As for myself, my course is clear. A British subject I was born and a British subject I will die.
That has been the consistent policy of the Conservative party. Look at the record over the past fifty years and what do you find in regard to Canada's stand in the oceanic empire? In this war, all the dominions came forward unasked to the aid of the mother country, and the colonies, the mandated colonies, and the colonial empire including India, all volunteered their help. They have all done remarkable well, and Canada, as the senior dominion, holds an important key position between the United States and Britain.
In 1899 when the South African war broke out Canada played her part, small though it was. Apart from the war of 1812, that was the first contribution she had made to the mother country in waging a war. Canada raised, together with New Zealand and Australia, several hundred men who went to South Africa, and the British government paid all the costs. In the great war of 1914, the same thing happened ; the British fleet ensured the peace of world civilization for over 100 years. From 1815, for 100 years apart from one or two
Tlie Address

Mr. Church

minor war engagements, no great contribution had been made by Canada so far to the mother country; but with the outbreak of the great war in 1914 over a million men came from the dominions to the side of Britain and 130,000 of them fell in the war. They came forward voluntarily. They fought not for the mother country but at her side, each dominion in her own cause, which was the cause of all. After all, what Canada has done in the past fifty years for the mother country and in the interests of collective security she has done voluntarily, and she will continue to do the same after this war. She would do the same to-morrow, namely, go to the aid of the mother country again, in the hour of peril.
In the South African war in 1899 there were in this country those people who said, "What have we to do with Britain's wars?" They contended that it was contrary to the constitution; it was against the British North America Act to send troops to South Africa. But the loyal people of the country-and fortunately they are not all in one party- brought pressure to bear upon the government of the day to send a contingent to South Africa, and compelled all governments from that day to this to take the stand that when Britain is at war Canada also is at war. They did the same in 1914, and the contribution that has been made to the mother country in this war has gone up by geometrical progression. There were three or four regiments in the South African war and in this war we have 600,000 or 700,000 men. And what we have done we have done voluntarily. What the dominions did in the two world wars has changed the whole history of the civilized world.
On Armistice day, 1918, there was great rejoicing throughout the world. People everywhere thought, with the close of the war, that there would be no more war, that the world had been made safe for democracy. Well, we, by pacifism and folly, lost all the benefits which the military forces had won in France and Flanders. The Germans saw to it that we did. The League of Nations was created and in 1922 was a going concern. During the years 1923, 1924, 1925, Britain completely disarmed; then came Locarno and with it the purchase of German favour, and after that 1936, when our empire ran down the toboggan and the British government allowed Germany to occupy the Rhine. In addition to that, in 1937, Britain and the United States stood aside and allowed Germany to occupy Austria, and in 1938 the frontiers of Czechoslovakia.

Then the deluge came and we found the British empire completely disarmed. That of course led to the war.
I have always supported the principle of a permanent empire council. Speaking in 1923 and again in 1924 and 1925, between the close of the first world war and the outbreak of the second, I urged on the attention of parliament the necessity for such a council. The last time I spoke was in November, 1941, as reported at page 4513 of daily Hansard. At that time I said that in my opinion the Prime Minister would have been well advised to support a permanent empire council and a war cabinet.' I said it was an absolute necessity and that New Zealand and Australia wanted it. He passed it up. Then came the fall of Singapore and Hong Kong, and I urged the government to call immediately a permanent empire council, because New Zealand and Australia, with Canada, could not any longer afford to have these decisions made against them without their consent and advice. So many hundreds of thousands of our young men could not fight without having something to say about it. This war, Mr. Speaker, will have been fought in vain and we shall have another war before the year 1970 or the close of this century unless we take advantage of the present conflict to carry into the peace some measure of collective security and the unity the dominions had in this war. That means an armed Britain and armed dominions. What does an unarmed Britain lead to? Invasion, insult and nearly in the end, extinction, as in this war.
In 1940 young men by the thousand went up in the air in the battle of London and Britain. By night and by day, twenty-four hours a day, these young airmen, some from the high schools of Toronto, played their part in this war in the air and saved Britain and civilization. Six hundred of them have been lost so far from the high schools in the city of Toronto alone. These young airmen in the battle of Britain have saved civilization. We owe to these young men everything we have in this country, and so do the people of Quebec, those of the maritimes and the people of the United States as well. But for these young men we would long ago have made peace with the axis powers. In view of the Prime Minister's stand, since he refuses to cooperate with New Zealand and Australia in the effort to secure a permanent empire council, it seems to me that Canada is at the parting of the ways. I am very much alarmed.
I submit that the time has come for the Prime Minister to tell the house what the foreign policy and empire policy of Canada

The Address-Mr. Church
is. Where does Canada stand on the declaration of Churchill that he is not going to allow this empire to go into liquidation or go by default, because without the dominions Britain would be a second Denmark, and a second-class power. With the dominions Britain will be the greatest power in the new world to come.
What is the stand of this country on allowing the empire to go by default? I think the Prime Minister should make his stand clear to parliament before the meeting of the prime ministers in June, because none of the component parts of the British empire are strong enough to go it alone, or separately.
Mr. Curtin of Australia, backed by the Prime Minister of New Zealand, outlined the policy of these great dominions for a regional council and permanent empire council and gave the place which Australia will occupy in the Pacific after the war. Mr. Curtin says conditions will never be the same in the Pacific as they were in 1939; therefore we must have the advantage of a concerted empire policy, which will have the power to stand for democracy in the southern Pacific in the post-war years. These will be complex years and Australia cannot afford to let her economic position be unknown and misunderstood. That should be the stand of Canada. Mr. Curtin said in a most notable speech in August, 1942, that Australia is proud of and completely satisfied with her status and rights as a self-governing member of the British commonwealth which is a partnership of equality and fraternity, a partnership whose history has been marked by great contributions to civilization.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the British commonwealth depends to a large extent on the stand which Canada takes. It will be too late when the prime ministers are meeting in England for Canada to declare her policy. We shall be back to where we were in 1937. We shall have no policy. It will be said we have no commitments; parliament will decide. It is a case of now or never; now and forever. Canada is a wonderful North American country of vast resoures and she has a stake in western Europe owing to the invention of the aeroplane. She has a stake also in the Atlantic region. Canada cannot be indifferent to European affairs if she is to be a great nation. Her destiny' requires her to be a leader in the commonwealth. Up to the beginning of this century Britain had to fear only naval power. Now she has to fear the aeroplane, and the whole world is changed.
The United States, that great nation which is allied with us in this war and has done so gloriously is the master of its own destiny. That is so, but it cannot interfere with Britain
and Canada having the closest ties. Canada's position is vital for the development of air communications, and these should be planned ahead of the prime ministers' meeting between Britain and Canada. It should be an all-empire, red-air policy. I referred at length to civil aviation on July 15 last, and received no reply from the government. Canada is a great country whose resources are vast. She should unite with New Zealand and Australia in a permanent empire council. The destiny of the empire lies largely in Canada's hands. Canada cannot go it alone or separately. We have had a treaty with the West Indies since 1912. Canada with Newfoundland and the West Indies should form a sort of regional council in the Atlantic for the future progress of the world. Canada is of great value to the world of the future as a member of the British commonwealth. After the war Canada should continue the good vrork she has done in this war and turn out to be an instrumeint for the keeping of peace in the world. If we do that we shall have captured our objective in this war and little more will be heard of war.
The government talks of equality of status and autonomy. It seems to me, with all these ambassadors going around the seven seas representing Britain and the dominions, we shall have nothing but a hidden Tower of Babel of ambassadors that we have at Washington and all the other capitals of the world. We shall come to be a nation of ambassadors. The government is so anxious about equality of status that it will not work with the other dominions in connection with foreign policy and empire policy, and has forgotten all about equality of function without which status is a myth. That is now up in the clouds. What is the use of us talking about Canada being a nation? The British empire, as Lord Balfour's committee said, is not founded on negations. It depends essentially, if not formally, on positive ideals. Free institutions are its lifeblood. Free cooperation is its instrument. Peace, security and progress are among its objectives. Cooperation within the empire for economic development is therefore absolutely necessary for the commonwealth and the colonial empire alike, and international cooperation in economic affairs would be far more difficult if the dominions be treated as separate units in international affairs.
Article 4 of the Atlantic charter safeguards imperial preference. There are many in Canada who do not realize that that principle is absolutely essential to the commonwealth if it is to exist and to the international status, not only to Britain but to the weaker members of the commonwealth. All the dominions will
The Address-Mr. Church

lose their economic independence if the principle of economic unity within the empire is abrogated.
We have had a lot of talk in this country about this being a class war, a people's revolution and all that kind of thing, but between the two wars we did not hear a word from the pacifists about German imperialism and its menace to the world. What was the cause of this war? It was not for that reason at all. The people who are fighting this war are not fighting for any kind of political nostrum. That is not what the people of the devastated countries are fighting for or have suffered to death for. What caused this war was the determination of Germany to subjugate the continent of Europe so that by her army and military power she would control the people and the industries of Europe and thus have Britain and the British empire at her mercy. It is for that reason that the United States and all the other nations were attacked by Germany, and it is for that reason that Russia came into the war. There are some people who would like to substitute their own economic propaganda for the real German war, and who would like to substitute a political war of their own along certain lines. Imperial unity must be made our first task. We must recognize the fact that the empire can produce almost every article which Britain and her empire need for peace and war. Britain cannot go it alone without the dominions from which she must import twenty-five out of twenty-seven of her raw materials. With the dominions she is to be the greatest power in the world to-day.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there has been something said about parliamentary institutions and the supremacy of parliament. Criticism in time of war has stirred governments and cabinets to action on a number of matters belatedly and after a lot of urging. The functions of parliament have not changed from those first, days when in an historic speech to the sheriffs of Bristol, Burke made the statement that a member when he becomes a member does not become the representative only of the constituency he represents but of the country, as a whole, and that to be a good member was no easy task then or now if one does his duty, especially in a world war like this. One of the most important functions of a member is to criticize, to examine, to crossquestion the ministry and to debate not merely the policy of the government of the day, but more important the way the trust of administering the affairs of that country is conducted, and to act also as a check on expenditures and further taxation, and especially of examining - legislation.
IMr. Church.]
But if one consults the record of Hansard and the debates one will find that few avail themselves of such privileges. In this war what has happened? Outside boards have usurped the functions of parliament in a haphazard manner over parliament's head; privileges, powers and duties of a democratic parliament and of the ministers of the crown responsible for their actions have been usurped. The minister leaves it all to them with the result that parliament has surrendered and abdicated to those amateurs and overnight they have become experts. As a result legislation is left largely by parliament to the executive and the various control boards, and is carried through by orders in council. So we have these ghosts behind the scenes, these controllers who overnight become experts or bureaucrats and who, with little parliamentary criticism of their actions, pass laws simply because there is a war on. As I see it, to elect or reject governments is not one of the important functions of parliament; the people decide that. Nor is it one of the functions of parliament to propose legislation, since in nearly all cases that is laid down by the government of the day. Yet there never has been a time when it was more important that a useful and efficient private member should function, one who will consider the country's interests and the prosecution of the war as of primary importance, one who will ask questions in season and out of season, since it is in parliament alone that the real truth can be discovered and errors in administration exposed through the questioning and cross-questioning of ministers. In effect and in practice the supremacy of parliament in Canada is a myth. The real debates in this house in which the man on the street is interested rarely get beyond the walls of this building; they might as well be held in secret; yet this is the only place where anyone holding a grievance may have it remedied.
Such, in actual practice, is our new system of government in Canada; yet criticism here could restore the prestige of parliament and perhaps save the government from its friends. Since the beginning of this war, as for twenty years previously, I have urged that constitutional, parliamentary cabinet and law reform were Canada's principal domestic problems, and I have quoted authorities to support that statement; yet nothing has been done. Between the two wars Canada was the chief drifter from the empire. Our main empire interests should be defence, civil aviation, trade, foreign affairs and immigration within the empire, and that should start with British born immigration, and of soldiers first and those who won the battle of Britain, the people of the mother country, with assisted

The Address-Mr. Church
passages. They should be considered before we bring in any other continental people, though I have no objection to the principle to which one other hon. member referred to-day.
As I have said, Canada was the chief drifter from the empire. At the imperial conferences of 1927 and 1937 we refused to cooperate with our sister dominions of Australia and New Zealand in the matters I have mentioned, on the ground that we had no commitments and that parliament would decide, which, as I have said, was a myth. Canada relied on various peace pacts, agreements, pacifism, the Monroe doctrine and all that kind of thing. We threw away our defences on land, sea and in the air; we lost our friends, and in 1937, when urged by Australia and New Zealand to support an empire air scheme, an empire shipping policy and rearmament for collective security, we refused to do so. The government has conducted a Liberal war in many ways, though many very fine things have been done in connection with munitions and food, and particularly in regard to assistance to Britain, which was a splendid action on our part. However, our man-power policy in my opinion has been carried on by fits and starts, with nothing being continued for very long and no equality of either service or of sacrifice. We have no foreign policy; we never had any policy but drift. We have no empire policy, which is the most important of all. Every year I have urged the creation of an empire council to bring about a wise modem system of empire collaboration, consultation and cooperation between Britain, her dominions and colonies and mandated areas. After the fall of Singapore and Hong Kong in 1941, I urged in this house that a permanent empire tribunal be set up, with a permanent secretariat, to meet frequently and decide all empire matters, since Britain cannot exist without the dominions. Mr. Curtin was right in advocating such a plan, and I am sorry that we have not followed him.
In this war Britain and her dominions, alone, saved the world for two years, and saved civilization from being destroyed. The day of isolation in Canada is gone forever. The great dominions should hang together and have unity in action, while retaining their status and sovereignty and autonomy. They can still combine to aid the mother country and the empire but, unless they are united, each will hang by itself, since none is strong enough to go it alone as a separate nation. Britain and her dominions, while willing to aid in rebuilding a better world and allowing the free use of all raw materials, as far as possible, should retain sovereignty over the 100-8
empire and not lose any of her territory. In this war the loyalty of all the dominions and colonies, and of India, has been shown to a striking degree, as was the case in the last war. But the various parts of the empire should meet as one unit to discuss matters of defence, collective security, civil aviation and so on. While we are always paying great tribute to our allies and working in unison with them, I believe that since this war began parliament has missed a great opportunity each session to discuss for several days primary empire problems. Each session we have been able to discuss the price of wheat for four or five weeks; yet only for part of a day toward the end of the session are we permitted to discuss the important matters of foreign affairs, empire unity, and so on, which will be the salvation of this country. The mother country should be the axis of the empire, and should give leadership. Empire affairs should be prominent in our parliaments, and frequent meetings should be held between representatives of the parliaments of the empire for consultation, collaboration and cooperation in a forward empire policy of progress leading to a better world after this war.
Christianity is part and parcel of our empire; indeed, the empire is founded on Christianity. This principle was reasserted to the people of India by Queen Victoria in 1858, when the British government took over the Indian empire. The British empire is Christian, not in a sectarian sense but because a Christian people founded and developed it, and it has been Christian in all its institutions ever since. We assert the individual right of the human soul and of all faiths; that all have equal rights as long as they are humane. The kindred nations of our empire have had a record of which they may be proud, for their service to humanity, justice, freedom, civilization and progress. The British empire will continue, after this war, to have a leading place in the service of the world and of mankind.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: In my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put what I consider the first thing first. When we realize that every member of this house has been spared to come back and serve here I believe it is our duty to express our thanks to the Supreme Being for having allowed us to carry on.
When I think of the speech from the throne I think of the judgment shown by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) when he was casting about for brilliant men to move and

The Address-Mr. Mclvor

second the address. He came all the way across to this comer of the chamber, and I am sure we in this loyal corner feel greatly honoured that he should wander over here to select two brilliant minds for this task. I doubt if he could have found two hon. members in any part of the house who would have served better. Both hon. gentlemen are soldiers; both are honourable men; both have brilliant minds, and are men who think for themselves under all circumstances.
As I read and re-read the speech from the throne and then went back and re-read the Marsh report and the Beveridge report, together with the findings of Doctor James, I must say that in my judgment the speech from the throne is the cream of them all. It is the best thing I have seen; it holds the greatest promise of a reconstruction plan. It suits me immensely. I am one of those who demanded, as far as I could, a programme for reconstruction, and we have a right to be grateful to those who have given us this programme. Of course I know that we agree with it or disagree with it, according to the group in the house to which we belong. I appreciated the observations of the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) who gave us a clear view of our duty as a dominion toward those who have been wronged and driven from their homes. He has told us our duty toward those refugees. I am not a bit particular whether the men, women and children are Jews or Gentiles, whether they are red, black or yellow. They are made in the image of their Creator, and they belong to the type of people for whom Christ died. I am sure we as a nation are not going to play the role of the priest and the Levite who walked by on the other side, and allow those who are in distress to suffer. I agree with the hon. member for Trinity when he says that we should do our best for those people. I say that 111 in one year is not enough. In the words of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) which he uses frequently; it is not good enough.
There are certain features of the speech from the throne which stand out, and which suit me very well. Family allowances have been subjected to some criticism. In my view this measure has been long overdue. When I think of the Prime Minister, denied the happiness of a family of sis or eight or ten to welcome him home at night, and remember that he is helping to put this plan across, and that it is his suggestion for reconstruction, I am convinced that it shows the marks of a great mind. If I were an employer of labour and a man came to me for employment, telling me that he had a wife and nothing else,

and if at the same time another man came, telling me that he had a wife and six children, I would think that the man with the children would do a bigger and a better job and would be more entitled to consideration than the one who had no children, and perhaps no home at all.
Another point which stands out in the speech from the throne is the housing plan. I do not know anything that would mean more employment for more people than would be the construction of buildings. Certainly those build- ings are needed throughout Canada. We at the head of the lakes, with our abundance of timber which can be cut down and manufactured into lumber, are of the opinion that this housing programme would be a great boon to the Thunder Bay district.
Then, as I look ahead I can see the minister of reconstruction. Of course hon. members may imagine who I think would be the best qualified for that job. I can see him working with an industrial bank close to hand, for his own special use and, in my opinion, such an industrial bank would be a good thing.
Another matter which is of interest to the owner of a farm is the floor price for staple farm products. I have gone to farmers and bought eggs for as little as fifteen cents a dozen. They were glad to get that price. And when we think of farmers raising fowl, and think of all the care required in that operation, and then realize that they have had to sell their eggs for as little as ten cents or fifteen cents a dozen, we must hope that that may never happen again. The farmers are entitled to this new law.
I now come to a subject which is dear to me, namely that of labour. The new labour code has not yet been published, but it is my hope that it will contain a provision for compulsory bargaining. I know it would be better if it were not necessary to have the compulsory provision; but in my opinion such a provision is absolutely necessary for the good of production and of management, and is in the best interests of directors. Certainly it is in the interest of labour.
Then I should hope that under the new code labour would receive holidays with pay. When I see a man toiling twelve months in a year in a machine shop I am bound to conclude that he needs holidays with pay far more than the young man who spends perhaps only eight hours or seven and a half hours in an office. The office worker may work from 9 until 12 o'clock noon, and from 1.30 until 5.30 p.m. Or, let us consider the man who works in a mine. He works deep in the earth, away from the sunlight, and breathes different air. Do hon.

The Address-Mr. Mclvor
members not think he is more entitled to holidays with pay than even a member of parliament, no matter what position he occupies?
I shall reserve any criticism I may have to make until the new labour code is brought down. However, I should like to bring to the attention of those who are responsible the fact that I have received letters from secretaries of labour unions in which they have dealt with war-time wage control order P.C. 9384. These are the words of H. Rember, secretary for local 132:
We the members of local 132 feel that wartime wages control order P.C. 9384 when put into effect would destroy the democratic right of workers to bargain collectively.
Also it is pointed out that this order would hurt labour at the present time. I believe the secretary makes a mistake when he says that hon. members should intercede on their behalf in the hope that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) may not permit this order to become effective. I do not think the minister has much to do with the order. He may know about it, but it is not his order-and I shall stand corrected if I am wrong. I do not think the Minister of Labour has fathered everything considered wrong by labour unions.
May I ^ say that I know these unions, and the men in them. They are just as honest as we are. I stand side by side with them in striving to help them get the best possible returns for the energy they put into their work. I have not found them selfish. On the contrary they are straight, honest workers, and I would advise that reconsideration be given this order, and that something better be substituted.
Those who are making reforms might consider the use of the transferable vote. In a single constituency there may be four or five men. and perhaps one lady in a campaign. If there is no transferable vote the result would be that many people would not be represented at all, and for that reason I urge that those who are considering reforms might consider the adoption of the transferable vote.
There is another point I have in mind, one which I might not understand as clearly as I should. I find that the educational facilities in Canada cannot be embraced by certain types of people. There are young men and maidens in outlying districts who do not have the advantage of advanced education. In mv view the federal government should put itseif on record as being willing to cooperate with departments of education in the provinces to make it possible for these young people, who are keen to acquire education, to secure the degree of education they may desire.
I have a suggestion to offer to the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. 100-8i
Mackenzie). There should be an amendment to the Pension Act, and in this connection I should like to give one or two examples. I know of one man who enlisted in the ail force. He was not there very long before he took what is commonly known as polio. He may not have got the attention he should have received, and to-day he finds himself a hopeless cripple for life. Because he was not long enough in the force he is not eligible for a pension. It is true that he received treatment, and I pay tribute to the doctors at the Deer Lodge hospital for the splendid treatment they gave him, but the fact is that he is not able to get further education without going back to school at the expense of his father and mother. The pension he was receiving has been reduced to $25 a month.
Another young man was in the navy when he was taken down with tuberculosis, perhaps partly owing to neglect. They did not think his case was as serious as it proved to be. He probably will be weakened for the rest of his life. These two men have not got what I consider is their due, and I bring their cases to the attention of the minister.
I join with others who have paid a tribute to the young men who have gone overseas, particularly to those who played hockey, rugby and basketball. I have always taken a keen interest in these games and some of these boys played under me. I receive letters from these boys in which they say, "We are just giving the enemy the same thing we tried to give the opposing team when you were in the sub box.' Some of these young fellows will not come back, and others are having a terrific time, especially those on the corvettes on the high seas. But I do not think they are having a harder time than the fathers and mothers who receive word of loved ones who are missing and then the final news thal they must be considered dead. I have been in many homes, and I consider it most courageous on the part of mothers and fathers who have lost loved ones when they go out and carry on and help others in the same difficult position.
I have my own way of looking at things just as other men have according to their occupations. I think this country is reaching a position for which it will pay dearly in the future. Sunday work is prevalent all over Canada. Some of us have struggled for the preservation of one day in seven, and I have no patience with any man, whether he be a member of parliament or otherwise, who will use the Sabbath for anything but rest and worship. One time I saw a picture depicting the theme that if you break the ten com-
The Address-Mr. Mclvor

mandments, the ten commandments will break you. I think it was Gladstone who said, and I like to quote the grand-old man, that righteousness exalteth a nation but sin is a reproach to any people. He said that it was a sad day when we neglected our Sabbath day.
We hear a good deal to-day about juvenile delinquency. It is said that it is on the increase everywhere because there is so much money to spend. I have not my facts before me, but I am convinced by reports that juvenile delinquency in Fort William is not nearly as bad as it was during the depression. In those days I have seen as many as twenty boys in the police court at one time. During this last year there has been very little juvenile delinquency.
I do not know who is responsible for the king's honours, but I do commend the Prime Minister for being very sparing in recommending these honours. I think they should be given to our soldiers, and in this connection I should like to refer to one of the finest armies we have in Canada-the Salvation Army. They are always on the attack, not on the defence. They are on the attack against wrong, and those who are responsible for recommending the king's honours should consider some of these outstanding soldiers because they are doing a great job.
Those soldiers who come back from the front should take care to report to the representative of the department of pensions, the pensions advocate. Right here I should like to pay a tribute to the employment officials in the Canadian Car. I recall one case of a young fellow who had been dismissed from this company for bad conduct. He served with a tank corps in north Africa for some time and when he came back he wanted to get work with the Canadian Car. However, the superintendent of employment said that he did not want him. We then said to him, "Do you not think that a boy who has served in the tanks and has fought for your protection should be given some consideration; should you not be willing to forgive him a good deal?" He said, "We will forgive him and take him back." That is the sort of treatment the management of the Canadian Car in Fort William are giving to the returned men.
There are certain things that we need in Fort William, and there are certain suggestions I should like to make to the committee on reconstruction. The first is the necessity for the building up of the home. The home is the most important institution in the community. If you have a poor home, you have a poor community. Many of us have had the blessing of a good home; we have been trained
TMr. Mclvor.]
to do the things that we should do-oftentimes we have wandered far-but we think a family altar should be built in every home. The committee on reconstruction should consider that.
I realize that men and women are needed for war work, but I do say that the place of a mother with children is not in the workshop where she is earning money; she should be at home building up character, making her boys and girls fit to go out and take their places as honourable Christian citizens.
As I say, there are certain things we need in Fort William. I am going to hurry up with my remarks because, if I do not finish now, I shall have to complete my speech when the budget is before us. The minister of pensions knows that at the present time the outstanding need of Fort William is an up-to-date hospital, not only for the old folks and the returned soldiers but for the city at large. The Department of National Defence took away our skating and hockey rink. We need an ice rink now. We need a new home for the army and navy veterans, and there are other public buildings that should be erected. I am going to present these claims to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) and ask for money at a low rate of interest.
The shell factory in Fort William was closed down. The workers were greatly disappointed because they had been happy in their work. There had been a particularly fine type of management there. However, all those who wanted to go to work were offered positions with the Canadian Car and many of them took them. The work being carried out by the Canadian Car is very good. There are 6,052 people working there, 3,285 men and 1,875 women with a considerable office staff. The production of the Curtis dive bomber is now one a day which speaks well for Canadian Car and Foundry company, because they had many setbacks.
When we think of what we have in the district of Thunder Bay, which includes Port Arthur and Fort William, when we remember that one of the outstanding things with which we are confronted is that the haematite ore from Steep Rock will be coming down and will have to be shipped some place else, we believe that we should have a plant where that ore can be smelted and the product, after it has been refined, shipped out. It is all right to ship our pulp across the line; our United States friends can make use of it. But I do not agree that our iron ore should be shipped across the line; I think it should be handled at the head of the lakes where we have any amount of power and water and timber, as well as the workers who will be needed.

Library of Parliament
Regarding the needs of labour at the present time, I feel confident that we may leave the cause of the worker in the hands of the government, because it is not a matter for the Minister of Labour alone; it is the responsibility of the whole government.
I had a good deal more to say, but I have decided, in view of requests which have been made, to finish my speech when the budget is brought down. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration.
On motion of Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre) the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Wednestlay, February 2, 1944