1944-07-10

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	What was the total amount subscribed to the sixth victory loan?
2.	W'hat was the total amount subscribed by each province?
3.	What was the total number of subscribers, and what was the amount subscribed by those on the special names' list?
4.	What was the total number and total amount subscribed by others?
5.	What was the total cost of handling and servicing the loan, (a) commissions; (b) other payments to individuals for services rendered; (c) printing; (d) newspaper and periodical advertising; (e) radio advertising, and (f)
other expenses?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 
GOLD RESERVES
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	Are any gold reserves held by the chartered banks of Canada as backing for their currency?
2.	Are any gold reserves held by the Bank of Canada as backing for its currency?
3.	Have the gold reserves been transferred to the foreign exchange control board? If so, when?
4.	Is this gold held at the present time by the foreign exchange control board?
5.	If gold reserves are held by the foreign exchange control board, what connection with or control does the Bank of Canada have over it?
6.	If gold reserves are held by the foreign exchange control board, what connection with or control does the federal government have over it?
7.	Who is the actual owner of this gold?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	No. .
2.	No.
3.	Yes, May 1, 1940.
4.	Section 10(1) of the Exchange Fund Act, chapter 60 of the statutes of Canada, 1935, provides-
"No person employed in the service of His Majesty or of the Bank of Canada shall com-munciate or allow to be communicated to any person not legally entitled thereto under the provisions of this act or by direction of the minister, any information with respect to the operation of the said special account, or allow any such person to inspect or have access to any written statement with respect to the said account."
5.	The Bank of Canada was appointed technical adviser to the foreign exchange control board under the foreign exchange control order
Questions

and by agreement with the board is authorized to act as agent or banker for the board and to deal in foreign exchange and otherwise assist or act on behalf of the board. (Section 4(1) of the foreign exchange control order). The governor of the Bank of Canada is chairman of the foreign exchange control board.
6.	The foreign exchange control board is a government agency operating under the supervision of the Minister of Finance, subject to the provisions of section 5 of the Exchange Fund Act, and unless otherwise ordered by the Minister of Finance in writing, all moneys in the special account referred to in section 4 of the said act, and investments of such moneys, shall be at the disposal of the board and may be used or dealt with by the board as the board may deem, necessary, or as the Minister of Finance may direct, for the purposes of the Exchange Fund Act or the foreign exchange control order, including the payment of any expenses or losses of the board1 and the acquisition or disposition of foreign exchange, and all receipts or profits of the board shall be placed in the said special account. (Section 5(2) of the foreign exchange control order).
7.	The government of Canada.


MOBILIZATION ACT-DISCHARGES
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many men following enrolment under the National Resources Mobilization Act were discharged in each of the months of April, May and June, 1944?
2.	Of these, how many were discharged, (a) on physical grounds, and (b) for compassionate reasons?


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: 1.	April-according to documents received1 at the records office up to July 5, 1944-1,125; May-according to documents received at the records office up to July 5, 1944-1,003; June- estimated-1,000.
2.	April-of the 1,125 men discharged, 712 were discharged medically unfit and 24 on compassionate grounds; May-of the 1,003 men discharged, 651 weTe discharged medically unfit and 17 on compassionate grounds; June- of the estimated number of 1,000 men discharged, it is estimated that 650 were discharged medically unfit and 15 on compassionate grounds.
Note: Figures for the month of June have been- estimated to allow for the proportion of documents pertaining to that month still outstanding at July 5, 1944.
The figures given above relate to all men enrolled under the National Resources Mobi-
(Mr. Ilsley.]
lization Act since the act came into operation; but do not include discharges of men enrolled who subsequently enlisted for general service in the army.


SUBSIDIES TO BEDDING INDUSTRY
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	What percentage of claims for subsidy payments made upon the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation, by the bed'ding industry, have been investigated by said corporation?
2.	With reference to the investigated claims referred to in question 1, what is the total amount of money claimed or paid to date, and what is the total amount of money recovered by the corporation on account of such subsidies?
3.	From how many firms in the bedding industry have recoveries been made by the corporation on a compulsory basis?
4.	Has the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation laid charges against any bedding manufacturers, or is the laying of any such charges contemplated? If so, in how many cases?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Of the total claims paid or withdrawn approximately 97 per cent have been investigated.
2.	Total investigated claims to June 21, 1944, SI,031,452.39.
Claims disallowed or reclaimed $301,278.45
Claims voluntarily refunded..	131,664.54
Claims withdrawn prior to payment	 285,309.50

3.	Claims have been disallowed or payments made have been reclaimed wholly or in part by the corporation in the case of 45 firms. Such adjustments were required for various reasons. For example, it may have been found, no investigation, that accounting or arithmetical errors were made in reckoning subsidy; or that the costing principles used by the applicant were not approved by the corporation; or that the goods in question were used in the manufacture of goods for export or for sale to the Department of Munitions and Supply; or that there were infractions of the maximum prices regulations in connection with the goods on which subsidy was claimed; or that degradation of quality of finished goods has occurred, with the result that current costs were not properly comparable with basic costs used in calculating subsidy.
4.	The corporation has not laid charges against any bedding manufacturers. The laying of such charges is contemplated in two cases.


WARTIME OILS LIMITED
Mr. MacNICOL:: 1. How much money has been spent by Wartime Oils Ltd. in exploring for oil?
2.	How much was so spent in Turner valley?
3.	How much was spent elsewhere?
i.	Where were funds spent other than in Turner valley?	. .
5.	Does government policy prohibit activity
in the province of Saskatchewan by Wartime Oils?	.
6. How many wells have been drilled by Wartime Oils Ltd. in each location, (a) producers, and (b) non-producers, and what is the productive capacity of each producing well?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Wartime Oils Limited is not engaged in exploring or drilling for oil. It is a company
Questions
formed for the purpose of financing the drilling of wells in the marginal area of Turner valley. Each applicant for financing is required to submit two sites which are grouped together and the production from either or both of these wells is made available for repayment to Wartime Oils Limited for any sums advanced to the applicant for drilling. As of June 30, the sum of $2,615,325.12 had been so advanced.
2.	$2,615,325.12.
3.	Nil.
4.	See answer to question 3.
5.	Yes. See also answers to questions 1 and 2.
6.	As of June 30, twelve wells have been completed, with the following results:
Completed Wells
Anglo No. 10	
Producing	Allowable production 75 barrelsAnglo No. 12	
Producing	100 barrelsCalmont 1A	
Producing	300 barrelsChinook No. 1	
Producing	75 barrelsLion-Sunray No. 3	
Producing	80 barrelsOkalta No. 12	50 barrelsOkalta No. 13	
Producing	50 barrelsOkalta No. 14	30 barrelsOkalta No. 15	
Producing	100 barrelsPacific No. 6	
Producing	300 barrelsValley No. 1	
Producing	50 barrels
Remarks
Producing about 30 barrels.
Producing about 100 barrels.
Producing about 225 barrels.
Producing about 60 barrels.
Producing about 60 barrels.
Producing about 85 barrels.
Producing about 25 barrels.
Producing about 25 barrels.
Producing about 70 barrels.
Acidizing and testing.
New equipment has been installed and oil is being produced intermittently as adjustments are being made in the production equipment. Appears to be capable of over 200 barrels per day when adjustments are completed.
Producing about 40 barrels.
As of the same date there were ten wells drilling at depths as shown hereunder. There
have been no non-productive wells drilled to date. Name of Company and Well Ls. Sec. Tp.	Range	Depth, June 30/44 RemarksAnglo Canadian No. 13	. 6	25	19	3	7,106 feetAnglo Canadian No. 14	. 12	25	19	3	5,502 feetCalmont No. 2A	. 16	35	19	3	610 feet Spudded June 26/44Chinook No. 2	. 9	26	19	3	7,896 feetOkalta No. 16	. 15	35	19	3	5.010 feetOkalta No. 17	. 9	24	19	3	5,473 feet .Okalta No. 19	. 14	18	19	2	4,517 feetOkalta No. 20	. 13	24	19	3	7,760 feetPacific No. 7	. 11	25	19	3	6,145 feetValley No. 2	. 3	36	19	3	2,650 feet
464S
Questions


POWELL RIVER, B.C., DOCK AND WHARF FACILITIES
Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	Did the government of Canada enter into an agreement with the Powell River Company of Powell River, B.C., in the year 1910, providing for the right of access by the general public to the docks or wharves situated at Powell River?
2.	Is there a government wharf at Powell River at the terminus of the government road?
3.	Has the government been in negotiation with the Powell River Company for the disposal of the government wharf to the said Powell River Company?
4.	Has a new agreement been made or an understanding arrived at by which the agreement of 1910 is to be abrogated and the public use of the wharf previously owned by the government to be cancelled?
5.	Has the government received any representations from any organizations or persons in Powell River protesting against the cancellation of the old agreement?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	The government wharf has been sold to the Powell River Company, Limited, for $50,000 as a result of a long series of negotiations, wherein the company have shown that they have a post-war expansion programme, which incorporates the material enlargement of their industrial establishment at Powell River in the amount of $13,000,000. To carry out this post-war programme, the area on which the government wharf is located will be required as a site for the various buildings and facilities included in the above development. Certain parts of this development are to be undertaken immediately and work has already started on the necessary dredging in the vicinity of the wharf.
4.	Yes, subject to the condition that the company shall give proper accommodation at its own wharf to the present traffic at Powell River, until suitable wharfage facilities have been provided by the department at Westview.
5.	No.


ALASKA HIGHWAY-REPORT AS TO DESTRUCTION OR ABANDONMENT OF STORES
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	Has the government any knowledge of the destruction or abandonment of stores, such as blankets, furnaces, office furniture or other items, in the Alaska highway area?
"2. Has the government received any offers in connection with any such stores from the government of the United States, or any agency thereof ?

3.	If any such offers were received, what were the terms and conditions thereof?
4.	If the government has not received any such reports, would it undertake to make an investigation ?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	See reply to 2.
4.	Since notice of the question was given, enquiries have been made through the special commissioner for defence projects in northwest Canada (Major-General W. W. Foster). The special commissioner has informed the government that investigations do not reveal that usable stores and equipment are being destroyed or abandoned as reported.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. DORION:: 1.	Is Mr. Harry Mayerovitch in the employ of the national film board?
2.	If so, (a) since when; (b) what is his occupation; (c) what is his remuneration; (d) what were his former occupations; (e) what is his racial origin; (f) is he a British subject by naturalization or by birth?
Mr. LaFLECHE:
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Since April 12, 1943.	(b) Art Director, Graphics division, (c) $350 a month, (d) Practised his profession of architecture and painting. (e) and (f) Canadian born of Jewish descent.


INDIANS-MILITARY SERVICE
Mr. DORION:: Following the interview given by the Honourable the Minister of Mines and Resources to a delegation of Indians at Ottawa on June 7, 1944, has a decision been arrived at by the government concerning the call to military service of young Indians and taxation on the income of Indians?


Mr. CRERAR:: No decision has yet been reached. The matter is still under consideration by the government.


SHERBROOKE INTERNMENT CAMP-LIEUT .-COLONEL GRAHAM
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Has Lieutenant-Colonel Graham, now in command of the Sherbrooke internment camp, ever been on service at Barriefield?
2.	If so, between what dates?


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.

Questions as Orders jor Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	What are the basic hourly wage rates, bonuses, overtime and living allowances being paid for the different classes of trades at the following naval shipbuilding yards in Nova Scotia: John LeBlanc, Weymouth, N.S.; Clare Shipbuilding Company, Meteghan, N.S.; Brookfield Construction Company, Mahone Bay, N.S.?
2.	From what dates have these rates been in effect?
3.	Have the labour organizations or representatives of the workmen at any of these shipyards been negotiating for a schedule of rates and, if so, from what date?
4.	Are there any delays in decision and, if so, when is it expected it will be made?


Mr. MITCHELL:: Return tabled.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-PERSONNEL IN OTTAWA AND ABROAD
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	What is the total number of, (a) men, and (b) women employed by the Department of External Affairs in each of Canada's representations abroad?
2.	With reference to the totals given in answer to question 1, (a) how many were born in Canada; (b) how many were born in other countries; (c) what countries, and how many in each; (d) how many received all of their education in Canada; (e) how many received part or all of their education in other countries; Of) what countries; and how many in each; (g) how many are able to use the Spanish language?
3.	What is the total number of, (a) men, and (.b) women employed by the Department of External Affairs, at Ottawra?
4.	With reference to the totals given in answ'er to question 3, (a) how many were born in Canada; (b) how many wore born in other countries; (c) what countries, and how many in each; (cl) how many received all of their education in Canada; (e) how many received part or all of their education in other countries;
(f) what countries; and how many in each;
(g) how many are able to use the Spanish language?


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	Does Mr. J. E. Fraser of Sherbrooke, N.S., hold a position as commanding officer or other position with the reserve army or military organization at St. Mary's municipality?
2.	If so, what has been his remuneration and expenses to date ?
3.	Is he employed as mail carrier between Sherbrooke and Sheet Harbour or other points?
4.	If so, how long has he been so employed, when does his contract terminate and what is he paid per year?


Mr. GILLIS:: 1.	What is the total number of personnel in each rank senior to that of corporal, now in the reserve army, who are of military age?
2.	Of the numbers indicated in the answer to question 1, how many joined the reserve army, (a) prior to September 1, 1939; (b) between September 1, 1939 and September 1, 1940; (c) since September 1, 1940?


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	On what date was the industrial mobilization survey committee for the district of Quebec created?
2.	With the exception of Peter Bartleman, who are the members of said committee, and what is the technical experience of each?
3.	Upon whose recommendation, by whom, and on what date was each one of the present members of such survey committee appointed?
4.	What are the age and military record of each member of such committee?


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Does Mr. Peter Bartleman represent the Department of Munitions and Supply on the industrial mobilization survey committee for the district of Quebec? If so, where and when was he born?
2.	If not born in Canada, when did he arrive in this country?
3.	What is his military record?
4.	What was his experience in industry, and in what capacity, at the time of his appointment to such committee?
5.	On what date "was he appointed to such committee?


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Are there any members of industrial mobilization survey committees outside the military district of Quebec?
2.	If so, in what districts, who are the members thereof and their duties, and on what date was each one appointed?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. HOMUTH:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents passing between the dominion government, and/or any agency thereof, and the W. R. Carpenter (Canada) Limited, and/or any other company or individual, with respect to the construction by W. R. Carpenter (Canada) Limited of a flax processing plant at Hamilton, Ontario.


FLAX PROCESSING-VICTORY MILLS LIMITED
Karl Kenneth Homuth: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents passing between the dominion government, and/or any agency thereof, and the Victory Mills Limited of
Motions for Papers

Toronto, Ontario, and/or any other company or individual, with respect to the construction by Victory Mills Limited of a flax processing plant at Toronto, Ontario.


FLAX PROCESSING-PRAIRIE VEGETABLE OILS LIMITED
Karl Kenneth Homuth: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents passing between the dominion government and/or any agency thereof, and Prairie Vegetable Oils Limited of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, and/or any other company or individual, with respect to the construction by Prairie Vegetable Oils Limited of a flax processing plant at Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan.


FLAX PROCESSING-REDBERRY FOOD PRODUCTS LIMITED
Karl Kenneth Homuth: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents passing between the dominion government, and/or any agency thereof, and Redberry Food Products Limited of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and/or any other company or individual, with respect to the construction of a flax processing plant at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.


INDUSTRIAL MOBILIZATION SURVEY COMMITTEES- ORDERS IN COUNCIL
Mr. POULIOT:: For a copy of all orders in council establishing industrial mobilization survey committees.


INDUSTRIAL MOBILIZATION SURVEY COMMITTEES- PROCEDURE IN APPLICATIONS FOR POSTPONEMENT, ETC.
Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of the instructions given to the industrial mobilization survey committees concerning the procedure to be followed in the case of applications made by draftees for postponement of their military training, and by soldiers for leave or extension of military leave.
'	FRANCE


AGREEMENT WITH FRENCH COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL LIBERATION-VISIT OF GENERAL DE GAULLE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Reports indicate that a draft agreement between the United Kingdom and the French Committee of National Liberation relating to the administration of liberated areas of France is now under consideration, and that in view of the joint nature of the operations such an agreement will require the adherence of the United States to become effective. Will the Prime Minister inform the house whether the Canadian government 's being kept fully advised in the matter, and
IMr. Homuth.]
if Canada will be a party to the agreement? Will this matter be one of the subjects of the conversation between the Prime Minister and General Charles de Gaulle on his visit to Ottawa ?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: In reply to my hon. friend I would say that the government has been kept informed of the conversations that have taken place with respect to the matter to which he has just referred; but it is not expected that Canada will necessarily become a party to any projected agreement.
As hon. members are aware, General de Gaulle will be here to-morrow. I expect to have an opportunity to discuss with him many matters of mutual interest and concern to France and Canada. The subject to which my hon. friend has referred may be one of the questions to be taken up at that time.
While I am speaking of General de Gaulle I may mention that the general is expected to arrive in the city by plane in the morning. Arrangements have been made for a welcome to be extended to him on parliament hill at a quarter after twelve. Seats will be provided for members of parliament in front of the peace tower where General de Gaulle will speak. The General will be the guest of His Excellency the Governor General and Princess Alice at Government house during his stay in the city. The government will give a dinner in honour of General de Gaulle in the evening and on the following day he will be leaving early in the morning for brief visits to Montreal and Quebec. That is the extent of the programme for General de Gaulle's visit to Canada that I am able to give at the moment.


CANADIAN FORCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON .GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):	Have any of the three defence
ministers, on behalf of the armed forces from the province of Quebec, made protests or representations against the decision of the premier and the government of the province of Quebec which appears to disfranchise at the forthcoming provincial election those in the armed forces overseas or stationed elsewhere than in that province?
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence) :: Speaking for myself, I have not
made any representation.

Canadian Forces
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services): I have not seen the statement in question; therefore I cannot give any answer to my hon. friend at -the moment.


Gordon Graydon: I should like to urge
upon the ministers the necessity of their doing something on behalf of the men who are in the navy, the army and the air force. I ask this question because the three ministers are the spokesmen of the men in the services, and it does appear as though no one but a sailor, soldier or airman who happens to be in the province of Quebec when the election takes place will have the opportunity of exercising his franchise. So far as I know this is the first provincial election in which this situation has arisen.


DISTURBANCES AT PETAWAWA CAMP
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Has any investigation been made as to reports of recent disturbances at Peta-wawa camp, and if so, will the Minister of National Defence inform the house as to the cause and nature of the disturbances and -the steps which are being taken to ensure that there will be no recurrence?


James Layton Ralston: I have had telephone inquiries
made, and the information which I have with regard to one training centre-there are two- is that at this centre, presided over by Colonel Johnston, the only disturbance in recent days took place two weeks ago in the neighbourhood of the canteen, when two general servicemen got into an altercation with regard to a speech which has had a good deal of publicity in the newspapers. The soldiers were separated before a fight actually took place. The officer commanding the training centre also says positively this is the only disturbance that he knows of in this camp or in his training centre for a considerable time past.
The other training centre is A-2. I have not the name of the commanding officer. An incident occurred there about two months ago in which there was a rumour that -there was a fight between a N.R.M.A. soldier and a general serviceman. Inquiry was made and it was found out that altercation did start in the canteen, but it was immediately stopped and there was no further disturbance. There were only two men involved in each case.
Inquiry from the chief of police of Pembroke shows that there has been no fighting by soldiers in the town of Pembroke for the last three months. The troops have been well-behaved. Brigadier Thackeray, who is in command of Petawawa camp, states that there was no necessity to use a fire hose, as reported in the newspapers, to quell a disturbance because there have been no disturbances.


ACCIDENT AT MOUNT ST. BRUNO RANGES ON JULY 6
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Will the Minister of National Defence give the house such information as he has with respect to the serious military accident which took place at the Mount St. Bruno ranges on July 6, when the premature explosion of a bomb inside a mortar in the course of a training session is reported to have claimed the fives of some nine soldiers and sent many others to the hospital in a serious condition?


James Layton Ralston: I am afraid I have not any information at my disposal at the moment which has not appeared in the press. As a matter of fact- a court of inquiry convened on Saturday and was still sitting when I last heard of it. When I received my hon. friend's question before coming into the chamber I asked that a telephone call be put through to military district No. 4. I have not had a reply as yet. I would assume that the court of inquiry is still sitting. I am sorry to say I think the fatal casualties were one more than my hon. friend mentioned. I think there were ten fatal casualties altogether.


R. C. A. F.-LABRADOR AIR BASE-BOMBER CRASH ON JULY 6
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to direct a question to the Parliamentary Assistant of the Minister of National Defence for Air. I have sent the minister's office notice of this question and it may not have come to the attention of the parliamentary assistant. If not, he may take this as a notice. Following up a Canadian Press dispatch which was carried in the newspapers of Saturday, I should be glad if the Minister of National Defence for Air would give the house such information as he can with respect to the accident which is alleged to have occurred on Friday, July 6, when eleven men were reported to have been killed in a twin-engined reconnaissance bomber which crashed while taking off from a Labrador air base.


Hon. CYRUS MACMILLAN (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence for Air):: A court of inquiry has been established and is investigating this accident. Information will be given as soon as possible.
Mobilization Act


MERCHANT NAVY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I have received a complaint
from the Cheerio War Service club, which services many men and women in the armed forces with cigarettes and other comforts, stating that merchant seamen do not appear to be entitled to the standard package of three hundred cigarettes on the same basis as those in the armed services. Will the Minister of Transport or the Postmaster General inform the house whether or not this is correct, and, if so, why these seamen, whose duties are among the most hazardous of all, are not placed upon the same basis as the armed forces so far as cigarettes are concerned?


Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Transport) :: Merchant seamen would be entitled to the same privileges that are being extended to members of the armed forces if it were physically possible to send them cigarettes without disclosing the destination of the ships on which the seamen are serving. However, cigarettes and tobacco are made available to seamen on the ships on which they serve at very much reduced rates.


Gordon Graydon: Surely the objection in regard to disclosing the destination of a ship would apply in the same way to the navy, but there does not seem to be any difficulty so far as men in the navy are concerned.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It is possible that the
management of the naval and merchant ships is not the same, and for that reason the service cannot be extended to the seamen.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps the minister
would give the matter further consideration?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It has been given consideration already, but we will consider the matter further to see if the service can be made available to merchant seamen.



MOBILIZATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, for which apparently he is prepared, in connection with the speech reported to have been delivered yesterday by Premier Godbout of the province of Quebec. Reference was made to certain orders or

regulations that have not yet been brought before this parliament, and the speech as a whole refers to the fact that any farmers' sons now in the service, or those who have not complied with military service regulations, or even those who may be considered deserters from the army, will be given exemption from military service if they obtain certificates from their mayors and agronomists. Later on he is reported to have said:
If there is in the province one farmer's son, an employee on the farm, who did not comply with-


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I rise to a point of order. Under paragraph 298 of Beauchesne, third edition, this is entirely out of order.


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot very well ask the question unless I place before the minister the statement on which it is based.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I read the authority for my interruption:
Questions asked orally on the orders of the day being called must not be prefaced by the reading of letters, telegrams, newspaper extracts or preambles of any kind.


Mr. SPEAKER:: There is no doubt as to the rule. If the hon. member wishes to address his question without giving the direct quotation, he might very well paraphrase the article.


John George Diefenbaker: The question I wish to ask, then, is based upon a statement purporting to have been made by Premier Godbout, which is most revealing and-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -destructive of
unity. It refers to orders and regulations that have not been brought before this parliament under which men who are farmers' sons of one province, whether deserters or otherwise, are to be exempted. My questions are these. Were any such orders or regulations passed that have not been laid before parliament; was Premier Godbout given any confidential information along this line which would permit him to make that statement; and is it a fact that in the province of Quebec farmers in the home defence army are to be discharged?


Humphrey Mitchell: I noticed in the newspaper this morning the report to which my hon. friend refers. I have not read the official text of the speech by the premier of Quebec, which I understand was given in French, but I can say without equivocation that there is no arrangement in any part of Canada for dealing with men under the mobilization regulations

The Budget-Mr. Ralston
except in accordance with the terms of the regulations laid before this House of Commons or otherwise made known to the public.


Gordon Graydon: If I may ask the minister a supplementary question, from the reported speech of the premier of the province of Quebec it would seem that this matter is dealt with in that province differently from the way it is dealt with in other parts of the dominion. Will the minister indicate whether the statement in the press is in accordance with the regulations?


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman is asking what he calls a supplementary question, which is not permitted under the rules. He is also making a statement in regard to a question which has been answered by the minister.


Gordon Graydon: The government has not attempted to answer this question at all.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think perhaps my hon. friend's question should be answered, and the answer is no.


Gordon Graydon: Then may I ask the Prime Minister whether he authorized the premier of Quebec to mention all the subjects which are referred to in the press report.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may tell my hon. friend that I have not read the premier's speech. My time is too much taken up with international affairs for me to be worrying over provincial matters at the present time. But if my hon. friend is uneasy as to what I may have been saying to Premier Godbout I may tell him that I have had no conversation with the premier of Quebec authorizing him on any matter about the provincial election.


Gordon Graydon: Apparently he has had some conversation with the right hon. gentleman, from what he says.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, he has not.



ARCTIC AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: According to a press dispatch from Edmonton under date of July 8, Vice-President Henry Wallace of the United States gave an interview in that city in which he advocated an international conference between Russia, United States and Canada concerning arctic affairs, and he emphasized the urgency of having such a meeting. Could either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Mines and Resources tell
us whether Canada has taken any steps to bring about such a meeting, and if not, will Canada do so?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The suggestion deserves
consideration, but up to the present time consideration has not been given any conference between Russia, Canada and the United States. In due course such steps will be taken as may seem advisable.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to remind
hon. members that some days ago, when we decided to sit Wednesday afternoons, there was an expression of view which seemed to be pretty general that we might sit Wednesday evenings as well. If the house is agreeable I would move that we sit Wednesday evenings from now on, beginning on Wednesday of the present week. I should like to throw out the further suggestion that beginning on Monday of next week the house might sit mornings. I think matters have progressed far enough to permit morning sittings to begin a week from to-day; and unless there is a real desire to have the proceedings of parliament continue on into the autumn it will be necessary for us to take some step of this nature very soon.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, July 6, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. L. Usley (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and. means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Rowe.
James Layton Ralston: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take the time of the house this afternoon in discussing the financial provisions of the budget which were so convincingly set out by my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) with the clarity and forcefulness which are characteristic of every presentation he makes to this house. Neither am I going to discuss the financial clauses of the amendment provided by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). I want to get down to the clause in the amendment which deals with man-power. What I want to do, first, is to tell the house what purposes the N.R.M.A.
The Budget-Mr. Ralston

personnel in this country are serving; secondly, what I can about the situation with regard to reinforcements, and, thirdly, our reasons for recruiting.
In the first place I want to say this, that there is no formation or organization in Canada known as the home defence army. What is referred to are men in the Canadian Army to-day who have been called up for service in Canada. Those men are not in any one formation or organization. They are scattered throughout the ranks of the Canadian Army in Canada, and in practically every branch of that army.
There seems to be an idea that the seventy odd thousand men referred to in the amendment are hived somewhere, or that they are sitting around doing nothing. That is quite untrue, as I think I shall show. The N.R.M.A. personnel, that is the personnel called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act, consists at the present time of something like 73,000. There were 144.000 of them enrolled altogether; in other words, 70,000 of them have gone active or been discharged. Most of those could not measure up to the army medical standards for overseas, and they have been released for civilian work.
I should like hon. members for a moment or two to look into just what these individuals are doing. Here is a break-down with respect to those 73,000 men. About 35,000 of them are on operational duties. About 13,000 of them are on non-operational duties. About
14.000	of them are in training centres. About
4.000	are in depots-wings which have to do with appraisal and placement and rehabilitation. Over 7,000 are on leave,' or are on assigned duty, doing civilian work. That makes up the 73,000.
There are only three of those classes to which one has to pay much attention so far as describing their duties is concerned. First there are those engaged in operational duties, numbering, as I said, about 35,000. Then come those engaged in non-operational duties, to the number of 13,000, and the 14,000 in training centres. The men in depots, it will be understood, are there for purposes of replacement and reappraisement as to their suitability for jobs, and are posted as jobs come up.
Mr. GRAYDON; In connection with the
14.000	in training centres, I take it that those men are undergoing training now. Am I correct in that?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, that is correct. Then, the 7,000 on leave or on assigned duty require no explanation. I wish hon. members to bear in mind that figure when the discussion comes

up from time to time as to what the army is doing in respect of supplying man-power for civilian purposes.
I shall not have time this afternoon to deal with every aspect of the matter I should like to deal with, but I should like just to underline here the fact that something like 7,000 of these N.R.M.A. men are to-day on leave doing civilian jobs-and about 4,000 of general service personnel in addition.
The operational units are scattered from Prince Rupert to Jamaica. They are on the Pacific coast in about a dozen positions, and on the Atlantic coast in about 15 different locations. They are in Newfoundland, in Labrador, at Nassau, Bermuda and Jamaica. In addition to that, a body of these operational troops are doing anti-sabotage duty in the interior of this country. They are engaged also in coast artillery work, signals, anti-aircraft, searchlights, engineers, infantry- they are in almost every branch of the army which provides supply, equipment and other services for operational troops.
There are in addition some in special training at the present time for certain types of operation in which they might be required. That number is included in this 35,000, and would equal about two brigade groups or a little more than that. These operational troops I have mentioned are in locations extending from Prince Rupert to Jamaica. So far as the Pacific and Atlantic coasts particularly were concerned, these operational troops were disposed after consultation with our friends in the United States in connection with the joint defence plan. Hon. members will recall that back in 1942, after Pearl Harbor, insistent demands were made for more troops. At that time the sixth, seventh and eighth divisions were authorized, and immediately all these men were called up. Kiska came in August of 1943. Immediately after Kiska the army disbanded two of those divisions, namely the seventh and eighth. There was a good deal of furore at the time; people thought we were going out of the war. What we thought we were doing was something which was extremely desirable and proper-that is, to release men, if we could, to civilian life. N.R.M.A. men physically unfit for overseas service who were not required for service in Canada were discharged. Other N.R.MA. men not fit for overseas service were posted to replace and release for overseas service general service men who were physically fit for that service. The N.R.M.A. men physically fit for overseas service and who were released by the disbandment were trained as potential reinforcements for overseas service. That was in August, 1943.

The Budget-Mr. Ralston
Somebody asks: Well, what about this matter of defence, anyway? I wish to say this frankly, that since the invasion of a few weeks ago the situation has changed considerably. We had maintained a very limited number of these operational troops on the two coasts- limited, I mean, in the sense that there were a large number of posts they had to look after, and therefore the numbers in any one location were comparatively small. In Labrador and Newfoundland they formed local reserves, and were on aerodrome defence and) anti-aircraft defence. We had to employ these troops according to the needs of defence as determined by what we call the probable scales of .attack which were laid down by the staffs of the United States and Canada. Those scales of attack mean this, that those who know about these matters, staffs w'ho are familiar with the strategic situation, appraise the possibilities and come to the conclusion as to what likely form of enemy attack might be practicable, what form of attack might be expected, and what the nature and extent of that attack might be. They consider also where such attack might possibly come. Troops are then disposed and posted, having those possible scales of enemy attack in view. Hon. members will understand that. On the two coastlines of Canada the troops have been located in bodies of appropriate size at strategic points. I recall that less than a year ago-about the year's end-there was an alarm -in fact one on the Atlantic coast and one on the Pacific coast. I can well imagine what would have been the criticism levelled at the Department of National Defence had there .not been some troops to stand to at that time. Nevertheless the situation, as I say, has changed. At the present time there is under discussion the question of the necessity for operational troops at certain points with a view to a further reduction.
Now, with regard to anti-sabotage. There is a considerable body of troops being used in connection with a particular installation in Canada, and those troops are now disposed in the guarding of that particular development. So much for the 35,000 N.R.M.A. men in operational troops-and1 that is about half of the 73,000 men to whom reference has been made so often and who have been referred to in the amendment.
I now come to non-operational troops, numbering, as I have said, some 13,000. These are troops on training centre staffs, training school staffs, training organization staffs, and personnel employed as administrative personnel, firemen, general duty personnel, clerks, drivers, mechanics and cooks. These men are engaged in service of the establishments of the Canadian Army in Canada, and those establishments, in turn, form the base for equipment and reinforcement for our Canadian Army overseas.
These men are employed with the R.C. E.M.E., which is the corps of electrical and mechanical engineers which has, among other things, to do with the maintenance of vehicles. Perhaps when I tell the house that something like 20,000 to 30,000 vehicles have to be maintained and serviced, hon. members will realize why it takes a considerable number of men to do this work. These men are employed at the establishments in Canada which not only services the equipment produced in Canadian factories for Canada but also provides for the crating and the preparing for shipment of all equipment which goes to the united nations from our productive industries. The house might be interested in knowing that in this particular establishment there are over 150 carloads inward and 150 carloads outward practically every day. These N.R.M.A.. men are employed in large numbers there.
Ordnance handles everything for the army except food and medical stores, and these men are employed at ordnance depots and establishments at headquarters and across the country in large numbers. N.R.M.A. personnel work at the London central mechanization depot and they work at certain special experimental establishments.
In the army service corps N.R.M.A. personnel are employed as drivers, general duty men, supply depot personnel, butchers, bakers and cooks. They are employed also in hospitals and other medical units as well as in headquarters and servicing units where they work in the pay corps, postal corps, corps of military staff clerks and as general duty personnel.
All these men are part of the personnel used to service the army both in Canada and overseas. The big bulk of N.R.M.A. men among the non-operational personnel are for servicing duties, for which general service personnel would otherwise be required. I should also say that the N.R.M.A. personnel help to make up the army service corps detachments which service the navy and air force. They are employed also in woodcutting detachments and in port companies.
Next come the 14,000 N.R.M.A. in the training stream, at training centres, schools and other establishments. These men when trained are used to replace and release general service personnel; to replace N.R.M.A. personnel not medically fit for overseas and they are also a potential pool for reinforcements for overseas if the need should arise.
465ti
The Budget-Mr. Ralston

I have already spoken of the 4,000 odd N.R.M.A. men in the depots to which they are allocated or where they are reassigned to jobs for which they may be fitted.
I have also spoken of the 7,000 on leave or on assigned duties. This would cover men on compassionate leave, compassionate farm leave, industrial leave, lumbering leave, forestry leave, coal mining leave, spring leave and other leave.
That is the home defence army so-called. It is made up of personnel who are serving, as I said, not only from one side of this continent to the other but from the Pacific ocean down into the Caribbean. Except those who are on leave or in depots, all these men are on posts or in training. Quite a few of them are enlisting for general service and in due time will go overseas if they are of a suitable age and category and are fit. So that we have these men, equal in numbers to two brigade groups, who are in the training centres and who if the emergency should arise and the necessary action were taken could be made available promptly to be sent as reinforcements. That would be subject, of course, to the fact that the men in the training centres would have to complete their training.
You say to me, "What will happen if this home defence army in Canada is reduced, if the operational troops in Canada are reduced?" My policy will be to discharge, first, those who are unfit for overseas service to the extent that they can be spared. There will probably not be many who can be spared. They will be used to release for training N.R.M.A. men who are fit for service overseas. Our policy will be to use men fit for overseas service to make up a smaller number of operational units. These units would be composed of men fit for overseas service to the greatest extent possible. Fit men who are made available because of the reduced establishment in operational units in Canada would also go into training units in order that they might be trained for whatever service might be necessary. N.R.M.A. men unfit for overseas would also be used to replace general service men in order to release them for overseas.
I suggest that the statement which I have given regarding the activities of the N.R.M.A. personnel rather destroys the foundation for the regret which was registered by the amendment moved by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe. We have to have men in Canada, not only to perform defence duties and for internal security, but to provide the service necessary for training and equipping the men in our overseas army. We can no more disband these troops wholesale than can the navy or the air force disband the establishments which they have in Canada and which are
#!
necessary to the valiant service being rendered by our sailors and airmen on every battle front. There are large numbers in all three services, even of those who have volunteered but who will not be able to gratify their ambition to go overseas because they are necessary in Canada. I repeat that we shall if possible reduce considerably the number of operational troops, but those who are fit and can be released from operational duties will be put in training to be ready for any emergency.
The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe talked about disbanding these N.R.M.A. men and sending them back to the farm and industry. May I say to him that I have no idea of disbanding or discharging physically fit men from the Canadian army, either N.R.M.A. men or general service personnel, while our men overseas are engaged in the greatest conflict of all time, and so long as these men or some of them may be needed as reinforcements. Their training and fitness for service must be kept up.
I do not want the house to think that if the whole 73,000 of the N.R.MA. personnel were sent to England instead of being kept in Canada, that would end the call-up or end recruiting. I am determined to provide for every emergency if I can, and until someone who knows can guarantee to me that it is not necessary any longer, I will keep on recruiting and calling up men in order to have a backlog over here of trained and fit men if an emergency should come.
I want to make this further point in connection with the demand that is always made on the army for men for civilian work. I do not think the people of Canada or the members of this house realize how many men the army has discharged to civilian work. During the last six months we have discharged nearly 5,000 a month, or a total of 30,000 men, of whom about 7,000 were N.R.M.A. personnel. These men have gone back into the civilian manpower pool. While not physically fit for the army they can be utilized in large measure for civilian work. I want to say that the army is not holding on to any men it can spare who are not medically fit for service overseas.
There is another service which the army performs, and I think my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) will agree with me in this. By the call-up the army is providing an opportunity to check the man-power of this country and to divert and direct them into suitable channels. The army rejects nearly fifty per cent of the men who present themselves for enlistment or for enrolment under the N.R.M.A., and so far as the N.R.M.A. personnel are concerned those men

The Budget-Mr. Ralston
are rechecked by the national selective service officers who may direct them to suitable employment, This means that the army call-up has brought out thousands of men and made them available for more useful and essential work.
So much for the N.R.M.A. personnel. The statement I have just made is not one that is made for the first time. The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe could have looked up the record in Hansard for the early days of the session and he would have found that I had made almost the same elaboration of the duties being performed by these men. But he just elects in his amendment to assume that these men are doing nothing and that they may be at any moment moved out of the Canadian army organization in Canada and either sent back to the farming industry or moved overseas. I submit that that picture is far from being a true one.
With regard to the matter of reinforcements, an attempt has been made to regard the call for recruits in this country as evidence of an immediate need of reinforcements. The talk had been as if the recruiting activities were because of that need. But I would point out-and it seems to me that it does not take much imagination to realize it without having it specifically pointed out-that recruiting is not for the purpose of providing immediate reinforcements. Recruiting would be no good to provide immediate reinforcements. Men have to be trained for reinforcement purposes for at least six months; and recruiting is for the purpose of replenishing and keeping up our flow of reinforcements six months from now. What we are doing from day to day is to get these men in and train them.
Now, with regard to the matter of reinforcements, I have spoken of this many times, but I am afraid I have not yet made it plain; apparently there is an idea that the only way we can replace casualties is by dispatching men direct from Canada. That is not so. On the contrary, we have overseas a large reinforcement pool, and that pool is calculated on a scale to provide reinforcements for a certain number of months of intense operations. As I have told the house repeatedly, the size of that pool is based on requirements which are calculated from experience and from the best forecast which can be made of casualties. The pool was formed so that we would have reinforcements ready without being dependent on immediate dispatches from Canada. That pool enabled us to make good in a matter of days the losses suffered in the opening phases of the invasion. Already
I have reports of the satisfaction of the commanders in the field, both in Italy and in France, with the efficient way in which reinforcements have been handled.
This is the position of the pool. My officers advise me that our reinforcement situation overseas at the end of June on an over-all basis was better than called for in our plans. That is on an over-all basis. But as I have said before, it is very difficult always to match supply with requirements in every trade and in every arm, in view of the inevitable variation in requirements. Any one of these trades or arms may receive a sudden demand when the others may remain for the time being almost untouched. The pattern of war changes constantly; and the responsible officers are continually comparing actual conditions with those forecast and are taking prompt action, by retraining and reallocation, to adjust for any situation which may be out of line with previous estimates. My advice is that subject to those adjustments between arms and trades the pool overseas was at the end of June at an adequate level for its purpose, and that is after allowing for casualties up to that date.
It must be understood that the reinforcement pool will not remain always at the same strength. It goes down and up, like a city reservoir which is drawn on heavily when a fire occurs and which rises gradually during normal times. There will no doubt be times ahead when the pool will be lowered very considerably, as casualties occur. It will be gradually raised later by monthly dispatches. 1 add this, that we are not counting in that pool those in hospital, no matter how soon they may be available-I do not mean only the wounded, but those temporarily or otherwise sick, so long as they are in hospital- or those attending courses in the United Kingdom. All those we class for the time being as non-effectives.
What are we going to do for the men to send over monthly-these monthly dispatches I have spoken of? The hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) said, "Where are these men to come from if not from this immobilized force, Canada's home army?" Well, I will try to tell him. We anticipate that from the general service men we actually have in hand at the present time we shall be able for some months to come to dispatch month by month the quotas of reinforcements we have planned for. I do not want to be overoptimistic, but I would say that we have in hand at the present time sufficient general service men to complete our quotas right up to the calendar year end.
The Budget-Mr. Ralston

Where do we get these men to dispatch? I am not talking about men enlisting, I am talking about men we actually ha-ve in hand. Well, we have general service personnel in training centres all over Canada, and we have general service men in operational and nonoperational units who are being made available as reinforcements by orderly withdrawal and replacement and, in some cases, retraining. I said in February that we had about sixty thousand of these. The number now stands at probably fifty thousand or better. Then, as I said in February, we have in addition about fifty thousand of these N.R.M.A. personnel of whom I spoke a little while ago, who would be of suitable age and category to be drawn on for overseas service if the necessity should arise and appropriate action were taken under N.R.MA. As I have indicated, those in the brigade groups who are fit could be sent quickly, and how many of the others could be sent would depend on the comparative need. Of course we must go short in Canada if the need is over there.
I have already stressed that the army in Canada has the task of servicing, equipping and reinforcing of the army overseas. That is the situation. But we cannot stop there. The war is not over. As I have said repeatedly, Hitler and Tojo are not licked. There will be big battles yet, and Canada will be in the thick of them. That brings me to this matter of activity about recruiting. People may ask, "Why all this activity? Why do we not stand on what we haye?" The answer is that we want to protect the position six months from now, and I am not content to rely on protecting that position by using draftees if we can reinforce our army with volunteers. Our recruiting activities are for the purpose of keeping up enlistments from now on so as to be able to maintain the stream of reinforcements from month to month. We want to get, if we can, an average of 4,000 a month or better from those not now in the army, and that figure may have to be reviewed, depending on the developments of the present operations.
From January to May inclusive the average number volunteering for general service was just about 3,800 general service men a month. Included in that average is about 600 N.R.M.A. personnel who enlisted for general service.
For June, according to the daily returns we have, the number volunteering will be over 6,000, and that includes between 2,500 and 3,000 N.R.MA. personnel who have enlisted for general service. I pause to ask if that is not a better way to utilize these N.R.MA. men for reinforcements. I know from reports I have received that enlisting gives them a new outlook, new self-respect, a determination that

comes from having made a great decision. And all that is bound to make them better soldiers.
Some of these former N.R.MA. men would have to be retrained in another arm of the service, but many of them are ready now for overseas service. But the civilians who are enlisting-who are just coming into the army for the first time-all have to be trained, and that takes six months at least if they are to get all the training we should like. That means that a man enlisting to-day from civilian life and put into training would not, in all probability, come out at the other end of the training stream and be ready to go overseas at the earliest before the 1st of January, 1945. So that the short answer to the question "Why are we recruiting,?" is that we are recruiting so that the flow of reinforcements six months from now will keep right on.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister
whether there has been any reduction in the length of training given to general service personnel in Canada?


James Layton Ralston: None that I know of.


Howard Charles Green: Is it intended that there
shall be a reduction?


James Layton Ralston: Not that I know of.
As I told the house in February, if current recruiting did not keep up, our quotas for dispatch overseas in the closing months of this year and in the first months of the new year would be down, and that would mean that if casualties occurred on the scale we calculated for, the pool overseas would be lowering instead of filling up. In that connection the house will be glad to know that from the very beginning of the campaign in the Mediterranean, all through Sicily and Italy, and in the Normandy invasion, the casualties, while substantial, have thus far been considerably below those for which we estimated. We devoutly hope that may continue, but we certainly must not bank on it. And so, I say, we are keeping right on now getting men to enlist for overseas service, and from what I have said you will see that there are two sources from which these enlistments can come-the N.R.M.A. men now in the arm}q and men enlisting from civilian life. We are placing before both these groups the needs overseas and asking them to join the army of volunteer soldiers which has distinguished itself in every operation in which it has taken part.
As I speak I am reminded that to-day is the anniversary of the invasion of Sicily. I am sure it is a red letter day in the history of the Canadian Army-a day on which

The Budget-Mr. Ralston
Canadians will look back with pride and thankfulness as they recall the exploits of that landing at Pachino and of the thirty-nine days following it, during which Sicily was [DOT] liberated.
There they made their place in the renowned Eighth Army. The reputation for soldiering which they won in Sicily was carried forward by the 1st Division and the Army Tank Brigade as abreast the British formation they spearheaded the landing on the toe of Italy at Reggio Calabria. Steadily and irresistibly they fought their way northward. Later they were joined by an Armoured Division, with which they formed the 1st Canadian Corps. The battles of Ortona and the Liri valley, the breaching of the Gustav and Adolf Hitler lines, were a few of the outstanding achievements which have written their names in shining letters on the pages of Canadian history.
For a long while the Canadian army was not in active operation. Young men went into the navy and the air force, many of them because they thought they could get into action sooner. The army to-day challenges any man who wants action and who wishes to help to finish the war and finish it quickly.
I have spoken of the sources of enlistments. These are the sources from which our overseas army is reinforced-the pool which is now overseas; the pool of general service men in Canada; the N.R.M.A. men now in the army who are enlisting because they see their duty; and young men in civilian life who cannot pick up a newspaper or listen to the radio without realizing that the call is to them. In addition, there are the drafted N.R.M.A. men who are potential overseas reinforcements if the need for sending them should arise and the necessary action is taken. About them and others who may be called up, I have made my position clear more than once in the house. That position is this-I am for keeping our army overseas 100 per cent volunteers if we can do it; but if we cannot maintain the army overseas with volunteers and it is necessary to send N.R.M.A. men, there can be no alternative for me but to recommend action under the act, and I shall do so. I simply want to point out that nearly two and a half years ago, when this same question was up in the house, I said:
I have faith in the success of the voluntary method if we all do our part. With the background and traditions which this country possesses, and which it would be folly to ignore,
I prefer the voluntary method if it works, and I shall do all I can to make it work.
That was in February, 1942. I think I can say that I have faithfully tried to raise and administer the Canadian army under the
voluntary system. Since that time when I spoke, 198,000 men have enlisted voluntarily in the army. That is an average of over 6,600 per month since February, 1942. The total voluntary enlistment in the three services in Canada since the time I spoke was 378,000 men. Those figures would seem to show that my faith in the voluntary system was justified then. I intend to try to see that it does not fail in this last long strong pull.
May I say a word about what I believe is the advantage of recruiting rather than conscripting. I can say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it would be much easier for my officers and myself if we could just by a stroke of the pen draft men for overseas service instead of adjusting, retraining and reorganizing to utilize the general service men, and campaigning for recruits to keep the flow up. But I do not think there is a man in Canada who knows, anything about these things who does not in his heart of hearts believe that where we have an army overseas which is 100 per cent volunteers it will be a better army if we can keep it that way. The men who are there have volunteered from a sense of duty. Is there not bound to be cleavage between them and those who, they feel, are wanting in the spirit of service which has carried them through tough times and enabled them to accomplish the impossible? Comradeship in war means everything and there are some members of the house who know that: the dependence of one man on the other, the confidence and friendship which grow up between men who have made the same great decision and who-fight each for the other. Men in that position have a sure knowledge that the man on the right or the left will not let the show down. That is esprit de corps, and it is one of the most vital things in battle. The operations of this war have been in fast, hard-hitting movement. Men in small groups scattered over a wide territory have had to be on their own. Canadian resourcefulness and initiative, born of a sense of duty, have made fighting men, with confidence in each other as members of a team, able to hold on and drive forward to overcome obstacles and rout the enemy in situations where nothing but loyalty to the cause could have succeeded. I think it almost goes without saying that any soldier on a dangerous task would prefer to have as comrades those who, like himself, had volunteered to serve.
I know that other countries have drafted armies. That is true of the United States, of Britain and of New Zealand, and I know the magnificent way they have fought. But their system of draft was in force practically from the very beginning. The men in the forces: are all on an equal level there, and the draft
The Budget-Mr. Ralston

was simply to decide who should go first and who would be best suited to go. In the early days in some of those countries a man could volunteer, but no stigma attached to a man because he was drafted; it simply indicated to the man that it was his turn. For better or for worse, that was not our system; it was agreed by both major parties in 1940 that it would not be. It is not the system in Australia. In Australia men who are called up can only be sent as far north as the equator, and Australia's contribution to the war has many times, and rightly so, been held up in this house as one that we should emulate. It is not the system in South Africa, where the only power to call men up for compulsory service is for service within the union itself. And South Africa has as her Prime Minister Field Marshal Smuts, whose war-mindedness has been worthily applauded throughout the commonwealth.
And so to sum up, Mr. Speaker. My job is to maintain our army overseas. My job is to do all I can to see that Canada backs to the limit her men who are overseas. If the sending of these N.R.M.A. men is necessary to maintain the army overseas at the present time, then I shall be for sending them. If it is necessary for that purpose at any time in the future, I shall be for sending them. But so long as volunteers enlist for that purpose, does anyone doubt that we would serve those soldiers overseas better by sending them volunteers like themselves instead of draftees?
And now if I may I wish just for a minute to step into' the sphere of my colleague the Minister of Finance. I have referred to this before, but there is an analogy that people sometimes miss, and I am speaking now particularly with regard to the help which citizens can give in connection with recruiting as compared with the help they give in connection with war loans. My colleague the Minister of Finance has to raise huge amounts of money every year to pay for war activities. Only about half of it is raised by compulsion, that is, by taxes. The government, under the very act, the National Resources Mobilization Act, which authorizes the sending of men by compulsion, has the power to force citizens to- give their money and their property for the prosecution of the war. Why nht take it all by compulsion? But my colleague with the full approval of the Canadian people does not take it that easy way. On the contrary, he puts a vast amount of time, energy and money into recruiting campaigns for dollars-to persuade and urge the people of Canada to contribute their money by buying victory bonds. More than that, through the national war finance
	i/JHl
committee, he asks and receives the patriotic support of thousands of citizens to make those campaigns successful. The campaigns are . strenuous. Competition is stimulated between communities, plants and organizations. Badges, emblems and shields are prepared to recognize those who respond and to spur on those who do not. I commend that to some critics who suggested we should not give the general serviceman a GS. badge to wear. Honeyed words do not always produce results. Sometimes people have to have their duty pointed out to them pretty forcibly. Great people, famous people and popular people are brought in to help to influence citizens to subscribe. When it is all over, we Canadians are proud, and rightly so, that success has been achieved by many methods in bringing home to people their duty and their privilege.
Is it so very different regarding furnishing the needs of war for men instead1 of dollars? We use compulsion to get men for service in Canada. We have the power to use compulsion for service overseas. But we have not done it. We have taken the harder way deliberately, and so far it has been successful. We have voluntarily enlisted in the armed services altogether something like, I think,
800,000	men and women. If it is righteous and patriotic and laudable to support our men overseas by asking our neighbours to contribute money by buying bonds instead of having it taken by force, is it not just as patriotic and laudable when it comes to supporting those same men by influencing the young men of Canada to go as reinforcements rather than regarding it as none of our business and saying, let the government force them to go? The great advantage, Mr. Speaker, in getting the voluntary cooperation of citizens in raising money or in raising men is that it puts people's hearts into the war. Therefore I believe that my officers and I, and Canadians generally, can best do our duty to our army in the field by working just as hard and loyally and ceaselessly to recruit men as we do to recruit dollars.
Right here I want to express the hearty thanks, not only of myself and of the government and of the department, but of the people of Canada and the troops overseas, to the officers and staffs at headquarters and in the commands and districts, and to citizens' committees and individual citizens all over this country, for their hard, loyal and unflagging work to provide volunteer reinforcements for our volunteer army overseas. The task is not an easy one. There are two classes in this country who do make it difficult. One class consists of those who are insistent on conscrip-

The Budget-Mr. Matthews
tion whether we can get volunteers or not. Consciously or unconsciously, they discourage volunteer recruiting by .constantly keeping up the agitation, criticizing and disparaging the efforts of those who are loyally giving their best efforts to persuade and urge young men of Canada to enlist. The other class is a group that is against overseas service and who protest against conscription but do nothing to avoid it by encouraging our men to volunteer. In connection with the groups I have mentioned I hope most sincerely that the attitude may change. Perhaps nothing that I have said may change it, but I would hope it might because I do think that there is a sound basis of common sense, patriotism and efficiency in having and maintaining our army a volunteer army at this time.
But there is another group, and that is the group of people who do not speak in public and who do not write in the newspapers. They are people who think and work faithfully and quietly. They know that Canada has done and is doing a grand job in the war. I say "Canada" deliberately, for it is the Canadian people who have given of time, effort and money, and more than all, the dearest possessions of young men and young women from their homes. They do not see the point of raising this explosive issue at this crucial time in a war like this. They can wait to express their views on the government's conduct of the war when the time comes. They are not of the class which says Canada has done too much. They may think that conscription may perhaps be fairer in theory, but they know that the will to serve is better in practice. They are not so much interested in methods as in results. For them the winning of the war comes first. That group of quiet, thinking citizens of this country has given its support to the war all through those years. I ask them, and I wish to ask all true Canadians, no matter of what race or sect, or what province or party, to show the pride which I know they have in the magnificent achievements of our men in Italy, Sicily and Normandy by helping us to continue to send them the very best we have.


Mr. ADAMSON:: May I ask the minister a question? Has not the Australian government this year abrogated the limiting clause on the Australian militia?


James Layton Ralston: Not that I know of.


Mr. J. E. MATTHEWS (Brandon):: Following the very inspiring address we have just heard I intend to make any remarks of mine very brief. Since this budget discussion has been prolonged there are only a few points to which I desire to refer. First of all I want
to join with many other hon. members in extending my sincere congratulations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) upon the able budget speech that he delivered to this house. I have come to regard the minister as the mystery man of Canada. It is true that he does not resort to the pulling of rabbits from the hat, but he extracts from the pockets and the persons of the Canadian people bank dollars and cheques with a deftness of approach that prompts them to invite him to come again, and come again he will. It is true that the people do a certain amount of complaining regarding the paying of taxes, but I venture to say that not in all Canada is there a man who to any greater extent, if as great, commands the respect, the esteem and confidence of the Canadian people as does the Minister of Finance.
I do not intend to take up the time of the house in a discussion of monetary theories. We have heard a great deal of them, but any reading I have done along that line has forced me to the conclusion that in the realm of finance, as in any other realm, we cannot get something for nothing. Any nation or any individual who has proceeded along that line has in the end met with disappointment and generally near disaster.
I have before me three statements which I shall not take the time to quote. They come presumably from authoritative sources and refer to the national debt of Canada. Strangely enough, they all differ as regards the amount, but they are unanimous in pointing us to the conclusion that our debt has reached-and is going still farther-staggering and appalling figures. One statement gives the gross unmatured funded debt as $10,689,000,000 on March 31, 1944. Other amounts would have to be added as well. It does not give me a great deal of comfort to be told that this debt is owing in Canada. It is debt just the same, no matter where it is owing. Nor is it any comfort to know that only sixty per cent of the wage earners of Canada are contributing to the investment in that debt, so that the debt itself is not payable to the people of Canada but only to a portion of the people.
I am not referring to these matters in any spirit of criticism, and I do not want to be so understood. I am referring to them for the reason that I believe the time has come when every man, woman and child in Canada should support the finance minister of to-day or of to-morrow in his efforts to curtail unnecessary expenditure wherever possible. In the past the people of Canada have not complained about the debt. They are not going to complain in the future as long as they feel that their money is not wasted. We have had no alternative. All down through the years since

The Budget-Mr. Matthews

o'clock, night after night, month after month, and I ride on a Bank street car. Almost every night I see in that car perhaps a dozen or two dozen soldiers and airmen. Time and again I have noted the gentlemanly bearing of these men, and I have wished on many occasions that their parents could be with me in that car to see for themselves the manly conduct of their sons in uniform-their sons who are fighting in freedom's cause. I put this on record as a tribute, and perhaps also as a comfort to the mothers and fathers across Canada who suffer heartache and suspense in these days. Could they see their boys here in Ottawa, and in other cities I have visited, they would not feel any great uneasiness about them. I take this opportuntiy to pay a sincere tribute to the fine character of the enlisted boys of Canada.
Mrs. DORISE W. NIELSEN (North Battleford): Mr. Speaker, this budget has already been widely discussed, and some very divergent points of view have been expressed. By far the greater part of the criticism thus far has been respecting the financial undertakings of the government. To many members the budget appears to be somewhat of an abstract document, dealing as it does with such tremendous sums of money-sums beyond the comprehension of most ordinary people. Some of the speeches made by hon. members, such as the one made by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman), are obviously intended to impress the house with the members' knowledge of fiscal policies and so on. However, to me the budget still remains a human document. I feel that it is not such an abstract thing as some people might imagine it to be.
In looking through the minister's speech as recorded in Hansard it seems to be a living document expressing the life and the lifeblood of the nation. It is a word picture of our people, of their problems from day to day. It expresses in no uncertain terms both the heights and the depths of their achievements and their possibilities. It expresses also their assets and liabilities, their dreams and failures, their hopes and defeats. The highlights of the budget of course are seen in the vast volume of production that has rolled from our mines, our forests, our farms, our shops and mills, wherever the labour of our men and women has been applied to the natural resources of this great country. That results naturally in the height of the national income which has been achieved.
I felt it was a good thing that the government tiad nut considered only the financial war effort. As our allied armies have pressed forward the government undoubtedly has

thought of much longer term problems and has presented them in this budget. It dealt with such things as getting rid of restrictions imposed by the War Exchange Conservation Act, and there was also the repeal of customs duties and the war exchange tax on agricultural implements. All of these endeavour in some degree to better the conditions of our people. With regard to the changes made in connection with agricultural implements I shall have more to say a little later.
It is evident also that the government has given much thought to the two great groups within Canada, business and labour, on this question of taxation. I have no doubt that the outstanding problem presented to the government on behalf of business was the lack of sufficient liquid funds for the conversion of industry to peace-time production. I am perfectly certain in my own mind that their problem is not as great as it was represented to be. The government has been more than generous in what it has done to recognize their problem and to make allowance for it.
There have been widespread protests from the labour movements in the past which make it clear that the taxation policy of this government has * not been satisfactory and has not been endorsed by our labour groups. The tax policy, together with the enforcement of the wage ceiling, has undoubtedly acted1 as a brake upon production. That is not just my statement; it is a statement made by responsible leaders of the trade union movement. To remedy this condition the budget provides for the elimination of the savings portion of- the income tax. Personally I believe that this problem could have been tackled in another way, in a way which would have proved more satisfactory to the labour forces. The workers have always been a little afraid for this refundable portion of the tax and I think something should have been done to allay their fears. It would have been better if the workers could have continued to have a certain portion of their taxes put aside and refunded to them in order that they would have a certain amount in post-war days. But no bond! or certificate was given to the workers to represent this refundable portion of their tax. I believe if the government, had issued a certificate or a small ticket each time a refundable portion of tax was paid the worker would have known quite clearly that the money would be returned. This would have had1 a much more satisfactory effect. Only this last year we have issued $10,200,000 worth of war certificates, which is an indication that the workers are anxious to save whenever it is possible for

The Budget-Mrs. Nielsen
them to do so. By having a certificate they feel quite sure that their savings will be returned) to them.
Another method of handling this problem would have been to remove the tax on overtime pay. This matter has been brought up time after time by the trade unions, and I believe they are justified in saying that the tax on overtime pay has been a bar to and has prevented overtime production which otherwise would have been made. A tax on overtime pay is no incentive to extra production.
As I said before, in my opinion the budget amendments with regard to the refundable portion of the income tax and the taxes on agricultural implements are good, but I am wondering just how they will affect my own people. I am inclined to think fhat the benefits that will accrue to the farming people of North Battleford will not be nearly as great as we thought they might be at first. I find that in 1939 the farming people of Saskatchewan purchased roughly $10,000,000 worth of farm machinery. If we divide that by the twenty-one constituencies in the province we find that each constituency purchased some $482,000 worth. This is not a very close estimate, but it gives a general idea. I believe my constituency would fall below that average, because the great majority of the farms in North Battleford are small farms. When you consider what was spent in 1939 you realize that even with the lowering of the tariff the people in my part of Saskatchewan are not going to benefit greatly in their purchases of farm machinery. Some of them may save a little money on the purchase of machinery, but in my opinion it is quite possible that the money thus saved will have to be used for the payment of income tax. They will be little better off after all. I think it would have been preferable if the government had retained the compulsory savings portion of the tax but had removed the tax completely from the lower brackets. That would have given greater aid to my people.
As I say, to me this budget is a living document because it gives a picture of the inequalities which exist within this country, I do not think anyone will deny that the farm people are receiving a little better income. Our farmers acknowledge themselves that things are a little better. But the undeniable fact remains that as a group our farmers do not yet receive their fair share of the national income. This fact has been stated many times, but it should be reiterated just as long as these inequalities exist. It is your duty, Mr. Speaker, and it is my duty and the duty of all members of this house, to try
to eliminate those inequalities and to see that this group of people, who have contributed so much to the cause of the united nations and to Canada generally, receive a just and fair return.
In my opinion what is needed by way of policy is something which will increase the income of the farming people. That would be the greatest spur to production. It would be an assurance of increased health and wellbeing on the part of the people, and would increase their willingness to share with the rest of the nation the burdens of this war. I do not see how any hon. member can argue that a man should be expected to pay income tax if he is not able to provide adequately for the bodily requirements of himself and his family, and I submit that the present lowest bracket of the income tax does not allow for those decencies of living which this nation should assure its people for their health and well-being. If the minister argues that by the elimination of the refundable portion of the tax inflation will not be increased, it seems to me the same argument applies to the elimination of the tax on the lowest income brackets. In my opinion the lifting of the lowest brackets would have provided more assistance to our people than the elimination of the refundable portion of the tax. Together with higher price guarantees to our farm people, floors underneath farm prices, the definite guarantees of foreign markets, it would have gone far to correct the inequalities of income which still exist among farmers by contrast with those engaged in other industries.
In looking over the ministers' speech of June 26 I notice that, he especially recommended that a commission be set up to inquire into certain matters having to do with fiscal policy. He mentioned particularly the tax on annuities and the matter of succession duties. I wish the minister had gone much farther. In my opinion the reference is not nearly broad enough. We have a tremendous task before us in facing the problems of the transition from war to peace in a changed world. The recommendation to set up a commission is an excellent one, but such a commission should not narrow its activities to such things as the taxation of annuities and succession duties; it should make a complete and comprehensive survey and receive, submissions from all the various groups with regard to their ability to contribute to the national income. Such a commission could study with great advantage -and the inquiry should begin immediately- the whole range of taxation with a view to revising the tax structure to meet the needs of a changing economy. I personally believe that
me
The Budget-Mrs. Nielsen

the tax on personal incomes will and should remain the backbone of any taxation system, but we have to see to it that it is graded far more equitably than at present in accordance with ability to pay.
I have made these few remarks this afternoon with the purpose of looking to the future. On several occasions I have listened to speeches made by members of the C.C.F.; I have in mind particularly a speech made the other evening by the hon. member for York-ton (Mr. Castleden). He spoke of the depression; he enlarged on the difficulties which occurred through the 'thirties; to be quite honest, to me it was a speech ad infinitum, ad nauseam. After all, the hon. member for Yorkton was engaged as a teacher during the depression period; he at least was sure of a living. I could easily occupy not one but many forty-minute periods by talking in this chamber, with far greater knowledge than the hon. member for Yorkton. about, the years of the depression, because I know of these things from personal experience and the experiences of my neighbours. But to what end does anyone to-day get up to speak about the suffering in Canada through the thirties? Why should I add to the story? Already volumes have been written and spoken on the subject. What good can it do to turn our faces to the past? We are living in the year 1944. It seems to me that those who harp upon the difficulties of that bygone period can only destroy the belief of Canadians in their own ability to go forward. We have emerged from the trials of past years, and now the problems of war are with us; but. our faces must be turned towards the future, and any criticisms of the budget or of any government measure should be with a recognition of what that measure can contribute to the future of Canada. In this crucial period of the world's history through which we are passing, those leaders of the C.C.F. who within this house have been contending that unless we have socialism here after the war we must necessarily revert to those terrible times of depression, exhibit an utter inability to understand the changing pattern of the world in which we live.
I am sorry to say these things, but I have to be honest about it; it is far better for me to make these remarks here, where you, Mr. Speaker, and all the world can hear them, than to make assertions at the hustings, as some C.C.F. speakers have done in my part of the country, where it is impossible for anyone to reply. I like to make statements in a place where they can be discussed. I hope
[ Mrs. Nielsen.]
I shall never be guilty of so misleading the people of Canada, or show such immaturity of political thinking; such an utter lack of a scientific approach to the dynamics of social change, as to assert that the only alternative for Canada is socialism or depression. I cannot help saying that such an attitude shows, to my way of thinking, an absolutely infantile analysis of the future which is possible for the Canadian people. To say that these are the only alternatives is to base one's thinking on something which is wishful and utopian; it has no reality, no basis; there is nothing concrete about it. I want definitely to dissociate myself from any who have spoken in such a way.
I have a belief, Mr. Speaker, in the future of Canada and Canada's people. I believe in the ability of Canadians to plan to go forward, to create their own future, as they are quite capable of acting unitedly in this crisis. Statistics show that we are not the nation we were in the hungry thirties. Is there today any hon. member, to whatever political party he belongs, who is not proud of the fact that in the year 1944 Canada, with a population but little over eleven millions, stands first in the production of nickel, of newsprint, of asbestos, of platinum, of radium; second in wood pulp and in gold; third in aluminum, in copper, in zinc, in cobalt, and in silver; fourth in wheat and in lead? Do these figures not indicate the vast possibilities which lie within the range of the development of Canada, especially since we know that the Prime Minister has declared himself in favour of supporting the policy of the united nations and is pledged to preserve peace in the world, to lower tariff barriers, to establish trade relationships, to give the people of Canada the opportunity of maintaining and even increasing the great volume of production which the war has made possible? Certainly no defeatist talk bn my part shall destroy the faith of the people of Canada or the boys overseas in themselves and in their ability to go forward.
I do not want to paint a picture of the necessity of chaos, because I do not believe in the necessity of chaos. I believe that those who are painting a picture of nothing but depression are indulging in wishful thinking because they believe that by painting chaos some party advantage may be gained. The problems of the future are above party; they are the concern of all men and women who call themselves Canadians. For my own part I cannot think of anything finer to do than to work, to plan and to fight for sane and sensible and workable measures to bring security and a greater amount of happiness to all, since

The Budget-Mr. Diejenbaker
that is the immediate and the most practical thing that is needed to make Canada a great nation.
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER_(Lake Centre): In rising to speak in this debate, may I begin by expressing my pleasure, as well as that, I am sure, of all members in all parts of the house, at the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), who has carried a very great load during the period of the war, has been restored to his usual good health.
I intend this afternoon in the main to deal with the various matters that were raised by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) respecting man-power and generally with regard to selective service. With much of what the minister had to say in regard to the great war effort of this nation, in production and in the utilization of available man-power, I am in accord, as are members in all parts of the house. I join with him in the praise which he has given to the Canadian forces overseas for the wonderful advances they have made during the period of one year to which he refers. One year ago to-day these men in Sicily began an advance which has been spectacular in its success and a matter of great pride to the Canadian people and of great influence in determining the final outcome of the war.
But as I listened to the Minister of National Defence to-day, I had the impression that he felt he was not advancing the best possible arguments to support the government's manpower policy; for gone was the fire, the enthusiasm, the cogency and the power of description which so often characterized him' in the past in reporting with regard to the manpower of the nation. He referred to the success of the voluntary effort during the past year or fifteen months. If I understood him rightly, he said that there were sufficient reinforcements to carry the Canadian people to the end of the present year. While he was speaking of the sufficiency of reinforcements, I found it difficult to understand the speeches that had been made by Brigadier Mess and the activities that are taking place all over the dominion with a view to securing the volunteering of those who have been called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act. In my opinion the minister's statement to-day as to the sufficiency of reinforcements is a denial and a repudiation of the activities of General Pearkes, of Brigadier Mess and of Major Jarvis, the district recruiting officer for military district No. 10. The attitude of the minister and of those who serve under him seems to be almost Janus-faced. The minister says, in effect, that Canada is not faced with a
serious situation with regard to reinforcements, and is securing the necessary men. But the minister's responsible officers, by their activity, yes, by their very words, declare that what the minister says is not in accordance with the facts. The minister says that there are sufficient reinforcements, but his officials, by their appeals, and by their actions, give an answer directly to the opposite effect.
The minister to-day says that as far as the home defence army is concerned it is doing a very useful work in this country. If I took the proper figures, there are 73,000 in the home defence army, of whom 50,000 are available as a pool for overseas service, of whom 35,000 are engaged in operational work, 13,000 in depots, 13,000 in non-operational work-


James Layton Ralston: 4,000 in depots.


John George Diefenbaker: I beg the minister's pardon; yes, 4.000. There are 7,000 on leave or doing assigned work.


An hon. MEMBER:: There are fourteen thousand in training centres.


Mr. GARDINER:: Not 13,000 in depots.


James Layton Ralston: Non-operation.


John George Diefenbaker: Non-operational is what I said. The minister says, in effect, that these men are doing good work, that they are performing useful duties, that if they were not there it would be difficult to have the work done; yet at the same time, while he says that, his officers throughout the dominion are trying to get these men who are doing that useful work to enlist for overseas service. If that campaign were successful, if from 80 per cent to 100 per cent of those in the N.R.M.A. army actually volunteered, I should like to know how the work would then be done which these men are doing; that is, if we carried the minister's argument to its logical conclusion.
I do not like the attitude of the minister in castigating those who believe that the policy of the government is not the proper one for this country. We in the opposition have set out our views in the amendment that was moved by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) in these words:
(f) that the government has failed to make effective the full mobilization of our financial, industrial and material resources, as well as our man-power, but is maintaining a so-called home-defence army at a cost to the taxpayer in excess of $150 million per annum, at a time when the need for men for army reinforcements, for farming and for industry is so urgent.
The minister did not deny the cost; he did not deny that it was costing the people of this country that large amount of money, but he
The Budget-Mr. Diejenbaker

endeavoured to answer us by placing those who raised the standard of a greater war effort on the part of this country in the same category as those who refused to serve and those who refuse to support the war effort;. That is the position in which he put us, and that I resent on behalf of those associated with me.
The minister said that the only class worthy of commendation is that which does not speak and write to the newspapers. They are the ones who do not want this explosive issue raised at this time. Well, I ask the minister to f*o to the legislature of Quebec and see what happened there on April 26. At that time the legislature of that province passed a resolution saying, in effect, to the government of Canada that they shall not bring into effect national service in this country. Why? I ask him to speak to them when he endeavours to castigate us on this matter. I ask him that and I give him the opportunity to reply at this time, as I do the other ministers.


James Garfield Gardiner: We do not have to ask you for the opportunity.


John George Diefenbaker: I beg your pardon.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: You do, during his speech.


John George Diefenbaker: 
Humphrey Mitchell: If I might just say a
word, because I know my hon. friend wants to be fair


John George Diefenbaker: Certainly.


Humphrey Mitchell: When my hon. friend
talks of political expediency in reference to the application of the national mobilization regulations, let me say without equivocation that there is not a tittle of truth in it.


John George Diefenbaker: All right. I place
before the house the answers to the questions that have been asked as given by the various ministers. I judge on the basis of what these answers disclose, and they disclose inequality of sacrifice. If that is not based upon political expediency then I ask-and I give the minister an opportunity to answer now-upon what basis he or any other minister of this government justifies the fact that in my province, with its magnificent record of enlistments, two or three times as many men are being called up as in other military districts with the lowest voluntary records. I ask the minister to answer that once and for all. and give him an opportunity now. The answer is silence, and no other answer is possible.
10.0-294


Humphrey Mitchell: The answer is not silence.
I think I am as good a Canadian as my hon. friend-


Frederick Clayton Casselman: That has nothing to do with it.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend is trying to prove that I am not. As I said when my estimates were before the house, my hon. friend is an able criminal lawyer. He gets these figures to prove a point, and I am not objecting to that.


John George Diefenbaker: Are the figures
correct?


Humphrey Mitchell: I want to say to my hon. friend very frankly that there is no different treatment as between sections of this country. My hon. friend takes good care to protect his own part of the- country, with which I am not as well acquainted as he is. He takes very good care to do that, but I want to tell him that there has been absolutely no different treatment in any part of this country. There may be differences arising from the fact that a certain district is largely urban or rural; there may be differences because there are more single men in one section of the country than in others. My hon. friend was very careful to quote the number of married men from one of these returns. The hon. gentleman fails to state that some of these districts take in parts of other provinces. He has a satanic smile on his face at the moment, as he tries to play politics.


John George Diefenbaker: I know the minister did not mean to use that word, and I should like him to withdraw it.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps the minister was looking in a mirror, and we might let it go at that.


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Speaker, I am asking for a withdrawal of that remark.


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend is hurt I withdraw it; but I liked his smile.


John George Diefenbaker: The answer the
minister gives is the only answer that can be given by those who realize that they are w'rong; that is. abuse. The returns stand unanswered. The records are here and they reveal the situation. The minister says that it is difficult to know whether or not the same number of men are available in the various districts. I ask him to compare the records as they appear in "Canada at War" for February, 1944. They show that the number of available men in the Kingston military district, No. 3-

The Budget-Mr. Diejenbaker


Humphrey Mitchell: Military district No. 3
takes in part of Quebec.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, four counties. Mr. GARDINER: Mr. Speaker


John George Diefenbaker: I must have touched a sore point to bring on all these interruptions.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend has challenged us on two or three occasions.


John George Diefenbaker: I have the floor, Mr. Speaker.


James Garfield Gardiner: A moment ago my hon. friend challenged us and said that he would grant us the floor. If he does not want to do so, that is all right; but military district No. 3 includes part of the province of Quebec.


John George Diefenbaker: That is quite right. At least I have been able to bring the ministers in on this; they are here, and are actually answering. According to the figures, in February, 1944, there were 187,000 men between the ages of eighteen and forty-five in military district No. 3, while in military district No. 5 there were 214,000 men between these ages. In other words, there were more in military district No. 5 than in military district No. 3, which accentuates the point of unfairness I am endeavouring to make, that almost sixteen times as many men in district No. 3 were called up as were called up in district No. 5.


Humphrey Mitchell: You are dealing with *married men.


John George Diefenbaker: Those figures speak for themselves; they tell their own story. There they stand, embalmed in the records of this country, and they support the contention of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition that there is not equality of call or anything approaching equality of sacrifice in this country to-day. owing to the failure of the government to endeavour to bring about that equality. All the records show that the conclusion of inequality to which I have come is entirely in accordance with the facts. The minister has stated to those who are in the home defence army that they are performing a very fine and necessary service. That being so, I ask him why and under whose authority Major Jarvis, district recruiting officer of military district No. 10, sent out the famous letter of June 20, 1944, in which he said in part:
If when you report you elect to be enrolled in the home defence army rather than volunteer for the active army you will be subject to all the discipline and routine of army life, but will be rendering no service to your country in this hour of crisis.
That was the attitude taken by Brigadier Mess in the two remarkable radio addresses
	*
which he delivered. Were those men speaking with the authority of the government? Does the government have one attitude in the House of Commons for the country at large and a different one to be displayed by officers of the Department of National Defence when they endeavour to obtain recruits for the active army?
I should like to make one more point; it has not been dealt with as yet, and it does indicate that as between the Department of National Defence and the Department of Labour there is a very great void. Having regard to the shortage of man-power-according to Mr. MacNamara and the minister
150,000	men will be required this year, in addition to some women-I feel that we should endeavour to mobilize the man-power pool of Canadians in the United States. No one knows how many there are or how many have gone over in recent months, although I remember that only a few weeks ago the Minister of Labour, in an endeavour to explain the "lost legion", expressed the view that a considerable number might have gone to the United States.


Humphrey Mitchell: Many Americans have joined the Canadian Army, and have come over here.


John George Diefenbaker: We have statistics which show the pool in the United States. On June 2, 1944, I received sessional paper No. 206G from the Department of Labour. I had asked:
How many male citizens resident in the United States between the ages of eighteen and thirty-eight, who had not declared their intention of becoming citizens of the United States, are estimated to have been or to be subject to service in the Canadian armed forces, (a) as of January, 1943, (.b) as of this date.
They did not know; that is what the answer indicates, because the answer given was:
As of December 31, 1942, there were 7,938 men in the United States armed forces who, upon enlistment, declared themselves to be Canadian citizens.
Then, further on:
From January 1, 1943, up to February 29, 1944, there were an additional 5,485 men in the United States armed forces who. upon enlistment, declared themselves to be Canadian citizens.
What does all this add up to? It shows that there have enlisted in the United States some 13,400 men. That is no answer at all with respect to the question, and the inference is that the Department of Labour did not know there were any more.
I had asked the same question-and this is one thing to which the minister has always

The Budget[DOT]-Mr. Diejenbuker
objected; for he says that members should not ask a question more than once, because they are apt to get different answers.


Humphrey Mitchell: I never said anything of the sort. What I did say was that my hon. friend changed his dates. He shifts his dates.


John George Diefenbaker: We will just see whether the date was changed. In return No. 124, brought down on January 27, 1943-


Humphrey Mitchell: Sure, sure.


John George Diefenbaker: -the answer was given by the Department of National Defence that there were then in the United States estimated to be 91.800 male Canadian citizens between the ages of eighteen and thirty-eight, who had not declared their intention of becoming citizens of the United States. There were 91,800 on January 27, 1943, when I asked the question; and when I asked this year how many there were as of the same date the Department of Labour was not able to give an answer, although pointing out that some 13,000 had enlisted.
In all seriousness, if we do not take into consideration the number who have wandered across the international boundary line in the last year, there are still in the United States men available for service either in the United States or in the Canadian Army to the number of approximately 78,000, men between the ages of eighteen and thirty-eight.
I suggest that, having regard to our present situation, with the manpower situation as it is, serious attention should be given now to their mobilization, and that something should be done toward ascertaining how many have gone to the United States during the last year, with a view to bringing them back to this dominion.
So far as the man-power situation is concerned, I think one can sum it up in the words of the Minister of Finance, where he said:
As long as this war goes on. as long as Canadian lives are at stake, we here must not let down in any phase of our war effort. The burden of our responsibility is heavy indeed- but given the will to succeed, we have the strength to carry it.
We shall not have that will if we have not leadership which sets aside political expediency and ensures equality of service in this country. All we have had in the last year, so far as selective service is concerned, has been a series of attempts by regulation by the Minister of Labour to meet the situation. But he has not been given a free hand. It has been a bits and pieces programme. The man-power poiicv fails to direct itself to the serious matter of mobilization of all the man-
100-294i
power of this country, and it cannot be made solvent by monthly or even weekly infusions of new regulations. We are getting new regulations every day. The papers are full of them. But when it comes to facing the issue which must be faced, to pass the requisite regulations or orders in council, the government does not act.
As members of parliament we have a tremendous responsibility. We must face the challenge, and assure our people that both after and during the war mutual faith among all classes of our people can and must be substituted in place of suspicion which, too often, characterizes our people in the different provinces. Conditions which cause separation between provinces must be guarded against, and it is my submission that the establishment of equality of privilege with equality of responsibility is an assured way whereby unity can be brought to this nation.
Then, too, all of us must face the challenge that we can assure security with freedom, for unless we reverence freedom and maintain freedom the prospect following the war will be a fearful one. I believe it will be agreed by all that we must not compromise our basic way of life. We must resolutely refuse to sacrifice our freedom in return for a promise of economic security, for history has shown that economic security, without freedom, is meaningless and dangerous to the continuance of our democratic way of life. We in the house have a right and duty to face any infringement or invasion of our rights and freedoms, for if we lose our freedom in the House of Commons, if we lose our inalienable rights as members of parliament, then freedom in this nation will be destroyed.
I do not intend to do anything which would transgress the ruling made by you, sir, the other night, by a discussion of the merits or demerits of 'a speech delivered in another place by Senator Bouchard. But I do say, Mr. Speaker, that when freedom is interfered with in parliament, members of parliament, regardless of political belief, must resist any invasion of their prerogative rights and privileges. Never since 1764 in Great Britain has there been any invasion of the rights of a member of parliament to speak as he feels, to utter words that he believes must be uttered and to carry into effect the noble words of Burke, placed on Hansard in this debate by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent). Yet the Prime Minister, who so often in the past has spoken of the necessity of upholding the privileges of parliament, has remained silent at the most serious infringement of and challenge to parliame tary free-
The Budget-Mr. Diejenbaker

dom that has taken place anywhere within this empire in a hundred and eighty years. Parliament cannot remain silent.
I have before me the report of the United Kingdom committee on the Sandys case in 1939. Sandys, a son-in-law of Winston Churchill, was alleged to have contravened the provisions of the official secrets act. He was to be called before a military board to give evidence, and a committee of parliament was set up to determine the extent of parliamentary privilege. The report of that committee concludes with these words:
"Parliament without parliamentary liberty," says Pym, "are but a fair and plausible way into bondage. Freedom of debate being once foreclosed the essence of the liberty of parliament is withal dissolved."
I have looked over the records of history disclosing the fight that has taken place over the years waged by members of parliament to assure the maintenance of their right to express themselves as they -would without punishment outside parliament. Those liberties and rights go back a long way. The first example was in the reign of Henry VIII when one Strode was prosecuted for having introduced a bill in the House of Commons. He was fined and imprisoned, but thereupon an act was passed declaring that he was within his rights and could not be punished for exercising his parliamentary rights. Then was established the freedom of a member of parliament to speak without danger of punishment.
Then in 1629, during the days of Hampden, Pym and Eliot, Eliot was prosecuted, and again the right was established that what is spoken in parliament can be judged only in parliament and nowhere else. The principle was redeclared that what is spoken in parliament cannot be dealt with outside parliament. Then, of course, there are the provisions of the Bill of Rights which are declaratory in part of parliamentary privilege. The outstanding and final declaration occurred in 1764 when the king dismissed a general from his position as groom of the bedchamber because he had dared as a member of parliament to speak and vote as he wished. I quote from Anson where it is stated:
The practice was very shortly afterwards discontinued; in fact Burke claims credit to the Rockingham ministry of the following year for having "abolished the dangerous and unconstitutional practice of removing military officers for their votes in parliament."
When a man speaking in parliament is punished outside parliament-


Thomas Vien: I have given a good deal of latitude to the hon. member who is, I

would say, in an oblique way dealing with a question which was dealt with in the other house. The hon. member is protesting against action taken outside parliament because of a speech made in parliament. He has referred to the Sandys case, which is the most recent one, but the hon. member will recall that he was a member of the House of Commons in England and he had spoken in the House of Commons. The hon. member is now dealing with a matter which is not within the House of Commons, but which arose in the other chamber. I objected to the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) making reference before to this matter, and I think the hon. member is trespassing very much upon the territory which the hon. member for Parkdale was trespassing upon.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not intend to trespass in any way. I was not dealing with the speech; I was dealing with the question of the principle involved in punishment outside of parliament for words spoken by a member in parliament. I have never transgressed Your Honour's rulings in this house in any way, nor have I endeavoured to trespass in any way.
As to the budget I have not dealt with the financial details because I shall deal with them when we are in committee. Suffice it to say that we of His Majesty's opposition are one with the members on the side of the government, that whatever expenditure must be made shall be made to the end that victory shall be attained and to the end that the freedom for which we fight shall be maintained. I suggest that a great responsibility vests upon us to assure not only that freedom shall be maintained but that where there are infringements of that freedom, they shall be condemned.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, in this debate we
should not be considering Henry VIII and Senator Bouchard, we should be considering the amendment moved by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), paragraph (f) of which reads:
(f) that the government has failed to make effective the full mobilization of our financial, industrial and material resources, as well as our man-power, but is maintaining a so-called home-defence army, at a cost to the taxpayer in excess of $150 million per annum, at a time when the need for men for army reinforcements, for farming and for industry is so -urgent.
That is the part of the Progressive Conservative amendment which has been discussed this afternoon. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) appeared to

The Budget-Mr. Pouliot
be more illogical than ever. He said he supports the amendment; he spoke against it and apparently he will vote for it. I cannot understand him. If he made a speech of that kind in Saskatchewan, his own province, then I am not surprised that not only has his party been wiped out but all remembrance of it has been wiped out in the last provincial election.
Who has power of attorney to speak for the Progressive Conservative party? Did the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, a former privy councillor in the Bennett cabinet, have power of attorney to speak on behalf of the forty odd members of that group? Or, on the other hand, is it the hon, member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) or the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) who is the legitimate loudspeaker for the party? They are all entirely different.
On the one hand we have the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, who is a farmer, saying that we have a reserve army which is of no use, which costs much money, S150 million a year, and which should be sent back to the farm. The three other hon. gentlemen take entirely opposite view's. The hon. member for Vancouver South, who is a personal friend of mine, and the hon. member for Lake Centre, v'ho is a personal friend of mine, have had certain military experience, but as far as the hon. member for York-Sunbury is concerned, he and I are on an equal footing. Neither one of us has had practical military experience and therefore my word is just as good as his.
Then there is another one who comes from behind; there is the former Mr. Justice McTague who replaced Mr. McArthur as national chairman of the so-called Progressive Conservative party . He made a statement and then changed it. Who is the spokesman? Is it Mr. Bracken? Is it the former Judge McTague? Is it one of the three hon, gentlemen I have just mentioned? Is it the hop. member for Dufferin-Simcoe? This is the most nebulous performance we have witnessed since the beginning of the session.
There is something in what is said by the Conservative spokesman for the jingoes, imperialists and the other crow'd, on the one hand, and what is said for the farmer, on the other. The farmer is told that they have come to his rescue with the amendment to the budget, in which it is said that the men from the reserve army should be used on the farms. This is the old story of double words -one kind of speech for one kind of people
and an entirely different kind of speech for the other kind of people. If the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe was serious why did he not support us when we were moving amendments for the defence of the farmers, showing the importance of the farmers on the land? But the members of the Progressive Conservative party voted against us as one man. If the Progressive Conservatives are sincere in saying that they are the friends of the farmer, let them explain their treatment of Mr. McArthur, a prominent farmer of Huntingdon county, who was hailed as the coming national Conservative chairman but was afterwards replaced by that smart Aleck, Judge McTague, who is thus described in the Toronto Telegram of June 29:
Dressed in natty striped grey flannels, with tan and white shoes and white socks, the party's national chairman displayed an engaging willingness to answer every question put to him.
Here is the man who said that the reserve army should go to the front; but afterwards he backed up; that was not exactly what he meant; he meant something different. Let them tune their violins. Let us know what is the policy of the Conservative party. I know very well that the Conservative party ds dead and has been buried for a long time. They do not call themselves Tories, these remnants of the party; they call themselves Progressive Conservatives. I have some personal friends among them; on the human side of their personalities they are very fine fellows, but when it comes to announcing a political programme they are all mixed up. Where is their leader? Do they agree with him? What ds his policy? We do not know what his policy is. He is fishing in troubled waters. They meet each day in caucus; why do they not take advantage of it to tune their violins and come into the house with a united front? They go to the right; they go to the left; they look to the right and they jump to the left. That has been the Tory policy since the beginning of this session, in fact since the beginning of the war. We have heard from Saskatchewan and British Columbia members, coming from a part of the country which is defended by young boys from Quebec, saying that Quebec is not doing her share. I am sure that the good English-speaking people of Saskatchewan, even those of foreign extraction, will be just as much scandalized as I was this, afternoon to hear the hon. member for Lake Centre make the speech he did. In Saskatchewan they did not agree with him; they defeated the candidate and provincial leader of his party. My hon. friend is younger than I am; I have made more fights than he has, and I tell him that
The Budget-Mr. Pouliot

if he has recourse to such tactics his future is doomed. I advise him honestly and as a friend to use other tactics if he wants to emerge in due course.
For the province of Quebec we have figures given in decimals. Does my hon. friend believe in decimals? Does he believe in the statistics which are supplied by any department? I do not. According to the figures supplied by the bureaucracy Quebec is the goat. Quebec is always the goat. My hon. friend does not know that the figures supplied to members of parliament are prepared by men who do not know how to do the work, whom I had to tell years ago how to do certain work. The hon. member for Vancouver South who was on the civil service committee must remember very well that I had to tell those "experts" how to do certain work, which was badly done. When the chairman of the civil service commission came before us I asked him plainly, "Mr. Bland, is this chart made out as it should be?" He did not answer me. I said, "This item at the right-hand corner, should it not be at the left-hand corner?" He said, "Yes." And so on and so on. Then I called Putman, one of the important members of the civil service commission-I do not know if he is there now-and I had to tell him what to do. I said, "I want this information to-morrow morning." "Oh," he said, "we cannot do it by to-morrow morning." "Then I should like it by to-morrow afternoon." "Oh, sir, please, it is so much work we cannot do it by to-morrow afternoon." "Then I want it done the day after to-morrow by ten o'clock." "Oh, sir, you do not know what it means. It is a tremendous amount of work." Finally I said, "Then I want it by two o'clock the day after to-morrow'. Will you have it, or not?" And then he telephoned me and asked me if it was well done. I had to teach him what to do and how to do it. Without definite instructions from men who know how this work should be done, what guarantee has the hon. gentleman that these figures are correct? What I know and what most hon. members from Quebec know very well is that their counties have been drained, that there are no more men of military age left in our counties. Look at the list of unemployment insurance offices and the selective service offices. No men are applying for positions; no men are available except a few day labourers. On the other hand there are long lists of farmers and men concerned with essential industries who are asking for labour and cannot secure it.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: At six o'clock I had made a reference to the different statements of the national Progressive Conservative chairman McTague on two occasions-on the occasion of his nomination at Guelph and in an interview which was given to the press when he came here to Ottawa. I do not kpow the reason why he has been selected as national chairman. In my humble view, as in the view of many others, that man has been greatly overrated. He is just a man who has been boosted for some reason or another and he is far from being one -who is serious enough to be the national chairman of a great party. I remember the time when the Conservative party was in existence. At that time there was a good man as chairman of the party, a man like the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), but now that is finished.
There are some observations which I wish to make. I have here a poster which was shown in the windows of large business offices in several cities in Canada and which reads:
Canada's aid to the united nations. The value of eggs, cheese, wheat, flour, canned fish and bacon exported by Canada to members of the united nations in 1943 amounted to:
Eggs	 $ 14,700,000
Cheese	 26,800,000
Wheat	 234,400,000
Flour	 66,300,000
Canned fish	 18,400,000
Bacon	 116,200,000
Shipments of wheat to the people of enemy occupied Greece as a gift of the Canadian people up to November, 1943, totalled 7,930,030 -bushels. Canada has also instituted its own mutual aid plan under which Canadian equipment, material and -foodstuffs to the value of $1 billion are being made available to the united nations on the basis of strategic need.
It is impossible, sir, to contend that eggs, cheese, wheat, flour; canned fish and bacon come out of spontaneous generation.


Mr. CHURCH:: It looks like an illuminated address.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend the member for Broadview has always a picturesque expression to describe things. Now, sir, we have made a fight for the farmers, certainly not because we are against the war effort. There is a handful of members who have done it, and at the time when the jingoes were tightening the regulations concerning the farmers we made a fight for them in the first instance in connection with the regulations which mentioned agriculture as a seasonal occupation. We succeeded in having that important industry described also as an essential occupation; when the training was extended from one

The Budget-Mr. Pouliot
month to four months we succeeded in having an extension of from four to six months for the farmer, and when the army regulations were changed so that the training was extended from four months to the duration, we succeeded also in having the postponement for farmers extended until further notice. Well, that was something, and the work that was done here by a handful of members who were not afraid to speak their minds helped the constituents of hon. members who are asking so strongly to send men overseas. When I addressed a fine group of men in western Ontario not long ago I said that the farmers of Middlesex county were gaining from the fight waged in parliament by just a handful of Frenchspeaking members, and that is true of the farmers of the whole country. The farmers of Lake Centre and those in the vicinity of Vancouver, the farmers of York-Sunbury, the farmers in the vicinity of Toronto, the farmers of Quebec, the farmers all over the land have been helped by the constant efforts of members of parliament who were not afraid to ask for the exemption of farmers from any military training.
I remember at times we were howled down and called friends of Hitler just because we were thinking of real human values and of the essentiality of these occupations in war time. Opinions are free undoubtedly, but free opinions when they are contradictory cannot all be right, and we were facing all sorts of difficulties, but we were never downhearted and we took the same stand all the time, whether it was the plebiscite or the mobilization bill. On all occasions we waged the fight for the farmers; and those like the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), who is sponsoring the amendment which is now before the Chair, were always fighting against us as one man. But they did something for the farmer. They said that he should have better prices. That reminds me of something that happened when Mr. Bennett was in power. I said to the chairman one day that I had been passing through his county. It was at the time when unemployment was being discussed so much and I said I had stopped at a certain place to telephone and there was a young lady there. I asked her if she had brothers and she said she had two. I said, "What are they doing?" She said, "One is a qualified carpenter, and he has gone fishing for smelts." I said, "What is the other one doing?" She replied, "He is a mason." I said, "What is he doing now" She replied, "He is hunting ducks." That simply showed that these men who had trades could not find any work. Then, answering certain objections, I said to him, "To whom will you preach
patriotism when all the Canadians are dead of hunger?" And do you know, sir, what happened? The day after, two pages of Hansard were gone; that does not show in Hansard. Instructions were given so that it would not appear in Hansard.
Well, now, I put the same question: Who will farm this country if all the farmers are gone? I have no objection to helping a young man who is willing to go overseas go there, to have all obstacles removed for him if it is his desire. I respect his freedom of choice; but on the other hand if there is a farmer who is essential on the farm he has to be fought for not only with regard to the revenue of farm production but with regard to his stay on the land. Sometimes we are told that we are unpatriotic, that we are bad Canadians just because we speak that way in the house, just because we say in the house what every member in whose consituency there are farmers would say to them when he speaks publicly in his constituency.
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) said that with regard to some matters the minister said "yes" and his officials gave an answer directly opposite. I shall apply to these men, to Major General Pearkes, to Brigadier Mess and to all those ejusdem jarinae what the minister has just said with regard to imperialists and jingoes. "There are two classes in this country who make it difficult: first"-and this applies to Pearkes, Mess and the others-"those who are insistent on conscription whether we can get volunteers or not. Consciously or unconsciously, they discourage volunteer recruiting by constantly keeping up the agitation, criticizing and disparaging the efforts of those who are loyally giving their best efforts to persuade and urge young men of Canada to enlist." This applies to those men, and if Major General Pearkes deserves special consideration as a V.C., I suggest that he should exchange places with my friend Filip Konowal, V.C., and come down and clean the spittoons in the House of Commons and give the command in British Columbia to Filip Konowal, V.C. I think that would be the real thing. I have been fighting alone for Filip Konowal; I want recognition for him.


James Layton Ralston: Shame.


Jean-François Pouliot: Put Filip Konowal elsewhere. We are told sometimes that some officers are not bilingual when the men speak only one other language. That is not fair. An officer must understand the language of his mSn. There is no reason why a man should have an interpreter to speak to at least one of his officers. There is one thing that
The Budget-Mr. Pouliot

any hon. gentleman who has been in the army knows very well, namely, that as soon as a man gets into the army, whether he has volunteered or not, he thinks of home; he wants to go home on his first leave. He wants his leave. There have been times when leaves have been refused men because they did not volunteer.
I have here a few notes of what is being done in the line of persuasion to induce men to volunteer by making appeals to their reason. You will be surprised, sir. It is something shameful. In the first place they have one forty-eight hour leave in two months. Formerly I think they had one forty-eight hour and one thirty-six hour leave per month. In the second place sleeping-out passes of the N.R.M.A. men are cancelled. Third, perma-ment leave until midnight is cancelled, which means that the soldiers cannot go to the movies, theatre concerts, et cetera. They cannot go to those concerts outside the camp, since they have to leave the hall around nine-thirty. Fourth, names are called in the huts at ten o'clock to prevent N.R.M.A. men from going to free movies given at the camp four times weekly. If a soldier is five minutes late he goes to the clink. Volunteers are sent to the clink only if absent for more than twenty-one days or if drunk. But if a man is called a zombie or a dead-living man is five minutes late he is sent to the clink. Fifth, access to playgrounds is forbidden to them. They have no right to play tennis, baseball, or anything. Sixth, they are forbidden to go to the beer canteen even though they are thirsty. I find that awful. Seventh, they are put in separate huts. They eat in the same kitchens but at separate tables to humiliate them. They are exposed to jeers and sneers from those who have volunteered and who say that they are cowards, do not have the guts to volunteer. Eighth, they are forbidden to attend dances, games of bridge or any other social activity for the recreation of the soldier. Ninth, free time and leisure time for others and week-ends are employed in dirty work. Sundays-that July 2-N.R.M.A. men were working with pick and shovel part of the afternoon at Barriefield, eighty miles from Ottawa.
1 have a few notes here which were taken in 'May at the camp at Lauzon. The men had nothing to do. They were kept like prisoners in cells just because they did not volunteer, although the minister explained this afternoon that these men are doing excellent work, but they have no recreation. They are like friars who have made the three vows, and Have no distraction. It is not surprising that they dislike the army and that some of them are
[Mr. Pouliot.l
deserters. I understand it very well. Why are there facilities for entertaining all soldiers? It is precisely to make them just as happy as possible in the army. But all that is cancelled because these men do not sign for overseas. They act in conformity with the law which is in force at the present time, and they are punished for that; they are humiliated and we are still told that there is no conscription. There is conscription, of course; there is conscription by the back door, and it has been condemned by the Globe and Mail. They were perfectly right in condemning it. The trouble is that we are far away from realities. We must know what is meant by conscription. If we mean by conscription, and it is the spirit as well as the letter of the law, that a man or a woman should be at the place where he or she can serve best in the war effort nobody will object to that. But the trouble is that some people understand by conscription only the sending of men overseas, paying no attention to the usefulness of the farmers, the railwaymen or the men in the munitions factories and all the men who are essential to the war effort. That is the difficulty. When a member of parliament, or a journalist or anyone else says that it is wrong, that we cannot go very far with an unbalanced, one-sided war effort, that we need a balanced war effort, then immediately that person is told he is a bad Canadian and does not appreciate what Should be done during this war.
I am perhaps the one member who has said the most to try to. encourage the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and to give him a superiority complex. I still maintain, sir, that the man who must carry the burden, of the man-power problem during the war is not the Minister of Defence (Mr. Ralston); it is the Minister of Labour. He should not have the position of a hyphen between the Department of National Defence and industry. He should be the judge, the man who will decide the usefulness of every man.
No complaint whatever should be favourably received unless it is proved to his satisfaction that the men asked for by the army are really needed. I cannot understand hon. gentlemen opposite, who always agree with any commitment that may be made with regard to the size of the army. They never blame the Minister of National Defence for the size of the Canadian army, which is larger than during the last war. It is out of proportion, because we are making more munitions than we did during the last war, and we are feeding more countries than we did then. Hon. gentlemen opposite do not take those facts into consideration; they are

The Budget-Mr. Knowles
ready to destroy this country probably just for an electoral argument. They should do better than that. They cannot go on in that way, putting politics into the question of man-power and all these other matters. It would be unbelievable. Then I should like to say that many soldiers are given punishment that is out of proportion to the offence, and when the sentence is served the men are found unfit, although they have been kept in the clink for a long time. Some men have been imprisoned for two years or more, during which time they, were no good to the army or to the country. When any complaints are made, the commanding officer is supreme.
In closing, sir, I should like to define my own Liberalism by quoting a telegram which I sent to the secretary of the Liberal youth convention at Winnipeg on May 29:
Admirable and fortunate youths who sincerely believe in the Liberal creed and who have not yet lost the gift of speech, I salute you from our national capital, where my parliamentary duties are preventing me from attending your convention.
Be sure that you will remain young so long as your heart remains young. Never forget that anyone is disqualified for public service the very day he becomes vain and selfish. Always forget yourself to think of and for your fellow countrymen.
We have every reason to be proud of the pioneers and builders of Liberalism who gladly suffered poverty and humiliation while fighting the family compact. They promoted democracy and established a responsible government. Make their doctrine your own.	.
You will gain prestige in keeping your personality true to itself. Do not let anyone extinguish in your heart the sacred flame of enthusiasm. Take your inspiration from the immortal speeches of the great Liberal leaders of the past and compare your notes with what is said to-day.
In these materialistic times when countless opportunists worship the golden calf, do not rely on hearsay for your appreciation of current events. Weigh what is said and what is done. Remember that freedom of speech is the very essence of Liberalism. Never be afraid to make your own judgment and to defend your own views until one proves to the satisfaction of your mind that you are not right.
Do not judge anyone by what he is, but by what he accomplishes. To quote the great Laurier, be adamant with the haughty, but do not fail to be kind, generous and helpful to the sick and the needy, in order that the Liberal party never ceases to be the people's party. Public respect will be your reward.
Liberalism shall never die. Liberalism shall never be a meaningless word. If it ever became a smoke-screen for lobbyists, profiteers and theatrical producers, would it not ,be an outrage to the glorious past of the Liberal party?
A large number of well gifted and promising young men are in the Canadian forces. Those who will survive this terrible war and yourselves will have the duty to join together in a
patriotic and common effort to establish "the new order" which everybody speaks of and which nobody knows.
The task of reshaping the destiny of out beloved country, Canada, is formidable. It is yours. Do not be downhearted. You may succeed and you will do so, but only if you are imbued with Christian charity and with a true Canadian spirit, and if you are guided by the sound principles of true. Liberalism.


Mr. S. H. KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
return to the subject that is now before the house; I refer to the consideration of this year's budget, which was presented to parliament by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Iisley) on June 26. Like other hon. members who have spoken, there are certain points concerning which I should like to congratulate the minister. I agree with him in the basic considerations which he singled out as those that had to be faced in formulating this year's budget proposals. There were four, as indicated at page 4174 of Hansard: first, meeting the cash requirements; second, encouraging production; thiid, relieving cases of special hardship in the matter of income taxation; fourth, facing up to the need of a plan for the post-war period. I feel, too, that I want to congratulate the minister upon the clarity with which he states his position as far as the post-war period is concerned. I do not agree with the position he takes, but I could wish that other hon. members would follow his example and discuss objectively and straightforwardly the basic issues before us as we look into the post-war period, instead of indulging in diatiibes and criticisms of one kind or another against the principles of democratic control of industry and public ownership. Both in this debate and in the debate that took place a short time ago on the second reading of the Bank Act the minister made his position quite clear. He also made it clear that in his mind there is an issue as between private enterprise and the public ownership and control which this party proposes, and that this is the issue which will have to be settled in the immediate postwar period.
In a few minutes I shall come back to what the minister had to say along that line. Before doing so, I wish to say something about the financial proposals which the minister has presented on the basis of his first three considerations. First of all, I should like to speak about the suggestion that the compulsory savings portion of the personal income tax be discontinued. The minister pointed out in his speech that this action will mean a loss of revenue to the government in the amount of about $110,000,000 a year. In other words the minister has told the house and the
The Budget-Mr. Knowles

country that in the light of the protests which have been made and the grievances that need to be adjusted it is possible to make adjustments in the budget for this year to the tune of $110,000,000. Accordingly, when we in this corner of the house make certain suggestions we are not asking for money which is not there. We are merely proposing alternative ways of making adjustments with that 5110,000,000. Basically our contention is that if there is that amount of money with which adjustments can be made, the full benefit of it should go to those who need it most, namely to those in the lower income brackets. That is the reason why, even though we welcome in the name of the people who will get some relief this proposal of the minister, we have contended that alternative measures would have been better. We feel that the whole amount of that $110,000,000 should have been given by way of relief to those in the lower income brackets.
When different speakers supporting the amendment of the Progressive Conservative party, and hon. members from other parts of the house, have suggested that the income tax exemption level should be raised, the reply of the minister has been that if that were done it would result in huge savings of income tax for those in the higher brackets. This was said, too, by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent). I would point out that when the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) spoke he said that if an adjustment such as we are proposing were to be made, there would have to be an adjustment of the rates in the higher brackets, so that what was feared would not happen. In other words, there is no real argument on the point; it is just a matter of arithmetic, or a matter of adjusting the rates. AVe contend that if there is this amount of money with which adjustments can be made, the full benefit of it should go to those in the lower income tax brackets.


Humphrey Mitchell: Does that include the hon. member?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; I refer to a lower bracket than the one in which we happen to come. Our problem is one of a special type, as the hon. minister knows.
As a matter of fact a small portion of that $110,000,000-perhaps seven, eight or ten millions-might have been used to give a further increase in old age pensions. I mention that as being in line with what I have already said, that if there is this amount of money with which to make adjustments, certainly no portion of that benefit should go to those in the upper brackets who do not need 
it, but who will get a measure of relief under the government's plan. The whole of it should go to those who need it.
There are a number of details I should like to call to the attention of the Minister of Finance or, in some cases, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gibson). Their work, so far as income tax matters are concerned, is pretty much allied. I hold in my hand a copy of a notice sent to an income tax payer at a Toronto address. I need not give his name, but I have the actual document in my hand. It is dated June 6, 1944, and is identified as form T-218. This notice advised the taxpayer in question that his 1941 income tax had finally been assessed, and that it had been found that when he made out his income tax return for 1941 it was one cent short. So that, according to this statement, he now owes for 1941 the amount of one cent. But the form goes on to show that, in addition to the one cent, he _ owes interest. I hope members of the banking and commerce committee are not listening to this, because it may put ideas in their heads. It states that he owes interest on one cent amounting to $3.33, or a total debt of $3.34.


Humphrey Mitchell: On one cent?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, on one cent, in two years. That one cent was due in 1942, and is now to be paid in 1944. But he must pay $3.33 interest which, according to my calculations, amounts to 16,650 per cent per annum.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Something wrong somewhere.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I should imagine that is usury.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The letter goes on to say that if this request is disregarded and the money is not paid within fifteen days of receipt of notice, legal action will be taken for recovery, in court, or the taxpayer's income may be intercepted at its source by statutory powers. The notice is signed by W. S. Fisher, chief solicitor. The comment has been made that there is something wrong-and there certainly is.


Gordon Graydon: I guess that fellow has gone C.C.F., anyway.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, if he has not, he should.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Incidentally, this taxpayer tells me that he was puzzled as to how he should make out his return in 1942, for the year 1941. He went to the office of the income tax people in Toronto, and had them help him1 make it out. The one cent mistake was their mistake, in the first place.

The Budget-Mr. Knowles
There is another matter I would call to the attention of these two ministers. This arose out of an unfortunate experience which was drawn to my attention a few months ago. A taxpayer in Winnipeg received notice that he stil'l owed S10 on his taxes for 1942. He was satisfied that he had paid the tax in full, and had his receipts. When he took the receipts to the Winnipeg office he was confronted with the blunt statement that his receipt in one instance did not conform to the records in the office, and he was told that he must have tampered with that receipt. The man was so incensed that he came to see me immediately, and I in turn took up the matter with the income tax authorities in Ottawa. May I say at this point that the income tax authorities here took care of the matter to my entire satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the taxpayer. In due course he was given a definite apology for some of the things that had been said to him.
But the point I call to the attention of the department is that that mistake could not have happened if a very simple change were made in the form of the receipt that is issued. What I say holds true to-day with respect to the receipts for such income tax payments as some of us are still making. The receipts have room only for the insertion of the amount in figures. There is no room for inserting the amount in words, by way of confirmation. If that very simple change were made, a change which it seems to me ought to be made in connection with income tax receipts, incidents such as the one I have described could not occur.
Another matter to which I would refer has already been mentioned in the debate by at least two hon. members. I refer to the request of parents of student nurses for income tax exemption on their account. This matter has been drawn to the attention of the authorities on a number of occasions. During the earlier part of the year I was in correspondence with both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue. In fact, in the house on May 19, during the discussion of another matter which had some bearing on the point, I asked1 the Minister of National Revenue whether something was being done, and his reply as it appears at page 3087 of Hansard for May 19, was:
The matter has been brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance and I know he is giving it consideration at the present time.
Well, that was not a commitment on the part of the Minister of Finance, but I must say that after that statement I was disappointed when this grievance was not taken care of under the third of the minister's basic considerations.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: A different minister said it, though.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the matter had been referred to the Minster of Finance. As a matter of fact I had correspondence from him in which he made a similar statement.
Another point under the third consideration outlined by the minister has to do with sleeping-car conductors and sleeping-car porters. As hon. members may know-for most of us have a good deal of contact with these gentlemen, as we travel around the country- they are treated differently, in one income tax matter, from railway engineers, firemen, brake-men and train conductors. These latter men to whom I have referred are allowed certain exemptions for their expenses while away from home. That allowance is denied to sleeping-car conductors and sleeping-car porters. I shall not take the time to give the technical basis for the discrimination, but it seems to me that something should be done to bring the situation into line as between these two groups. Here again I was in correspondnece with the two ministers to whom I have referred, and on May 30 the Minister of Finance wrote me in reply to one of my letters about a case of this ldnd and said:
I shall be glad to see that your representations are given careful consideration in the prebudgetary discussions which are now taking place.
Yours very truly,
J. L. Ilsley.
That was not a commitment, but the very fact that the matter was to be given consideration made me feel that there was some hope. Again I was. disappointed that the minister did not include a correction of that grievance when the budget was brought down.
Still another situation to which I should like to refer is the discrimination as between various pension plans when it comes to exemption from total income in the filing of income tax returns. This has been brought to my attention in particular by employees of the two railways, the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National. There are some plans the payments into which are exempted from total income before income tax is paid, while there are other pension plans where that allowance is not granted. I appreciate the minister's statement on this whole matter and I have given it close study. I notice it is his intention to set up a commission to study this subject, but in the meantime these employees feel that there is a marked discrimination
46S0
The Budget-Mr. Knowles

against them which I feel the minister might have taken care of this year. My time will not permit me to argue the case in detail, but I hope that even yet the minister will reconsider a number of matters like this, before the budget resolutions are finally passed.
There is still another grievance under clause 3 of the minister's basic considerations. On several occasions I have raised in the house the matter of income tax deductions from the men who went to lviska. After some considerable time the Minister of National Revenue made an announcement in which he concurred with my request. That announcement was most welcome, but there was such a long delay in making it that these men had already had taken away from them taxes which should not have been deducted. In the meantime some of these men have gone overseas, and deductions which were made in January, February and March of this year and which should not have been made; and which the government is now admitting will go back to them, are still being withheld. It looks to these men, if they live, as though they will not get these rebates until some time in 1946. I have taken this matter up several times with the department, but I urge that this matter could be expedited to an extent of which there has not yet been sufficient evidence.
I should like to turn for a moment to some of the comments I was making earlier when I congratulated the minister upon his clarity in stating his position so far as the post-war period was concerned. He has made it clear in this and other debates that he feels that the basis upon which to found post-war Canada is that of a return to the power and authority of private enterprise, private industry and private business. As a matter of fact, business itself is complaining that it is not getting everything it wants out of this budget, but at least the green light is there, the hint, the indication that if business will stick with the Liberal party it will get the full consideration it wants when the post-war period comes. The minister is unlike many other hon. members in that he faces up to the issue that has to be settled as between the return to the power and authority of private enterprise and the forward march to democratic public control of the economic life of the country in the interests of the people of Canada.


Humphrey Mitchell: What does .my hon. friend mean by "democratic control"?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it the Minister of Labour who is asking that question? I believe my hon. friend knew the answer before I did.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am asking my hon. friend for the answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to say to my hon. friend and to the house that I think it is pathetic, if not tragic, the kind of discussion that goes on in this house with respect to this basic issue. Members on all sides rise in their places and try to apply epithets to this party which are incorrect. They endeavour to point out that if the C.C.F. comes to power there will be regimentation, bureaucracy, loss of initiative, loss of democratic control and all that. That kind of argument is an insult to the Canadian people. The Canadian people are thinking more and more along these lines. Many hon. members do not seem to realize that there is an old adage which says that if you want to make an enemy, the quickest way to do it is to tell a friend that he is wrong. That is what some hon.' members are doing to the Canadian people when they castigate the whole concept of democratic public control of the economic life of this country, in which I am glad to note the Minister of Labour is becoming interested once more.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let us have an explanation of democratic control.


Mr. GILLIS:: Give the hon. member a little time when his time expires and he will give you a lecture.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have already suggested that the people of Canada are interested in the issue in which the Minister of Labour and I are interested. That interest is borne out by the results of recent elections. It might have a salutary effect to remind the members of this house how the people of Canada have been casting their votes during the past few years. We have to my right the Progressive Conservative group which is four times as large as the C.C.F. representation. There is the Liberal group with its seventy per cent of the seats, but I suggest that that composition does not reflect the thinking of the Canadian people at the present time. I have here a table which I have worked out after consulting the "Canadian Parliamentary Guide" for 1944. It shows the composition of the various legislatures in this country. This table is as follows:

The Budget-Mr. Knowles
Progressive
Conserva-
Liberals	tives	C.C.F.British Columbia.. .	. 20	11	16Alberta	. 1	1Saskatchewan	. 5	47Manitoba	. 24	15	5Ontario	. 15	38	34Quebec	. 59-	New Brunswick. . .	. 24	19	Nova Scotia	. 23	4	3Prince Edward Island 20	10	Totals	. 191	97	106Social Credit	Others	Vacan- cies	Totals	Date of last provincial election1	48	October 11,1941.36	18	1	57	March 21,1940.52	June 15, 1944.3	7	1	55	April 22, 1941.3	90	August 4, 1943.19	8	86	October 23, 1939.5	48	November 20, 1939.30	October 28,1941.30	September 15,1943.-	-	-	-	39	48	15	496	
Hon. members can look at that table; it will be, perhaps, more understandable in printed form than as I read it. But the significance of it is this, that although our hon. friends to our immediate right, the Progressive Conservatives, hold nearly four times as many seats in this house as we do, elected four and one-half years ago, in all nine legislatures in Canada they hold only ninety-seven seats, whereas we hold 106. In this house the Liberals still have a huge majority of seventy per cent, elected in 1940. In the nine legislatures of Canada their seats represent only forty per cent of the total. However, the figures I have given thus far are for all nine legislatures, three of which were elected prior to the last dominion election. The six which have held elections since that time are British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. The totals for these six provinces, which can be taken out of the table I have already placed on Hansard, are: Liberals, 107; Progressive Conservative, 78; C.C.F., 105. I need not mention the representatives of other parties; they are very few. It will be noted that the Progressive Conservatives run a poor third; the C.C.F. and Liberals, neck and neck. But those six elections include three which were held in 1941. In 1942 there were no provincial elections. There have been three in 1943 and in 1944 thus far, and I suggest that these three still further underline the trend of thinking in this country. Where were they? They were in Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan. The people of these three widely scattered provinces returned-note these figures-forty Liberals, forty-eight Progressive Conservatives and eighty-one C.C.F. members of legislative assemblies.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What percentage of the vote of Ontario did you get?


Stanley Howard Knowles: These figures speak for themselves.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What percentage of the vote did you get in Ontario?


Clarence Gillis: We got thirty-four members there.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How large a vote?


Clarence Gillis: Thirty-four members.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If I may be permitted to interrupt, my hon. friend is using the argument of representation by popular vote against the argument of number of members; I was asking him how large a percentage of the popular vote did his party get in Ontario.


Major James William Coldwell: Fifty-four per cent in
Saskatchewan.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the last retreat of my hon. friend.


Mr. WRIGHT:: It is the last election.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry I have not the figures to give the Minister of Pensions and National Health.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It destroys your whole argument.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no, it does not. I do not wonder that the minister tries to give an answer, but the figures are conclusive.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am asking how large a popular vote the C.C.F. got in Ontario.


Major James William Coldwell: What did you get last time for your 178 seats?


Stanley Howard Knowles: In 1942, 1943 and 1944 there have been held in this country twenty-six by-elections, both federal and provincial. I am leaving nothing out; it includes the byelections which elected the Minister of Labour, the Minister of National War Services and the Minister of Justice to this house.
The Budget-Mr. Knowles


Humphrey Mitchell: We were elected.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes. I am trying to
point out that we are not omitting my hon. friend, who has found a new interest in democratic public control.


Humphrey Mitchell: I should like my hon.
friend to explain "democratic public control.''


Thomas Vien: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Here are the results of
these twenty-six by-elections over the whole country: Liberal victories, nine; C.C.F. nine; Progressive Conservative, one; Independent, ore; Labour Progressive, one; Bloc Populaire, o*.e; Social Credit, one; Manitoba Coalition, three.
But perhaps hon. members from the east might be particularly interested in the way we do it out west. An hon. member from New Brunswick says he is not interested, but I will tell him anyway. Of these twenty-six byelections, twelve were held in the four western provinces; three were federal and nine provincial. The C.C.F. won all three of the federal, but I will group them together. Of the twelve by-elections in the west the C.C.F. won eight; Manitoba Coalition, three; Social Credit, one; Liberal, nil; Progressive Conservative, nil.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: Was I not elected at a by-election in 1941?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. If you want to go back to 1940 or 1935 you will establish a different trend.


Mr. COLD WELL:: There is a change.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What I am trying to
show here is the present trend. I gave figures first of all showing the nine legislatures, going right back to 1939, but to get the trend I have come down to these more recent periods, and the figures I have just given are for the years 1942, 1943 and 1944 thus far.


James Garfield Gardiner: What is important is
the future trend.


Clarence Gillis: It is pretty nearly time you fellows got started.


Major James William Coldwell: This indicates the future trend.	.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friends may
have some more jolts coming to them in future months. It is because of the kind of discussions which take place in this house so frequently that I felt that these figures should be presented to hon. members, that they
lMr. Knowles.]
should realize that when they castigate us, when they run down the ideas for which we stand, they are flying in the face of the thinking of the people whom many of them still represent-"misrepresent," my leader says- because they were elected at the time of the last general election. I would hope that even yet, pending the day when there will be a new parliament which will reflect better the thinking of the Canadian people at the present time, hon. members will face up to the issues which will confront us in the post-war period, for it is obvious that that is the wish of the Canadian people.
This all arose out of my congratulating the Minister of Finance upon facing up to that issue and upon stating clearly the case as he sees it, even though I disagree with him on the stand he takes.


James Garfield Gardiner: The stand you say he
takes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I see that my time has
just about expired. I should like to refer briefly to another matter.
When the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews) rose to speak this afternoon I thought he might deal with the matter about which he questioned the Minister of National Defence a week or two ago; I refer to the destruction in Brandon of material formerly used by the army at the A-4 centre which was closed there a short while ago. The hon. member a couple of weeks ago asked a question on the orders of the day about this. I have received considerable correspondence concerning it. In view of the fact that the hon. member for Brandon had asked the question I have refrained from raising the matter, thinking he would pursue it, and I thought he would certainly do so to-day. Apparently he has accepted the minister's answer, which he made, I believe, on Friday, to the effect that these things-enamel ware, porcelain ware and so on-w'ere destroyed for medical reasons. One of the correspondents I have had in connection with this matter from the city of Brandon is a medical doctor. He of course, as might be expected, ridicules the idea that these things could not have been sterilized, and I may say that the people of Brandon, according to the information I have, and the people of Winnipeg, 130 miles away, are quite indignant over this destruction of goods which could have been used-kinds of goods which are not available for civilian purchase in Manitoba at the present time. I have in my hand a copy of the Winnipeg Tribune of July 7 which contains photographs of some of these go^ds, showing that the axe

The Budget-Mr. Cruickshank
has been put right through them to destroy them and make sure that they could not be used.
I have not the time to go into this matter in greater detail, but the answer given by the Minister of National Defence does not satisfy the local people in Brandon or the people of Manitoba generally, and I think the whole question of the disposal of army and canteen goods calls for further investigation at this stage, so that if there has been anything amiss in this incident the situation will not be repeated. I am perplexed to understand it in the light of the action which this parliament took in setting up the War Assets Corporation. I wonder why it is that these goods were not declared surplus and turned over to that corporation for sale or disposal in some orderly way. It has been called to my attention that some of these articles such as coal scuttles, garbage cans, et cetera, which missed the axe when they were thrown on the dump in Brandon, have been retrieved by Brandon citizens and are now being used. The people are glad to get them and sterilize them and make use of them, because such articles are not available on the market there at the present time. I hope the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of Munitions and Supply will look into this matter further, so that if there has been anything amiss it can be corrected before there is a recurrence of it.
The vote will shortly be taken, I understand. We of this group were prepared to have the debate concluded on June 29-


James Ewen Matthews: Will the hon. member furnish the house with the name of the medical doctor who gave him this information? Who and what is he?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am very glad to do so. He is Doctor D. L. Johnson, who is the M.L.A. for Brandon. I suppose my hon. friend-a friend, by the way, of many years-is wanting me to point out that he is a C.C.P. M.L.A. In the light of the figures I gave a few minutes ago I suggest that the case is strengthened by that fact. This gentleman is one of the by-election victors to whom I referred.
I was about to say, Mr. Speaker, that when the vote is taken on the amendment moved by the Progressive Conservatives we shall find ourselves, admittedly, in a bit of a quandary. There is much in it that is inconsistent and much in it that does not mean a great deal. Nevertheless there are in it some things with which we agree. We are therefore going to give it our qualified support and will vote for it. We regret, however, that an amendment quite as ambiguous as this should be before
the house at such a time when what the people want is really something definite. I would remind Your Honour that the amendment moved by the leader of this group, which has already been turned down by the house, was such an amendment, a definite proposal as to what the house ought to do to provide for a better Canada in the post-war period.


Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: If I followed the example of most hon. members who have spoken I would put a table on Hansard and read the rest of my speech-blank, blank, blank, blank, blank, Fraser Valley.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is this one now?


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I say to the house, through you, Mr. Speaker, that this is not going to be a speech like most of those that have been made in this budget debate, a speech which someone reads that has been written by someone else. I have no notes; I have nothing written, and any time I have to have my speech written by somebody else it will not be made in this house. I am sorry to say that does not go for at least eighty-five per cent of the members, and I do not need to look very far afield when I say that, or in any particular corner of the house. I cannot understand how any member of this house, being a returned soldier, can refrain from taking part in this debate. I am sorry that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) is not in the house, because what I have to say is concerned primarily with his department. Possibly there might be an election, and after hearing all the delightful figures from Winnipeg I wish to put myself on record now before that election.
Mr. Speaker, in the few years that I have been in Ottawa I have been treated with great courtesy by yourself, by the Clerk, and by every official of the House of Commons and every senior official of the civil service with whom I have come in contact, and on this occasion I wish to express my appreciation of all these courtesies that have been shown me. And let me say that I have no hope of getting a judgeship.
The reason why I am speaking now is that, as I understand, it is desired to have the vote taken to-night. I certainly would not have spoken to-night if I had thought that the vote would be taken to-morrow; I would have preferred to wait until then. However, let me say that I have listened throughout this debate in connection with the budget to everything except the budget. Everything but the budget has been discussed, and I have heard now something that I had not expected to hear discussed even by my hon. friends
The Budget-Mr. Cruickshank

from Winnipeg-the groom of the bedchamber. The reason why I am not going to vote against the government on this occasion is this. Frankly, I had expected that I would vote against the government on the budget because I did not see how I could do otherwise as a returned soldier. The Progressive Conservatives would have received my support if their amendment had been framed in different language. I would have been voting with them, but I cannot vote with them as the amendment stands. I entirely disagree with the government on their man-power policy and am not afraid to say so, but I must say at the same time that every party in this house made the same mistake in 1940. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation did not want to take any part in the war at all.


Major James William Coldwell: That is not right.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The C.C.F. would take no part in the war at all. They would not send any men overseas to fight. Well, would they wait until the enemy had come over here?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: September 7, 1939.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The Liberal party, however, made a mistake-and I am a supporter of the Liberal party. The National Conservative party of that day, whose name has been changed about eleven times since then, would also not take any action. The fact of the matter is that none of us was prepared to face the public and say that we would put conscription into force from the drop of the hat, although we represented the people of Canada.


Mr. JAQUES:: We did.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not flatter you by calling your party a party.	.


Norman Jaques: We fought the election on it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I was speaking of the main parties. However, I am glad to know that your party took that stand.


Norman Jaques: You might admit it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have listened to you people making your speeches about $25 a month several times and I want you to listen to my speech about S25 an hour. None of the parties had courage to face the public and say that it would put conscription into force at the very outset, as the United States and Great Britain did. We all made a mistake, and I include myself. But surely we should have the courage now to admit our mistake. There is one thing I cannot understand in public life and it is this. Wre speak of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, but what do they do? If the government adopts any of their better ideas they immediately begin to cry because those ideas have been adopted, but that is what the opposition is for. The greatest mistake that any man in public life can make is, in my opinion, not to.be willing to admit that he has been in error. We who are in public life in Canada, I repeat, all made a mistake in 1940 when we failed to adopt the right attitude in this matter. But to-day it is a different story. I said in 1940, speaking as an old soldier, that in my opinion one volunteer was worth any ten conscripts. I attempt to keep up to date even with my hon. friend and his programme. I keep up to date. I can change my opinion in that regard. I say now that any one man of the 29th battalion is worth forty conscripts. I am now going four times better than before. We have this army here. A short time ago I was not prepared to adopt the attitude that I am adopting here. I really believe that at least the three ministers of national defence of the government think exactly the same as I do, but they are not ,in a position to speak out as freely. I believe that we should immediately put into effect the order in council, except for one reason. I believe it would cause more disunity in Canada than the forty thousand men are worth.
I am very much riled when I read in the newspapers and when I get first-hand information, that has not yet been contradicted by any member of the government, that soldiers of the Canadian army have been insulted in Valleyfield and in other parts of the province of Quebec and that the civilian authorities take no steps to stop these insults. I was told the other day by a woman serving in the armed forces from one province that when they are granted their furloughs they will not go home because they fear and hesitate to go to their own, districts, knowing that insults will be thrown at them for wearing the uniform. There is no use in trying to deny these facts. They are here and cannot be denied. When I say that, I know what I am talking about. Farmers' sons in British Columbia do not get the consideration that is given to farmers' sons in Quebec. I do not ask for that consideration for the farmers' sons in my riding, and I come from a farm riding. I am very proud of the fact that I come from a farm riding. We are proud of the fact that our sons are over there fighting to defend not Canada but the whole free world. We ask for no special consideration.
I do not like to say anything about the good province that I have defended every time
fMr. Cruickshank.!

The Budget-Mr. Cruickshank
I have gone home, but I for one am tired of hearing this talk about unity, if unity is to be only one-sided. There are nine provinces in Canada. If we are to have unity we must have unity of the whole nine provinces, not one province against the eight. We cannot afford under any consideration to do anything that would bring on disunity now; but I want that one province to remember this, a day of reckoning will come unless a different attitude is adopted in their responsibility as a part of Canada, and they will regret it far more than the rest of Canada.
There is one thing that I heartily disagree with the Department of National Defence on, and again I am sorry the minister is not at the moment in his place but he knows my stand on it. To-day the minister told us the one great thing that we want to keep in the wonderful army is unity and esprit de corps, exactly as we had in the last war. He told us that he wanted to keep the army up to strength. I agree with him 100 per cent. He told us that in his opinion, from a voluntary point of view-and he is not only speaking as Minister of National Defence but as a soldier with a distinguished record in the last war-a volunteer far outshone any conscript. That can be checked in Hansard to-morrow. I agree with him 100 per cent. Where I do disagree with him and his department most emphatically is that in Petawawa to-day volunteers have to take orders from conscript non-commissioned officers. Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough in this day and age, That will not go down before the boys. Figures were quoted to-day by the minister, but I happen to know that volunteers in Petawawa and other camps have to take orders from a draftee who will not or cannot see his way clear to do his duty for his country. That is one point that rankles most with me, and I think this government would be well advised, if they wish to have any standing whatsoever with the men who are serving overseas, to rectify this at once, and to see to it that no volunteers are asked to take orders from a draftee who will not volunteer to serve his country wherever his services are needed.
Mr. Speaker, it is usually customary to praise the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsey) on his budget speech, but as far as I can see, everything but the budget has been discussed today; therefore, I prefer to praise the two ministers that I think should be given most credit in connection with the budget. I have disagreed with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) on many occasions and perhaps will do so on many more; but I wish to tell him that in my opinion, as a representative of a rural riding-and I would say this in my riding before Liberal, Conservative or C.C.F.
members-no other man in this House of Commons has the knowledge of agriculture that he has. I shall not always agree with him, but I wish to praise him for his part in this budget. I shall not tell the house how long I have been connected with politics, because I might be giving away my age, but ever since I have been connected with it, or ever since I remember my father speaking of it, what we were fighting for was the removal of the duty from farm implements. What happened in this budget? The present Minister of Agriculture by his steadfast fighting secured this action on our behalf.
There is another minister to whom I wish to give a word of praise, and possibly I am sticking my neck out in a political sense in British Columbia by saying this, but I do not care. I am a charter member of the Canadian Legion, and I wish to tell hon. members here that any member of the Canadian Legion is allowed to speak for the soldiers not only of the last war, but of this war. I happen to belong to a few organizations. A person can belong to an organization by right of might or by right of wealth or by some other right, but there is only one organization in Canada to which one can belong by only one right, his right of service for his king and country, namely, the Canadian Legion. Make no mistake about that. I may be criticized by some of the branches in my province in what I am about to say of the minister to whom I shall refer in a moment. He has taken a lot of criticism. He has even taken some from the city of Toronto about a hospital, but I am very proud of the fact that each and every party in this house have given nothing but praise to the present Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) for his efforts on behalf of the soldiers. I do not always agree with the legislation he has brought down, neither do the legion. But I wish to assure the legion, through you, Mr. Speaker, that if they knew the Minister of Pensions and National Health as I know him they would know that, while we have not got all that we endeavoured to get, we would not have got half of what we have secured had it not been for the sympathetic efforts of the minister.
I wish to make a suggestion to the government. I hope there is to be a vote, although it has been intimated to me since I began to speak that there will not be one to-night. That being so, I may take my forty minutes. I should like to say a little about some of the problems of agriculture. I wish the Minister of Finance were in his place at present, because I could give him some advice
The Budget-Mr. Cruickshank

that I trust he will take. If he took it he would have a far more successful operating board in one of those temporary buildings- thank goodness they call them "temporary". Let us hope they will be temporary. In saying that I do not wish to be critical of the board. They have done wonderful work. The only suggestion I wish to make to the Minister of Finance with respect to his part in the budget is that he adopt the principle they have adopted in the United States with respect to their board corresponding 'to our wartime prices and trade board. In the United States their board meets with all the farm organizations and the cooperatives, not after they fix the price of strawberries-and while the Minister of Finance is not listening, I think the Minister of Agriculture is-but before they fix the price of strawberries and vegetables. The board meets with the farmers and others and gets their ideas on what they should be paid, what they think the farmers can produce for. What does our board do? They do not even meet when they fix the prices. They do not meet at all, and when they send their officials out to Brtiish Columbia they ignore them afterwards. The sad part so far as the berry growers in British Columbia are concerned is unfortunately the Minister of Agriculture was out in Saskatchewan on a forlorn mission at the time the berries were picked. I am sorry that because of the freight rates problem, or because of the heat it is not possible to send British Columbia berries here. It would be a revelation to hon. members if I could give them a real meal of British Columbia strawberries; they would remember it for a long time. I want, however, to pay tribute to one hon. member. The other day I happened to be up in the "bucket of blood", where I remarked that I had not eaten a good piece of meat since coming back to eastern Canada. One of my good C.C.F. friends, who was going back to his farm a day or two later, brought me a really good roast of beef, and I want to say that you could not get finer beef anywhere in Canada, with the exception of the province of British Columbia.
I see the Minister of National Defence is back in the house, and I want to offer a criticism. In doing so I am speaking most emphatically for the old soldiers I- know. I know I am speaking for many soldiers serving overseas at the present time. I think I am speaking for the Canadian Legion. I know definitely I am speaking for the battalion of which I am very proud, the 29th, which was mentioned by the minister to-day when speaking of esprit de corps. In no less than three letters received to-day from over-
seas and letters from twio army camps in Canada I am told that I speak for soldiers on active service both here and abroad when I say both the old soldiers and the soldiers engaged in the present war strongly resent what neither the Minister of National Defence nor any other minister can defend; that is, the fact that a non-commissioned officer of the draftee army, who does not wear the G.S., can give orders to a private who does wear it. No govemrhent, no party and no individual can defend that as far as I am concerned.
I have another suggestion to offer the minister. According to this week's issue of Time the government of the United States is giving its soldiers another raise in pay. Speaking from memory I believe it is to be $10 a month for the highest grades in the infantry, and it is estimated that seventy-five per cent of the infantry will come within that category. I want to recommend to the minister that he immediately increase the pay of members of. the active army serving in theatres of war by fifty cents a day, to be given either as a deferred payment in the form of war savings certificates or in the form of a life insurance policy. Do not let the sound money men talk you out of it; pay no attention to the Bank of Canada. I am sure the people of Canada will 'be behind you. You cannot buy patriotism, but yiou can reward gallant service. You will have the support of all the people, no matter what their political party. The people of Canada will never begrudge an extra fifty cents a day to our fighting men. You cannot pay for the sacrifice a man makes when he loses his life, but you can give him some reward in this way. I want to urge this upon the minister for his consideration, and I do not believe it could be classed as a bribe to anyone. It is our duty to differentiate in some way between those who are offering their lives and those who are staying at home.


Mr. R. W. GRAY (Lambtqn West):: Mr. Speaker, speaking in the house last session on the subject of man-power I said that I agreed with those who had declared that in a free society the obligations and privileges of military training should be shared generally under a fair and just system of selective compulsory service without geographical restriction. I am convinced now, as I was then, that this is the correct policy. I read afterwards that I was as a voice calling in the wilderness, and perhaps it might have seemed that way because, if I remember aright, I received very little support from hon. members sitting in this house in opposition to the government. The exception, as was mentioned a few moments

The Budget

Mr. Gray
ago, was the New Democracy party which, ever since the outbreak of war, has urged that there should be compulsory selective service without geographical restriction. As for the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, the only group in this house which opposed as a group the passing of what was then known as bill No. 80, the National Resources Mobilization Act, introduced by the government to remove the restrictions with respect to service overseas, and which party, as my hon. friend has just said, was opposed to the sending of any expeditionary force to the aid of the motherland after the outbreak of war in 1939, that party stands indicted to-day by its failure to meet the challenge and perform its duty when called upon at that time. I propose to place on record the words of the leader of the C.C.F. party speaking in this house at the war session of 1939, as they are found at page 55 of Hansard of that year:
In view of these considerations, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation believes that Canada's policy should be based first on the fundamental national interests of the Canadian people, as well as on their interest in the outcome of war. Canada should be prepared to defend her own shores, but her assistance overseas should be limited to economic aid and must not include conscription of man-power or the sending of any expeditionary force.
I repeat, "or the sending of any expeditionary force." What hope have we, therefore, from a party which in time of peril would interpret Canada's interests in the most narrow and restricted sense; a party which, at the very moment British, Canadian and United States troops were struggling to maintain a foothold on the Normandy beaches, in conference assembled, presided over by a leader of the party and having as its guest the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), would pass the following resolution:
Whereas the C.C.F. is a socialist party, and whereas the official policy of the British labour party of coalition with the Conservative party compromised the working class struggle against capitalism in Great Britain, therefore be it resolved that the Quebec C.C.F. declares strong disapproval of the continuation of its policy of collaboration with the capitalistic government of Great Britain.
Instead of condemning, let us give credit to the labour party in Great Britain which, in the empire's darkest hour, was willing to postpone for the time being its hopes for the future in order to retain the objectives already won. To-day I find some support from the official opposition, but it is a timid support tucked in at the very end of a long resolution moved in amendment to the budget, and only conceived after forty-seven days of almost continuous debate on the war appropriation measure. Surely some time during the weeks that debate
lasted the official opposition could have made a motion in plain, clear, unequivocal terms instead of leaving it to the budget debate and the financial critic who, after spending ninety-five per cent of his time in discussing fiscal matters, dealt with the man-power question only incidentally. I submit, further, that the amendment is not a definite resolution that the government enforce the powers contained in chapter 13 of the 1940 statutes, being the general mobilization resources act, as amended by chapter 29 of the 1942 statutes, commonly known as bill No. 80. Let me read the amendment moved by the official opposition:
That the government has failed to make effective the full mobilization of our financial, industrial and material resources, as well as our man-power, but is maintaining a so-called home-defence army, at a cost to the taxpayer in excess of $150 million per annum, at a time when the need for army reinforcements, for farming and for industry is so urgent.
What that means perhaps the mover alone could tell. But if one reads the clause and couples with it the statement made by the hon. member, wherein he urges that we turn these men back to farms, factories and forests until needed, it must mean the disbandment of these highly-trained men. With this sentiment I disagree, with all the force at my command; and I am in full accord with the remarks of the Minister of National Defence this afternoon and those of the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) who, speaking in this house last week in the debate, said that he would oppose with all his strength the demobilization of these fully-trained forces.
I noticed in Hansard that when the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. May-bank) was speaking the other evening, the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) interrupted him, and said that he was being misinterpreted. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre was interpreting the remark in a manner similar to what I have done, saying that the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe had said that the men should be sent back to the farms, the factories and the forests. That hon. member said he was being misinterpreted. Therefore, in order that there may be no mistake, and to keep the record clear, let me quote exactly what was said by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, and let the house be the judge. His remarks are found at page 4341 of Hansard for June 29, as follows:
For the honour of Canada I urge upon the government that they now remove the political halo that surrounds this most ridiculous camouflage and to turn these able-bodied men back to the farms, the factories and the forest where they can produce for victory until they are marshalled for the more vital service for which they were conscripted.
The Budget-Mr. Gray

The minister, speaking today, was too kind when he said that they were to be sent back to the farms, the forests, the factories or for service overseas. No; according to the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, they are to be sent back to the farms, the forests and the factories.
And for how long?-"Until they are marshalled for the more vital service." Can anyone imagine anything more fantastic than to demobilize these men, to use the words of the hon. member, "until they are marshalled for the more vital service?" It is true that we have heard from the hustings from a reported leader of the party that the Progressive Conservatives were going to lay down the gauntlet and call for an immediate order in council. This, however, came from the outside, from a gentleman who has no responsibility to parliament, and not from the elected leader in this house. I ask this chamber: Is it significant that we have had no direct endorsement of the statements made by Mr. McTague and Mr. Bracken? Is it significant that the elected leader in this chamber has remained silent in the matter, up to this time?
I submit that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is right when he states that such statements of policy should be made by the leader in this house, where the statements may be analysed, and not made from positions of ambush. I am not prepared to say, as did Mr. McTague, that the province of Quebec would vote otherwise than it did if now given an opportunity. At the same time 1 have faith enough in the loyalty of French Canada, when the need is properly shown and when it realizes that all the seventy-odd thousands of men now mobilized and fully trained are being treated in the same manner. Then, with few exceptions, the whole subject will be looked upon in its proper light, and these men will go out and do battle with their fellow men, and come back proud that the step was taken and that they were privileged to form a part of the Canadian Army in the restoration and liberation of a free France, and the conquest of a German tyrant.
I listened carefully to the speech of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) this afternoon. I know how proud he is, as are we all, of the volunteer forces; we know the sincerity of purpose of the minister. Those of us who have had the privilege of volunteering for service to our country, wherever called, remember the thrill of pride when first we donned the uniform. At the same time, as I have said in this house before: Is it a fair system? Is it a just fMr. Grav.]
system? Is it fair that one family should offer its all, and another family not give anything?
Nor do I think-and I say this in all kindness-it is fair for the minister to use as an illustration in support of the citizen committees for recruiting, the use of these same bodies by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) in connection with his victory loan. To me there is a vast difference between urging my neighbour or friend to invest his money in a gilt-edged victory bond, and in urging him to have his son enlist for active service. I still urge the government to enforce the statute by order in council, especially having in mind that the reserve forces are now well-trained and capable of being utilized, if necessary, as an active home defence force. At the same time, I do not propose to allow an amendment such as that moved by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe to becloud the real issue in the debate, namely the support or otherwise of the fiscal policy of the government, as enunciated by the Minister of Finance. Therefore I shall vote against the amendment as framed by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, and I shall support the Minister of Finance in his motion to go into committee of ways and means.


Mr. W. J. WARD (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to compliment the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Gray) upon his eloquent effort this evening. I think he has excelled himself.
I should like also to say a word in regard to the statement by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) this afternoon. It was a very important one, and most timely. It has cleared up a good deal of misunderstanding in my mind, and I am sure in the minds of people throughout the country.
I do not intend to say much regarding the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) except to say that he has again lived up to his reputation, in the statement he made when presenting the financial condition of the country.
I would not have spoken in the debate had it not been that, upon my return to Ottawa the other day, and reading some of the speeches which had been made, I thought I saw where some answers were due the house and country. In this connection I shall begin with the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle (Mr. Perley), who, I am sorry, is not in his place at the moment, although I see him behind the curtain.


Mr. PERLEY:: Oh, I am right here; don't you worry.

The Budget-Mr. Ward


William John Ward: I am glad the non. member is now in his place. There is a saying the effect that figures do not lie, but that some people do some very queer figuring. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle spent considerable time in depreciating the effect which would follow from the reduction in the tariff on farm machinery. I have listened to him and other hon. members for several sessions urge the removal of those same tariffs on farm machinery. I have recommended the same thing-and, just in passing, lest I forget, may I give to members of the government and particularly the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), a great deal of credit for this particular provision in the budget.
Plowever, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle went to great lengths-in fact almost three columns in Hansard-in an attempt to prove the ineffectiveness of the reduction, and just how little they meant, after all. How he got the figures, I do not know, because I spent half an hour this afternoon doing some figuring, and I could not follow his reasoning. He refers to the reduction as being not more than 3| per cent.
Then he speaks of putting it in terms of farm language. I am sure that no ordinary farmer could understand the reasoning contained in those three columns of Hansard when the hon. member tried to prove the ineffectiveness of this reduction.
However, reducing it to real farm language, to terms which a farmer can understand, may I say that last year I bought a binder. I will leave out of he picture the war exchange tax because that is a war measure, so that we will leave it out of our calculation. If the 7}& per cent reduction on farm machinery had been in effect a year ago I would have saved 122.50 on the 8345 I paid for the binder. I have a combine on order right now and, if I get it, this reduction will mean a saving of 8135. I think any farmer will understand those figures, and that is the only practical way to approach and explain the matter.
Then the hon. member went on to try to calculate it in terms of percentage on the dollar and he said it amounted to only three and a half per cent. That is all we are getting on' our bonds and most other investments now.
I wish to take issue with his reference to 11.25 a bushel for wheat as a ceiling. I know he knows that is not right, and he knew he was wrong when he made that statement. It is not a ceiling; it is simply a floor. I heard him arguing in the agriculture committee the other day with Mr. Mclvor, chairman of the wheat
board, and insisting it was a ceiling not a floor. It is true there is a ceiling on barley and oats, but those are the only two farm products on which there are ceilings. I support most heartily the ceiling on coarse grains.


Ernest Edward Perley: Who moved that in committee last year?


William John Ward: It was not moved in committee at all; it has been a part of government policy for several years.
Mr. PERLEY. I moved it in committee and the motion was defeated. The hon. member voted against it. Then about two weeks later it was brought in by order in council.


William John Ward: I take issue with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.


Ernest Edward Perley: Look up the record.


William John Ward: It has been part of government policy for some considerable time. As an example of the actual value of the ceiling on coarse grains to the farmer, I except Saskatchewan where water is scarce and where one may find it rather difficult to raise live stock. I keep about 100 pigs on feed most of the time. I do what the average farmer may not do-maintain actual costs of feeding and general overhead. The grain is weighed in and the pigs are weighed out. In 1943 my barley brought me $1.42 a bushel when fed to hogs.
Perhaps the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) will remember a statement he made last year to the effect that it took him 270 days to put 300 pounds on a steer. We do it in just half that time. However, be that as it may, I must pass along because I have a lot of ground to cover.
To return again to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, he is reported on page 4565 of Hansard, where he refers to the floor prices under farm products, as saying:
When we get it I hope it will contain a price that is at least parity. I do not know whether hon. members know what parity means, the word has -been used so often.
I d-oubt if the hon. member himself knows what parity prices -really are.


Ernest Edward Perley: You do not know anyway.


William John Ward: At the present moment we have parity prices-I am sure when the legislation oomes down shortly it will not be less than the prices w-e are enjoying at the present time-which are about nine per cent above parity for the 1924-29 period. I have under my hand -a request by the Canadian federation of agriculture' where they -ask for parity prices based o-n. the 1924-29 price level.
The Budget-Mr. Ward


Mr. FAIR:: I do not think that statement
is correct; the Canadian federation of agriculture deny it; it is not correct.


William John Ward: My hon. friend is not well
informed. If he will look up the record of the Calgary meeting of the Canadian federation of agriculture a little over a year ago he will see where they asked for a parity price based upon the 1924-29 period.


Robert Fair: I have in my file a letter from the president of the Canadian federation of agriculture denying that statement.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have another one in
my file answering yours.


Ernest Edward Perley: I suggest that both hon.
members stick to the facts.


William John Ward: In pursuing the question of
floor prices I should like to say that perhaps the Canadian farmer to-day is enjoying, even before this legislation comes down-we are told it will guarantee floor prices over a period of four years-something which no other group of farmers in the world are enjoying, namely, a substantial floor price which gives the farmer a substantial profit on everything he produces. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle went on to say:	.
Instead of putting on the ceiling and stopping the price of wheat to prevent inflation, as it was said, had the law of supply and demand befen allowed to prevail we would have had $2 wheat.
The hon. member may be right; we might have had $2 wheat, but we would also have had something else, something like we had during the last w7ar.


James Garfield Gardiner: How could you when wheat is selling for only $1.71 in the United States?


Ernest Edward Perley: May I answer the Minister of Agriculture?


Thomas Vien: The hon. member for Dauphin has the floor.


Ernest Edward Perley: Apparently he can answer the minister.


Thomas Vien: If the hon. member invites a question from another hon. member he may answer it, but he has the floor.


William John Ward: 
Ernest Edward Perley: Will the hon. member permit a rema:k?


William John Ward: Yes.

The Budget-Mr. Ward


Ernest Edward Perley: I figured out all the costs- storage, interest charges, commissions, brokerage and everything. These amount to 12i cents. It was not the storage alone.


William John Ward: So did I, and I made it 7|
cents. The hon. member concluded by saying that the firms owning these elevators were paid $85 million to handle half the grain, or about 700,000,000 bushels. But that $85 million covered all the charges, including about $7 million paid to the farmers on home storage.


Ernest Edward Perley: I said that.


William John Ward: No; you said nothing of the sort. You tried to leave a totally erroneous impression.


Ernest Edward Perley: You did not read all the
speech.


William John Ward: I come now to some remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. In his speech of June 29, as reported in Hansard, at page 4347, he said:
Finance must be- secondary to other considerations in the winning of the war. I wish I could say the same of the government's settled policy in regard to the after-war years, and that whatever should prove to be physically possible and desirable should be made financially possible.
That is exactly what the government are doing now. The hon. member went on as though he expected the government to have appropriated $5,000 million this session, while the war is still going on, in order to prepare for the post-war period. I think the government are doing a wonderful job, and I am not flattering them when I say that. When I read the soldiers' rehabilitation bill as brought down by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) I felt that he had done a marvellous job in benefiting by the experience of all the mistakes in the scheme which was enacted after the last war.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar went on, after talking about the application of a socialist policy:
_ I fear, however, and the present budget increases my fears, that the government is anxious to hurry back to the restrictive practices of orthodox finance and orthodox industry.
May I pause here to say that the socialism advocated by his party is the oldest kind of orthodoxy, the oldest system in the world, and that anybody who has taken time to read history knows that in every place and at every time it has been tried it has ended in disaster, bloodshed and ruin for the working people, and could have no other effect.
Some of us have at times entered the realm of prophecy. I recall that in the early part of the 1930 campaign Mr. Bennett-for whom I have great respect as a man of honesty and integrity-told the people of Canada that we were- importing too much. In the midst of the campaign he made the specific statement that we were over-importing by at least half a billion dollars. From that day on during my campaign I made the prediction, "If Mr. Bennett is returned to power, and does what he says he is going to do, before his term of office is up you will see in Canada at least one million unemployed; your wheat which was then selling for one dollar, will sell for twenty-five cents a bushel; your steers, now selling at $60, will sell for S10; your bacon hogs will sell for $2.50 a hundred." I made that prediction in July, 1930. Of course it did not impress very many people. A man came to me after a meeting and said, "Do you expect us to be impressed by that prediction?" I said, "No. I don't, but when it comes true will you come and see me?" Just t\yo years and five months later that man came to my office and with a tremor in his voice said, "My God, it has all come true."
I am making another prediction now. I predict that if you elect a socialist government to this House of Commons you will have not a million unemployed; the number will vastly exceed a million. You will see the worst times this country has ever known. A million people will seek an exodus from this country to the United States, and in the first year the government is in power at least one thousand million Canadian dollars will try to find its way to the United States. We shall experience the worst- days this country has ever known if my hon. friends of the C.C.F. group are elected and carry into effect what they say they intend to do, as contained in the C.C.F. "Handbook for Speakers". I see that it is published in the city of Saskatoon. This is what they say; it '*uns in a sort of monologue:
Q. "Is the final objective of this group to socialize industry in its entirety?"
A. "The wording of the objective is 'Social Ownership of all resources-
Including the farms, of course.
-and the machinery of wealth production'."
The greatest machine of wealth production in this country is agriculture.
"This, therefore, includes all industry."
I am not saying this. This is what the book says.
"We recognize the rights of the individual to own personal property which he can use for his cdmfort and well-being. Personal property is inclusive of home, clothing, furniture, etc."
The Budget-Mr. Ward

Not farms. I want to say to my hon. friend, and it has been said in this house before-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who printed that book?


William John Ward: I do not know. It is the C.C.F. speakers' handbook.


Mr. BERTRAND (Lauder):: Mr. Scott of Montreal, C.C.F. Secretary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who is the publisher?


Mr. BRYCE:: The Liberal party.


William John Ward: It is, of course, the "Saskatchewan Farmer-Labour C.C.F. Group Handbook for Speakers, compiled from reports of conferences held in Saskatoon and Regina, January 7 and February 11 respectively, 1933."


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: Compiled by whom?


Mr. REID:: You are not denying it, are you?
Mr. NOSEWORTHY': We are asking who published it.


William John Ward: The C.C.F.


William Scottie Bryce: The hon. member can say where it came from.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Farmer-Labour
group published it.


William Scottie Bryce: It was published by the Liberal party.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a Farmer-Labour production. When you got ashamed of it we published it.


Joseph William Noseworthy: A Liberal trick.


Thomas Reid: Are the C.C.F. denying it?


William John Ward: I see my hon. friends are embarrassed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are not embarrassed at all. We are trying to find out who published it.


William John Ward: May I quote, for the enlightenment of my hon. friends who appear to be embarrassed a bit, certain passages from the introduction to this book:
"This handbook is a digest of the minutes of the two conferences of the fanner-labour C.C.F. group, first held in Saskatoon, January 7, 1933, and the second at Regina, February 11, 1933."
"We have eliminated, as far as possible, any duplication in the questions relating to our policy, and have done the same with the answers, keeping as nearly as possible the wording in both cases. A chart outlining the economic programme, accompanied by a detailed series of explanatory notes, has been prepared by head office, and will be found inserted at the centre of this handbook."
It is here in the form of a map and has also been incorporated in the handbook and will be found on page 21. Here it is on page 21.


Joseph William Noseworthy: That is what won
the Saskatchewan election for us.


James Garfield Gardiner: Five years from now we shall be publishing all your books as souvenirs.


William John Ward: I quote:
Q. "What would occur in the case of the farmer-labour group having the largest group in the house, and the government in power resigning? In that event, the method of the organization would be this: Being the largest group in the house, and the government resigning, it is likely that this group would be called upon to form a government. This would be done. The programme would then be brought in by the new government in its entirety."
Not partly, but in its entirety. This is not what the former member for Weyburn has done. He is now the premier of Saskatchewan, and the morning after the election in Saskatchewan he was asked by the press what changes he would make and he said in effect, "We will make no changes; there will be no changes." What an eloquent compliment to the Patterson government which had just been defeated! He said, "We will make no changes." Of course there will be no changes. I make the prediction now that there will be no changes whatsover in the policy or in the philosophy that has prevailed in Saskatchewan-none whatever. Further in the statement, I read:
How do you define a cooperative commonwealth federation?
That is the question. The answer is:
A cooperative commonwealth is an organization of society in which the principal means of production, distribution and exchange shall be socially >or cooperatively owned by the people.
Socially owned by the people.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Who else would you want to own them?


William John Ward: I do not object at all, so long as my fion. friends admit it and say that this is their handiwork and that they will stand by it.


William Scottie Bryce: Published by the Liberal
party.


Thomas Reid: Do you deny it? No matter who publishes it, that is their pamphlet.


William John Ward: The member for Rosetown-
Biggar said:
Before I make any proposal I wish to take exception to the reference made by the minister to taxation in other countries. Even supposing his comparisons happen to be fair, would the fact that another country overtaxes its poor justify Canada in following a similar course?
The minister was speaking of New Zealand in this case.
The minister stated that the New Zealand rates bear more heavily on low income brackets

The Budget-Mr. Ward
than do the rates in force in Canada, but what he did not say is that the New Zealand rates included the five per cent social security levy.
The Minister of Finance then said:
I did say that. ... I said that it included national security and social security taxes.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar then said:
I read the speech very carefully, and it must have escaped me.
There are many things that escape the hon. member. He goes on:
I say that the criticism that is often made of other countries does not take everything into account.
I would say, however, that if ever there was a case of the pot calling the stove black it was this case, because the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is a past master at misrepresentation, at half-truths, at twisting and turning things to suit his own purpose. Then he cuts loose:
So I say that when we come to appraise what is happening in another country, let us be fair about it, and say what the people of that country are getting for the taxes they pay.
I would say to my hon. friends who smile about it that they have one stock-in-trade, and that is to engender fear in the minds of the people, to blacken their country, to blacken their own people, to blacken our Canadian institutions and public men. That is their chief stock-in-trade. I warn them that if they are ever charged with responsibility, the grave responsibility that falls upon a government called upon to administer this very difficult country of ours, spread four thousand miles east and west and only two or three hundred miles wide, with five or six different principalities, all with separate and different economics and climatic conditions- if they ever come to govern this country they will be sorry that they were not more responsible in the things they said in the days of opposition. I warn them of that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thanks for the publicity.


William John Ward: I come now to the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), and I pick him out for the reason that he pretends to speak at least for agriculture in his group. I will not take up the time of the house in reading much from his speech, but with reference to free agricultural implements, and again trying to belittle what has been accomplished, he says:
The freer exchange and export of goods has its place but, as I listen to the government members and read certain papers in this country, it seems to me that in placing responsibility for a prosperous Canada on export trade alone they are on very narrow ground indeed.
In reply I will call to witness some excellent organizations. First I will call as a witness the Canadian Legion in their admirable pamphlet on the question of rehabilitation of Canada's fighting men. This is what they say of trade:
This war has demonstrated that we have been able to keep our people employed and, within the limit of the basic supplies available, fed and clothed during a period of stress. We have, moreover, supplied our allies with the products of our own soil and resources. This provision, both for ourselves and others must, in view of the destruction and conditions throughout the rest of the world, continue for some considerable time.
They are willing to help our allies less fortunate than ourselves.
It may be that . . . through the brain and brawn of our workers, we have been able to do all this and yet maintain adequate living conditions in this country. Provided jobs are furnished the same condition can hold good in the post-war period while world trade is in process of rebuilding.
Note that, world trade.
Markets for all our products. Measures must be taken to explore and cultivate both domestic and foreign markets for our products. In foreign trade our aim should be to deal with countries that can supply things we require in our economy to satisfy our basic needs, and which we cannot or do not produce ourselves, or which we cannot or do not produce economically.
There is a good deal of excellent material in this book and they are solidly behind international trade.
Let me call yet another witness, an equally important body, the Canadian federation of agriculture. My hon. friend pretends to be speaking for agriculture. This is what they say in a pamphlet entitled "Principles of Post-War Reconstruction for Agriculture," published recently:
Though the farm problem is a domestic one in many respects, it is profoundly affected by, and to some extent dependent upon, international policies and action. More than ever before the effective solution of the problems of Canadian agriculture will hinge upon the planning of relations and upon the measure of agreement and cooperation which can be worked out between food exporting and food importing countries. Moreover, not merely policies having to do with food and agriculture enter into this but as well international policies governing trade generally, the payment of debts, the control and stabilization of currencies, and maintenance of peace.
Then they go on to say:
If we imagine we can return to the economic anarchy of the old days-
That is exactly what will happen. Anarchy is the right word if we ever attempt to socialize the industries of this young and growing country.
-then certainly we shall bring not only discredit but disaster upon ourselves and it will



USTKIB EDITION

[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Ward
[Stage Direction]
be well merited. None of us can now escape from revolutionary changes even if we would.
Then farther down they say:
In our opinion it is of little use to talk of reconstruction and rehabilitation plans for agriculture unless we assume the establishment of a fiscal policy and an international trade policy which will work in terms of the world of to-morrow.
They conclude by saying:
The united nations conference on food and agriculture^ held at Hot Springs, Virginia, in May of this year declared its belief: "that the goal of freedom from want of food suitable and adequate for the health and strength of all people can be achieved;" that the almost unlimited possibilities of an expanding world economy-
That does not sound like our C.C.F. friends talking about controlling economy1-
Mr. NOSE WORTHY:: You would not understand our policies.


William John Ward: Living within ourselves. Get the hon. member for York South a funnel to talk through.
-should be organized and coordinated on a world scale; and that all nations, individually and collectively, should set about to achieve this broad objective.
That is, international trade.
Further, it recommended the establishment of a permanent international organization to promote and facilitate international cooperation dealing with problems of food and agriculture.
I do not need- to call in any more witness in that regard with the exception of one of the greatest statesmen on the north American continent, a member of the United States government who used these words within the last month. You will pardon me, Mr. Speaker, for referring to this since it is part of a broadcast I made a few weeks ago. Part of the material which I am about to quote is contained in the remarks of Mr. Sumner Welles, a great United States statesman and economist. This is what he said:
After the last war our high tariff policy-reached out to virtually every corner of the earth and brought poverty and despair to innumerable communities. But the effects on American importers, and on American industries dependent upon imports, were likewise immediate. Many foreign countries, which had not recovered from the shock of our tariff increases in 1921 and 1922 and were tottering on the *brink of economic and financial collapse were literally pushed into the abyss by our tariff action of 1930. Throughout the world this withering blast of _ trade destruction brought disaster and despair to countless millions of people.
That comes from a man who has been a member of the United States government for a long time. I shall continue with the quota-

tion of a page or two, Mr. Speaker, of my broadcast, because it is one on which I spent a lot of time and gathered a lot of figures:
The question is frequently asked, if we can do it in war time why cannot we do. it in peace time, meaning of course the employment of all our people. We can if the world will continue on a free trade basis as it is to-day. Of the almost five billion of international trade we did in 1943, a large percentage of it was on a free trade basis. The United States last year purchased from us 263 million bushels of grain, 244 millions of which entered their country with the same freedom as though there had been no international boundary.
There was no tariff on the 244 millions of bushels of grain.
This is true also of the vast supply of raw materials and munitions of war that flow to and from Canada to, not only the United States but to all the other nations with whom and for whom we are fighting.
The United States has to date this year purchased from us over 200 million bushels of Canadian grain, all of which will flow freely to their country without tariff or any other trade restrictions. Compare this condition with those of the early thirties when in many countries of Europe, especially those now under totalitarian governments tariffs ranged from one to two hundred per cent.
In pre-Hitler days prior to 1930 Germany's annual imports of grain-
And I verified those figures recently.

was rarely less than 100 million bushels. It consisted principally of barley, rye and oats. A very large part of which was purchased from Canada.
Italy's annual purchases of Canadian wheat in pre-Mussolini days averaged about 60,000.000 bushels. Spain too, before the revolution purchased annually about 35,000.000 bushels of wheat, most of it coming from Canada. France, also, was a fairly heavy buyer of Canadian hard spring wheat until in 1929 she placed a tariff of $1.19 per bushel against imports of foreign wheat. In all, this vast trade of over 200,000,000 bushels plus millions in other forms of trade vanished as mist before the morning sun, under the impact of high tariffs. Yes, even Canada and the United States in 1930 were caught in the psychological meshes of a world gone mad on the theory of high tariffs and self-sufficiency 

we too, followed suit with tariffs ranging from forty per cent to eighty per cent.
We all remember that.
By the early thirties the world had reached the logical conclusion to their insane policies of trade exclusion, a condition where every country in the world was trying to sell its goods but no country was buying. Can you visualize the loss to our trade and economy of over 200,000,000 bushels of grain sales annually-
Plus hundreds of millions of other trade.
In order that we may get an absolutely clear perspective of just what did happen during these awful early nineteen thirty years-world trade declined between 1928 and 19S-. from $9,640,000,000 to $2,234,000,000 or twenty-six per cent only of what it was five years previously when the world was on a more sane, more reasonable trading basis.

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie (Lamb ton)
As an example of the effect on our Canadian trade of extremely high import duties not only in Europe but on this continent as well, in 1928 our external trade amounted to $2,586,106,275; by 1933 just five years later our total external trade had shrunk to $936,698,100 or thirty-two per cent only of what it was five years previously. ... To those who may still doubt the direct and inevitable relationship of high tariffs and unemployment

I recommend this to my hon. friends of the C.C.F. party.
-may X remind you that at no time in the world's history were tariffs anywhere nearly so high or did so many other obstructions exist in -trade as between 1929 -and the outbreak of war. Nor were there ever before in the world's history nearly so many unemployed.
Compare those days -and conditions with the freer trade policies w7e are enjoying to-day with the resultant comfort, satisfaction and pleasure of our people, -a market for everything we can produce, a job at good wages for every one who wants to work-our farmers selling their products at satisfactory prices with everybody living in a moderate state of luxury.
I said a moment ago.


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


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


Ernest Edward Perley: Would the hon. member permit a question? This is the third time I have heard him speak in this parliament, and on each time he took about thirty-five minutes of his forty minutes quoting from Hansard or some pamphlet. My question is: Will he tell us when he is going to make a speech of his own.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You joined the C.C.F. the other day.


Mr. H. A. MacKENZIE (Lambton-Kent):: 
James Garfield Gardiner: There is an actual price on soy beans.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: I have not heard it announced, although I have been asking for it for a long time.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not for this year; for
last year.
Mr. MacKENZIE (Lambton-Kent). It is the 1944 crop I am speaking of. They say that the Saskatchewan election was lost because of federal policy. When I was younger I believed in Santa Clause. As I got older I became disillusioned, but I am again reaching the place where I believe there is still a Santa Claus. If the Minister of Agriculture is not a Santa Claus to the western farmer then I do not believe they have ever seen one. He has gone down all their chimneys and I do not think they were big enough. They had to enlarge them so that he could go down again.
I think the price of Ontario wheat is too low. It should be raised to a ceiling price of $1.50 a bushel. I do not object to the western farmer getting a good price for his wheat and other crops, but I think the federation of agriculture is doing something to try to place agriculture on a higher plane. We must get agriculture in the position where it will get its fair share of the national income. The east and west should get together to support the federation of agriculture. I do not care whether you call it a farm bloc or something else, but the fact remains that these people are interested in agriculture being placed on a sound economic basis so that it can get its fair share of the national income.
[Mr. H. A. MacKemie.l
If we are going to retain the young people on the farm; if we are going to retain people in the rural districts, we must take some of the drudgery out of farm life; we must make farm life more livable. Many times in this house I have heard it told of how farmers years ago had to sleep on straw ticks or on corn husks. I have done all those things. I have lived in a shack without modern conveniences. That did not do me any harm, but I do not think we should expect our young people to do it to-day. As a matter of fact they will not do it. There are thousands of young people who have gone to the factories in Detroit and Windsor and Sarnia because living conditions and income were not right at home.
One thing that should be emphasized is the increased need for hydro power and electricity. An hon. member from Manitoba the other night gave percentages of farms with hydro power. I believe he claimed that in Ontario forty per cent of the farms had electricity, but the last report I had showed only thirty-one per cent. However, I believe a lot of hydro power has been put in during the last year.
I saw a press dispatch the other day to the effect that daylight saving was working out very well and would be retained after the war, and I believe it stated that the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) had said that the demand for hydro power would increase if we went back to standard time. I am not so sure about that, because most industries are working twenty-four hours a day and the lights are turned on when daylight ceases. I would not for the world want to deprive workers in factories of a long afternoon, but I do not see why they cannot start to work an hour earlier and leave the clock alone. I think the time will come when they will do that. You cannot save daylight; it just cannot be done. There was only one man who could ever save daylight, and that was Joshua when he made the sun stand still. We have no Joshuas in modern life to-day.
I just leave these few thoughts with you and I hope that we can organize in order to get rural life back into its proper place.


Mr. F. D. SHAW (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, were I to declare that the members of the Social Credit group have made a conscientious attempt to cooperate in shortening this debate I doubt if any would disagree. However, cooperation does not apply just to one group. For my part I have remained out of the house at least during parts of recent days so that I would not be aggravated into speaking. Unfortunately I came in to-night.
I have heard one speech which in itself could

The Budget-Mr. Shaw
be responsible for my participating at this time. I regret very much that I happen to be the one who appears to be carrying the debate over to another day.
I wish to say a number of things with respect to the remarks of the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank). It is regrettable that some people have such poor memories and do not take the time to go back and read the records once in a while. If they did that they would probably secure a proper understanding of the position which this and other groups took at the beginning of the present war. Before dealing further with this matter,
I should like to make a brief reference to the budget itself.
I think it is proper to say that the budget was more or less bereft of surprises. I know a great many people expected that there would be certain changes, the purpose of which would be to alleviate the burden of taxation probably to a great extent. As far as I am concerned I was not a bit surprised because I knew that if taxation had been lowered materially then borrowing, which is nothing but a deferred system of taxation, would have had to be increased. That is the penalty you pay when the method of financing the war is based on a policy of debt and taxation.
I know that many of those who believed there would be substantial reduction in taxation overlooked the fact that the cost of the war has not been lessened. We are going to be extremely fortunate if taxation remains where it is for the duration of the war, if our financial costs are not considerably greater than those we have encountered up to the present time.
More than that, as I said during a previous speech, I am not going to be astonished if taxation is not reduced after the war is over, because it has been said time and time again in this house that we have, alongside the very heavy taxation, built up municipal, provincial and federal debts of approximately $16,000 million. I sometimes wonder what the minister meant when during the early months of the war he indicated that we would pay for the war as it is being fought. In the destruction of material things and of human life we have paid a pretty costly price. When we take into consideration Prime Minister Churchill's assertion that the price is "blood, sweat and tears", it does make one feel badly to think that when the war is over we are going to start paying for it in a dollar and cent fashion. To confirm that statement all one has to do is recognize the extent of the national debt and its growth during the prosecution of the war. Another regrettable feature is that, of those boys who are fighting
overseas, apart from those who will never come back, the numbers who return maimed and the many, we hope, who will come back uninjured will themselves have to play a major part in financing the dollar cost of the war which they won-all, I assert, because the government persist in pursuing strictly orthodox methods of financing and are determined not to endeavour to alleviate at least the debt aspect of our war cost by utilizing national credit.
Another serious situation which has developed as a consequence of our present method of financing is that, in order to carry on, we have had to centralize more and more all activities. More than that, due at least in part to our method of financing, we have had to adopt more and more regimentation, much more than would have been necessary if we had adopted a democratic system of financing, at least in part.
Of course the method of financing has played no small part in the further restriction of certain liberties. I am not one who asserts that you can fight a war while continuing to live as usual. I am not one who would say that the government should not and must not and need not take unto itself certain authorities which in peace time we would deny it. I do not wish to be charged with suggesting that we should pursue life in the normal fashion. But as a result of the need of the government to centralize further, to regiment further, to restrict liberties further, there has developed among a cross-section of our people a respect for the principle of . totalitarianism. Probably I should make that clear. Unfortunately there are some who think that the success in connection with the war effort has been due largely to the fact that we have regimented, that we have deprived the people of liberties and so forth, and they have as I say developed some sort of strange love of this principle of regimentation. I find that largely true among a crosssection of people who have the tendency to encourage leadership rather than apply personal initiative. Our method of financing has been largely responsible for the growth of certain of these conditions.
I desire to make some remarks in reply to the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), but since it is almost eleven o'clock I would prefer to do so upon an occasion when he is likely to be present.
On motion of Mr. Shaw the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday Sittings
Tuesday, July 11 1944