1944-02-10

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. G. TURGEON (Caribou) presented the first report of the special committee on reconstruction and reestablishment, as follows: February 10, 1944.
The special committee on reconstruction and reestablishment begs leave to present the following as a first report:
Your committee recommends,
1.	That it be granted leave to print from day to day 1,500 copies m English and 400 copies in French of its minutes of proceedings and evidence, and such other documents as it may authorize.
2.	That on account of the demand evinced for copies of the fourth report of the 1943 special committee of the house, presented on January 26, 1944, an additional 500 copies in English of the said fourth report be printed.
3.	That standing order 64 be suspended in relation to the above.
4.	That ten members shall constitute a quorum.
5.	That your committee be granted leave to sit while the house is sitting.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. TURGEON moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Before the house gives leave, can the hon. member tell us whether this is just the ordinary formal report of the committee's proceedings or whether there is something special in it? We have not seen it.
Mr. TURGEON. This is a formal report asking, as we do every session, that the quorum be reduced and that we be authorized to have certain printing done. It is a report of the organization meeting of the committee.


Gordon Graydon: When the house is asked for leave in this way, I think that if the report is so very short we might have the terms of it.


Mr. TURGEON:: The report was read to the house by the acting Clerk Assistant.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would point out to the
mover of the report that paragraph 2 recom

mends that, on account of the demand evinced for copies of the fourth report of the 1943 special committee of the house, presented on January 26, 1944, an additional five hundred copies in English of that report be printed. There was nothing in the terms of reference to the committee to enable them to make such a report. So far as this report is concerned, therefore, it is irregular, but that does not prevent the house, if it so desires, from, complying with the wish embodied in that paragraph. The hon. member, however, must have regard to the circumstance I have pointed out.


James Gray Turgeon: What would you suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we eliminate that portion?


Thomas Vien: Yes, I think so. I take it, then, that paragraph 2 will be omitted from the report as presented.


James Gray Turgeon: Thank you.


Mr. NEILL:: May I ask how long it would delay the adoption of the report if it followed the regular course? Is it so urgent that we cannot wait one day to get the real details of the report? There is no occasion for this rush.


James Gray Turgeon: I do not wish to rush it, but it would permit the committee to get to work so many days earlier.


Alan Webster Neill: One day.


James Gray Turgeon: It can stand.
Motion stands.

Labour Conditions-Wages Control



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. AV. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister): I should like to say a word with respect to the war-time wages control order.
Gordon Graydon: The Prime Minister just got in ahead of me.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I hope my hon. friend will not hold that against me.
May I read to the house a paragraph which appears in the speech from the throne at the closing of the last session. The paragraph is as follows; Hansard, page 5575:
During the course of the year, the price ceiling has been splendidly maintained. My ministers have reaffirmed their determination to do all in their power to prevent inflation snd to safeguard a basic standard of living. To this end the war-time wages control order has been simplified and strengthened. It will continue to be administered by the national war labour board. Consultation is proceeding *with the several provinces regarding the enactment of a comprehensive code of labour relations which will be administered by a war-time labour relations board, and "which will include the principle of compulsory collective bargaining.
May I speak first on the second of these matters, the one related to a code of labour relations. I am happy to be able to say to the house that the consultations which were proceeding between the provinces and the dominion have been concluded, and there have also been concluded consultations between representatives of labour organizations and the government with respect to the code. I am advised that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), expects to 'be in a position to table early next week the enactment respecting the code of labour relations.
As to the war-time wages control order, many representations have been made to the government, some by hon. members of the house, some from labour organizations and others from other sources. These the government has already had under consideration. To-morrow the government will be meeting a delegation of representatives of the Canadian Congress of Labour. As hon. members know, there are four outstanding labour organizations representative of the different labour unions throughout the country: the one which I have just mentioned, the Canadian Congress of Labour; another organization, also large in numbers, older in years, the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada; there is the Canadian Catholic Confederation of Labour; and there are the organizations representing the railway brotherhoods. On January 27 of this year the government met 100-21
the joint legislative committee of the railway running trade organizations as a delegation from that body. At that time certain representations were made to the government with respect to the war-time wages control order. Tojmorrow, as I have said, the government will be meeting the delegates of the Canadian Congress of Labour, and we expect that representations will be made by that body to the government with respect to this order. At any rate I now extend an invitation to the delegates of the Canadian Congress of Labour to make such representations as they feel they may wish to make to the government with respect to the order.
A^ery shortly the government will be meeting a delegation of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada and also a delegation from the Canadian Catholic Confederation of Labour. These are the customary annual meetings with the government. AAre will expect, and I now invite, the delegates of these other large organizations to make to the government such representations as they deem advisable with respect to the war-time wages control order.
AVhen the government has these various representations before it, the government will then be in a position further to consider what amendments should be made to the order. It is the intention of the government to make certain amendments, but we wish to have these representations from the leading labour organizations before us when we are considering these further amendments; and after that opportunity has been given to labour, and the government has had the opportunity of considering all representations which have been made, amendments will be made by the government to the war-time wages control order.
I would hope that these various labour organizations could meet with the government within the next two weeks. One meeting as I have said has been arranged for to-morrow. I do not know that there has been a definite date fixed for the other two; but I would say now that we would seek to meet their convenience at as early a date as may be possible.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister rose to make a statement with respect to the war-time wages control order of 1943, I rather expected that he would make a much more comprehensive and perhaps much more satisfactory statement than he did, and having that in mind, I suggested that he was "getting there first", before I had asked my question. But I want to say this to the Prime



Labour Conditions-Wages Control
Minister: as he rose, I was about to make an inquiry, and it was on this basis. What the Prime Minister has now said in connection with calling in the other representatives is, of course, a very good thing. I hope he will do that. I hope he will give some real consideration to what they say. But in the meantime February 15 is the deadline for the operation of the war-time wages control order of 1943, and that is where the emergency and urgency of the matter arise. May I ask the Prime Minister, as I intended to before this statement was made, that the government give consideration to the postponement of the application of war-time wages control order of 1943; otherwise it will go into effect and then all the representations that are afterwards made cannot be regarded in perhaps the same light as those which are made before the order goes into effect. At the same time, and following up what the Prime Minister has said, and doing what the Prime Minister now suggests be done in another way, I suggest that he refer this whole order to the industrial and international relations committee of the house, so that those interested in and affected by the provisions of the order may have an opportunity to appear before that committee.
These two suggestions, I think, are most important, and I impress them upon the Prime Minister: first of all, the postponement of the application of the wages control order-because it is going to be too late by the time he sees all these people-and second, that the parliamentary committee have a chance to hear the representations of these people in a proper way. I ask the Prime Minister to give consideration to these suggestions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am always pleased to give consideration to any suggestions which my hon. friend may wish to make.
He has referred to the 15th of this month being the date on which the order itself takes effect in some particulars. In that connection, there is one very important consideration, it is that there are certain benefits which accrue to labour, under the order, on the 15th. They relate to the basic wage in which the cost of living bonus is embedded; and I understand that already steps have been taken by employers to see that the benefits to be derived from that section in particular will be accorded. It would I think be inadvisable to postpone anything of the nature of a benefit. I cannot see that there would be any possibility of anything inimical happening from effect being given the order in other particulars as, in fact, is now the case, before the further representations of labour have been heard. I assure my hon. friend that the government is most anxious in this matter, (Mr. Graydon.]
above all others, to have the cooperation of labour. We believe that labour, as well as all other classes in the community, is interested in preventing inflation in this country, and that labour realizes that a measure of wage stabilization is essential if we are to preserve the price ceiling. We all recognize that it will require close and helpful cooperation on the part of government, labour, employers and the community, to maintain the price ceiling and prevent inflation. We have no desire to be in any way coercive in this matter, but rather we wish to make the measure as effective as it can be made through good will on the part of all parties concerned. At a later stage it might be advisable to have the committee which my hon. friend has mentioned, the committee on industrial and international relations, consider some of these matters. If so, I should be prepared to advise my hon. friend accordingly; but at the moment I think the step proposed by the government will expedite the revision of the order in a manner which will help to meet at least some of the objections, and I should hope all fundamental objections.


Gordon Graydon: If I may ask one supplementary question, the Prime Minister mentioned that the national labour code would be brought into being by order in council, as the war-time wages control order was brought into being. May I ask the right hon. gentleman if, in view of the dissatisfaction that has been expressed at the way this order was put through, by order in council, the government will not bring in legislation dealing with the national labour code, so that this house may properly consider all the aspects relating to labour relations in Canada, instead of doing it by order in council as was done in connection with the wages control order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government has carefully considered the matter to which my hon. friend has just referred. One thing we must keep before us at the present time is the fact that these are temporary measures. We are not enacting permanent legislation. These measures are being enacted for the purpose of meeting conditions relating to the war. How long the war will last none of us can say, but it is certain that as conditions in the world change some of these orders will have to be changed considerably. To bring into parliament legislation which would be as comprehensive as these measures are; to have that legislation considered by this house, in addition to the heavy legislative programme already before the house, I fear would not be helpful in enabling us to keep our minds con-

Air Force
centrated above all else on the prosecution of the war itself. There are important war measures that must be taken up ahead of all other legislation, they have been mentioned to the house already. I submit that parliament itself enacted the War Measures Act to enable the government to meet by order in council situations arising out of the war, and this is the kind of ehactment it was intended should be dealt with under that act.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: When parliament is in session? That is just rendering us impotent.	,


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. I think my hon. friend is overlooking the very important consideration I just mentioned, namely that parliament should be giving its attention to the most important war measures and not be devoting its time to discussing at considerable length measures that are solely in the nature of temporary measures, which can be dealt with effectively under the provisions of an act of parliament passed for the very purpose of meeting such conditions.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That
means we are to abdicate our functions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I am expressing the position in a way that will be regarded as sensible and will be readily understood by all. I should add this further word. The enactment, presented in this form, is a flexible measure the provisions of which may be altered by order in council, just as the enactment itself is by order in council. That is very different from the procedure required to amend a statute. One could not say whether parliament would be in session at the moment at which a statute might have to be amended. On all counts, taking these various points into consideration, the government believes that the supremacy of parliament will be fully maintained by the power which is being exercised under its authority in this way. Certainly by this procedure the time of parliament will be preserved for the discussion of the most important of all measures.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: In the light of the Prime Minister's statement as to the advantages to labour contained in order in council P.C. 9384, I should like to ask if any organized body of labour has suggested that they would like to have this order applied on February 15 because of those advantages.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot answer my hon. friend categorically, but I do know that some of the labour organizations feel that there will be substantial benefits to them under this order and would welcome those benefits coming into effect on the 15th of this month.
100-21J
[3	EXTRADITION TREATY
i' CANADA-UNITED STATES-INQUIRY AS TO PRESENT ' j	POSITION
; On the orders of the day:


Richard Burpee Hanson: I
desire to direct a question to the Prime Minister on an entirely different matter, and perhaps he will be obliged for the interruption. Last year the government signed or arranged- I do not know exactly the correct position- a- new extradition treaty with the United States which if ratified and put into effect would, in my judgment at all events, have a devastating effect on Canadian citizens. I desire to know from the Prime Minister, if not to-day then perhaps to-morrow, what is the present position of the proposed extradition treaty' with the United) States, and whether it is the intention to have parliament ratify that treaty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall give my hon. friend an answer to-morrow.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. R. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: Are conferences now being held in Ottawa between the Minister of National Defence for Air and representatives of the British air ministry with respect to adjustments between the R.C.A.F. the R.A.F. and the joint air training plan? Is the minister prepared to make a statement now with respect to the conferences, or will he make a statement to the house when the conferences are concluded on the agreement reached and the decisions made?


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air):: Mr. Speaker, conferences
are now being held between a member of the United Kingdom cabinet, Captain the Right Hon. Harold Balfour, Under-Secretary of State for Air, Air Marshal Sir Peter Drummond, air member for training of the R.A.F. and members of his staff, on the one hand, and officers of the Department of National Defence for Air and myself on the other hand, with a view to making adjustments in the air training plan and to bring about better conditions of service for our R.C.A.F. personnel overseas, as well as other matters. The conferences are continuing; as a matter of fact they are being held every day. They will not conclude until some time next week, and I shall be only too glad to inform the house as to the results thereof.

Air Force



ALLOWANCES FOR TRAVELLING TIME TO PERSONNEL ON LEAVE

Gordon Graydon: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence for Air a supplementary question. He speaks about making certain adjustments which will be to the benefit of Royal Canadian Air Force men overseas. Has any consideration been given to making adjustments in Canada to the end that travelling time may be allowed to the men of the R.C.A.F. when they are on leave, as it is allowed for the navy and the army? I understand there is discrimination in this regard, and I should like to ask the minister if he will rectify it.


Charles Gavan Power: That being purely a domestic question, it would hardly have anything to do with the discussions between ourselves and the British government representatives. However, I shall be only too glad to take my hon. friend's question into consideration, and look into it.


Gordon Graydon: But will the minister do something about it?



POLICY WITH RESPECT TO RETIREMENT OF OFFICERS

Mr. JAMES SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a further question of the minister. In view of the recentfy reported retirement of a large number of high ranking officers of the Royal Canadian Air Force, has he any statement to make to the house in the matter?


Charles Gavan Power: My hon. friend was good
enough to give me notice of the question. In reply I may say that there is a definite retirement policy in the Royal Canadian Air Force.
When the war broke out the R.C.A.F. was a small organization. It comprised a number of excellent officers who had done magnificent service in the last war. These men were the backbone of the R.C.A.F. development and expansion. The principal job of the R.C.A.F. during the first years of the wrar wras the organization, development, expansion and administration of the air training plan. The plan has produced results and dividends far surpassing our own expectations and frustrating those of our enemies.
These officers, who gave of their time and experience to bring about those results, though comparatively young in years, were mainly too old to take an active operational part in this war. Besides, their experience, their prestige, their authority, made it necessary to retain them here or elsewhere in non-operational duties.
fMr. Power.]
The rapid expansion of the joint air training plan, the western hemisphere operations and the overseas air force brought increased responsibilities and with these accelerated promotion. There are now many officers of comparatively high rank in our forces who have not seen operational service. They could not. But rapid promotion brings the penalty of early retirement, otherwise there would be stagnation at the top. The air war and the air force must be dynamic, not static.
The air training plan has reached its peak of development. From now on there will be contraction rather than expansion. The favourable war situation has brought about a shifting and contraction of our defensive home war establishments.
If all these men were retained in their positions or promoted right up to their full retiring age we might be faced -with a thick ceiling, a bottle-neck at the top, comprised entirely of men who, through no fault of their own, have seen no active flying service overseas in this war. Now, after five years of war, we have at our disposal, overseas especially some younger men who have had actual fighting experience against the enemy in this war. More and more we are calling on overseas headquarters to send these men back to us.
If we are to encourage the initiative, the ambition of these young men, we must show them that there is room at the top, that the ceiling is not closing in, but that the upward path will be made clear for them.
This is the policy. There is no stigma, no reproach in retirement, but there is ruthless necessity if the R.C.A.F. is to continue during the war and after to be the young, virile, dynamic force which I am sure all Canada wishes it to be and has a right to expect from it in return for the sacrifices made on its behalf.


James Sinclair: I wish to commend the minister for that answer.



TREATMENT OF CANADIAN PERSONNEL ATTACHED TO ROYAL AIR FORCE

Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I was interested in the minister's statement respecting promotions, and I agree with it. I should like to ask him a further question with regard to men who are serving overseas and who have seen operational work. Are Canadian personnel who are serving in the Royal Air Force, and who enlisted in England, to receive the same consideration as Canadian personnel who are merely attached to the Royal Air Force?

Conference with Provinces


Charles Gavan Power: If my hon. friend will put that question on the order paper I will answer it at that time. I understand he is speaking of Canadian nationals who were residing in England either during the war or prior to it, and who joined the Royal Air Force. He is not referring to R.C.A.F. men who are now attached to the R.A.F. I would have to look into that.



REQUEST THAT FURTHER SUPPLIES BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR THE ARMED SERVICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Sinclair: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue. When liquor rationing was introduced I understood it was on the grounds of temperance and man-power. In view of yesterday's report that 2,300,000 gallons of beer have been shipped to the United States, I should like to ask, first of all, whether the man-power situation in Canada now justifies that, and, second, whether this course is one to aid temperance in the United States. If the minister's answers to those two questions are in the affirmative, will he now divert some of that beer to British Columbia, to relieve the very great shortage of the supply offered to the soldiers, airmen, sailors and war workers who are out there.


Hon. C. W. G. GIBSON (Minister of National Revenue):: I think that is a question which should be on the order paper. My hon. friend sent me a copy of a question he intended to ask, and I have the answer to it. But he did not ask that question.


James Sinclair: I am merely enlarging on my question. I think it is of more and more importance, as it would seem that beer is going to the United States and it is not going to the Canadian army.


Colin William George Gibson: I have the hon. member's question which he sent me, in which he asked: "In view of the very marked shortage of beer in the soldiers', sailors', airmen's and veterans' canteens of British Columbia, will the minister divert more of this traffic to British Columbia." I would point out that there is a difference in the method of supplying beer to the active service forces, and to veterans' clubs. Active service units secure a quota on the basis of a gallon per man per month, and that amount is considered sufficient by the military authorities. In regard to veterans' clubs, the allocation within the province of the provincial quota to hotels, veterans' clubs, other clubs
and individuals is a matter which comes under the jurisdiction of provincial authorities and is subject to provincial control.


Gordon Graydon: The minister cannot pass the buck to the province on that.



CONFERENCE WITH PROVINCES


Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: I should
like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Earlier in the session he expressed the intention of calling a dominion-provincial conference with respect to social security and health measures. Will he tell us what steps he has taken in that regard, and if the conference is to be convened at an early day?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the session opened1 a communication was sent by the Clerk of the Council to the several provinces, seeking to ascertain what date would be most convenient to the different provinces to meet at Ottawa with the dominion government. I should have saidi that, first of all, they were asked as to whether they would wish to have such a meeting. All the provinces, I believe, have signified their readiness to meet with the dominion government in conference on matters of mutual interest and concern in connection with social security, health, and other matters-financial matters being among that number.
It is difficult at the moment to say just when the conference can be held, as it is almost impossible, simultaneously to suit the convenience of all the provinces. At the present time some of the legislatures are meeting, or will be meeting within another few weeks. It looks, however, as though it might be possible to suit the convenience of all some time about the Easter season. That is as near as I can come to giving a date which is considered most acceptable to all.



CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PAUL MARTIN (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour I should like to reply to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas).
Conscientious objectors who have dependents are in camps as a result of a magistrate's
The Address-Mr. Marshall

decision due to refusal to comply with the regulations. Men of this class when declared to be conscientious objectors are given the opportunity of performing alternative service by assigning a part of their wages to the Canadian Red Cross and adjustments are made in the amount of the assignment so that the man will be able to maintain his dependents.
There are certain cases, however, where individuals will not accept any direction at all, and in these cases it has been necessary to have them committed to service camps. Unfortunately their dependents have to rely upon their own resources, these cases being parallel to the cases of men committed to a prison. These men are encouraged to reconsider their decision, and when this happens the arrangements originally proposed to them are put into effect.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. L. D. Tremblay for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Graydon, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Roy.
Mr. ,1. A. MARSHALL (Camrose): Mr. Speaker, if I were allowed only sixty seconds in which to express an opinion upon the proposals to be found in the throne speech, I would say two things. First, these proposals serve only to relieve and not to cure. They are merely palliatives. My second thought is that all reforms depend upon monetary reform.
Canada in the matter of production ranks high among the nations of the world. Human effort, combined with material resources and unfettered by financial limitations, has raised Canada to a position where she is admired, where she is the envy of the whole world. There flow from Canada's shores to-day vast quantities of war materials and foodstuffs, not only to our own fighting men and women but to every 'one of the allied nations. Such an achievement is highly creditable and reflects upon the wonderful work which is being done by our men and women in industry, in mining, in fishing, in forestry and on the farm. I should like too to pay a tribute to the men and women of our fighting forces, who are to be found not only in our own country but in Great Britain and in almost every theatre

of war. They are doing a magnificent job; they are writing history which future generations will read with pride and satisfaction.
I was deeply impressed by the speech made several days ago by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair). Here is a man who has spent three years in close association with Canadian men and women in Africa, in Sicily, and in Italy. He has come to know their thoughts, their dreams, their aspirations, their plans, and their difficulties. He has returned to this country, and at the first opportunity has presented these difficulties to us as members of the House of Commons. I believe he deserves the support of every hon. member in his endeavour to get these wrongs righted. I for one shall be glad to give him every support in this work
But there is one thing I should like to say at this time. Just as long as Canada is fettered with an outworn financial system, just so long will it be difficult for us to bring about necessary reforms. As the editor of the Ottawa Citizen aptly expressed it the other day: Reform our monetary system and ninety per cent of the ills of society will be cured. There must be no financial restrictions to Canada's post-war programme, but I fear that as long as the go\'ernor of the Bank of Canada, the chairman of the wartime prices and trade board and the deputy minister of finance are the chief advisers to this or any other government, there is little hope of much change in our financial policy.
On February 11 of last year, within a day of one year ago, I spoke during the debate on the throne speech. On that occasion I said I believed that forces were at work which had as their object the accomplishment of three things: (1) the return of Canada to the gold standard; (2) the establishment of a supranational government, backed up by an international police force; and (3) the complete destruction of British idealism, individualism and initiative and the substitution therefor of state autocracy. Any rightthinking individual who has been following the course of events through the newspapers can readily see that these objectives will eventually be attained unless some action is taken to thwart the move.
I turn now to the speech from the throne itself. We find in it, as someone aptly expressed it to me the other day, a strange mixture of pious platitudes and ponderous piffle. In support of my first assertion I read

The Address-Mr. Marshall
the third paragraph of the speech from the throne:
The winning of the war clearly remains the first of all objectives. My ministers believe it is their duty to see that Canada's war effort is firmly maintained until the enemy is defeated in Europe and in Asia. They believe the government's primary task, and the primary duty of the Canadian people, is to concentrate on the prosecution of the war. Our fighting men must he assured that there will be no diversion from this vital task and no relaxation of Canada's war effort. Till the war is won, the policies of my government will continue to be shaped to that end.
Our armed forces at sea. on land and in the air have added lustre to the name of Canada.
Those are wonderful words, and I agree heartily with the sentiments there expressed. But in the mind of the common man in this country, confusion and doubt and anxiety exist with respect to the trend of events at the present time. It is difficult for the common man to understand when he picks up his newspaper and reads that General McNaughton has given up the command of the Canadian forces, the reason given being ill health, to find a few days later that that statement is contradicted and the government take no action to clear up the puzzle. It is difficult, too, for the common man to understand why it is that when Russia and the United States are fighting as allies, Russia is attacking Finland while the United States is still on friendly relations with that country. It is difficult, too, for the common man to understand why it is that when Britain and the United States are locked in deadly combat with Japan, Russia, which is our ally, gives to the Japanese valuable fishing concessions in Russian waters. It is little wonder that doubt and confusion and anxiety exist in the minds of the people of Canada. It is little wonder that our people do not understand what Lord Yansittart meant when he said just a short time ago, in an article appearing in an English periodical, that this is a phoney war and we may get a phoney peace.
Now I turn to the second assertion which I made. In the seventh paragraph of the speech from the throne I read this:
Canada's prosperity and the well-being of her people are bound up with the restoration and expansion of world trade. Export markets are essential to the efficient employment of vast numbers of Canadians. Larger _ imports are needed to raise the standard of living.
That is a strange statement. It leads me to believe that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is still living in the ox-cart age of economics. This whole question of foreign trade, export markets, imports, and so
forth, was I think very satisfactorily dealt with by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) when he spoke the other day, but because the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) showed the same deplorable lack of knowledge of economics yesterday, I think it is necessary for me to bring a little more evidence to bear on the matter.
I have here a copy of a report of the London Chamber of Commerce on "General Principles of a Post-War Economy". This was published on the 12th of May, 1942, and is the outcome of a study by a special committee appointed by the council of the London Chamber of Commerce on March 10, 1942. In order that hon. members may get a picture of the background of the London Chamber of Commerce, may I read the first paragraph of the report:
The London Chamber of Commerce has a direct membership of 9,000 firms and companies. Thirty-nine industrial and commercial associations, with an approximate membership of 50,000, are affiliated to it and are represented on its council. The chamber is therefore vitally concerned in the nature of the framework within which industry and commerce will be called upon to function after the war.
The special committee appointed by the council studied this whole question of markets, imports and exports, favourable and unfavourable balances, and tariffs. I quote from pages 8 and 9:
It is an obvious absurdity that nations should regard it as necessary to export their real wealth, not for the purpose of paying for imports, hut in order to solve their domestic unemployment problem by passing it on to other countries. Exports with this end in view are nothing more nor less . than an excuse for distributing wages to people who otherwise wmuld be unemployed. This purpose would be equally well served if the goods were to be thrown into the sea or if the people were to be employed to dig holes and to fill them up again.
When, however, it is remembered that even wealthy nations have a large percentage of their population under-fed, ill-clothed and ill-housed, it is clear that these would be the best recipients of this alleged surplus wealth. What is necessary is to improve the technique for the internal provision of money, so as to convert this human demand into effective demand.
The chamber considers that it is a perversion of export trade to employ it for the purpose of exporting domestic unemployment and dumping it on other nations which already have their own problem to solve. These surplus exports might confer a benefit on some countries if they were sent as a gift; and the recipient country had an interal financial mechanism capable of distributing enough purchasing power to its people to enable them to buy excess imports oi consumers' goods in addition to, instead of in competition with, the goods already there. They are. on the contrary, used for the purpose of getting other nations into unpayable debt; and moreover, the recipient nations have not the
32S
The Address-Mr. Marshall
[Stage Direction]
mechanism for distributing additional purchasing power to buy them so that they do, in fact, displace goods already in the market, and cause distress selling and a slump in prices.
The chamber submits that international trade must now be raised to its true function, that is, nothing more nor less than an exchange of goods and services of a mutually advantageous character.
I would like hon. members to compare this with the unrealistic attitude of the government on this question as given in the speech from the throne. In the language of the air force the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture are off the beam and lost in fog.
The question in my mind which I have to answer to my own satisfaction as I study the proposals is simply this: To what extent will they solve present and future national problems? The amendment of the Progressive Conservative party and the amendment of the Bloc Populaire are of little concern to me; they are designed to put people on the spot. They are nothing more or less than political by-plays.
What are some of the things which we propose to do in this session of parliament? We are told that the government proposes to set up three departments-a department of veterans' affairs, a department of reconstruction and a department of social welfare. We are asked to approve of Canadian participation in the establishment of an international organization to further national security through international cooperation. We are asked to give approval to an industrial bank. We are asked also to approve of housing legislation, a nation-wide health insurance plan, contributory old age pensions, provision for family allowances, and a price floor for staple farm products. In a word, all this legislation means bureaucracy, regimentation, and cruel taxation, if carried out under the present economic set-up.
I believe that members of parliament, in discussion, are constantly confusing two things, methods and objectives. These proposals in the throne speech are methods whereby we can attain a certain objective. So far as I can learn, very few members have discussed paragraph 10, which deals with the objective this government has set for the Canadian people.
Let me say at the outset that objectives are not the concern of members of parliament or of cabinets; objectives must come from the people themselves, and if they do not come from the people themselves they are of little value. Paragraph 10 of the speech from the throne sets out the post-war objective:
While the post-war objective of our external policy is world security and general prosperity, the post-war objective of our domestic poliey is social security and human welfare.
[Mr. Marshall.1?
It is strange that we should place our foreign policy ahead of our domestic policy. We have given it precedence in the speech from the throne. The reason for this is not clear. It is not my intention at the moment to discuss the question of foreign policy, but I wish to say one or two words with reference to the post-war objective of our domestic policy. We are told that that objective is social security and human welfare. The inmates of a gaol or penitentiary or an asylum enjoy those things; they have social security and welfare. The slaves in the early days enjoyed the same condition. The people of Germany, the people of Italy and the people of Japan enjoyed a high standard of social security and human welfare, but two things they did not enjoy were individual freedom and personal initiative. It is strange that these things are not to be found in the domestic objectives as outlined in the speech from the throne. I say that the people will reject this objective when they come to realize what it all means. I think I am safe in saying that what the people of my constituency, one hundred per cent of them, want is economic security with individual freedom; and I cannot support that part of the throne speech unless the Prime Minister and his advisers are prepared to make those necessary changes.
In order to obtain these objectives, methods are suggested. To me, methods are clearly the responsibility of experts. Neither the mass of the people of Canada nor the members of parliament are experts, so that I do not think that we are in much of a position to judge the merits and demerits of these various proposals. My opinion is that it is the business of members of parliament to frame and place upon the statute books of Canada laws which will make these proposals effective. Therefore, we must first settle upon the objective. Having settled upon our objective, we should retain the services of competent experts to get us those things which the people desire. Having had these submitted to us, we should pass the necessary legislation. That is the only place where a member of parliament should come into the picture.
For instance, I should like to know the names of the people who have suggested to the government that the ills of industry can be cured by the setting up or establishment of an industrial development bank. If industry want another bank, of course they must have it, if they feel that that will solve their problems. But I want to know which section of industry have petitioned for it. I want to know who have recommended this bank to the government, so that, say four or five years hence, we can highly commend them for their

The Address-Mr. Perley
action if it has proven a success and has benefited industry, or, on the other hand, wreak our vengeance upon them if it has bound industry more strongly to finance. Personally I do not think it is a bank that they want; I think what they need are plenty of customers with plenty of buying power. Industry after this war will be capable of turning out goods in tremendous quantities; yet if the consuming public have no buying power, what purpose will be served by turning out so much goods?
Lord Melchett said, just a short time ago:
The problem of the modern world is to provide the population with mass purchasing power to absorb the output of mass production. This lies within the field of finance.
So much for the industrial development bank.
We are to be asked to give our approval to a national health insurance scheme. If it means the sort of thing which the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) complained about a few days ago, I want none of it. If it means the denial of the right of a citizen to engage the services of a chiropractor, an osteopath, or any individual who can relieve suffering and pain, I do not want to have anything to do with it. If it means the denial of the right of the citizen to embrace the philosophical teachings of Christian Science, then, again, I do not want anything to do with it. In other words, if it in any way curtails the freedom of the individual and substitutes an enslavement to bureaucratic regimentation, we shall be better without it.
A few words on family allowances. Here we have a direct admission on the part of the dominion government that industry does not distribute through wages, salary and dividends, sufficient buying power to the consuming public to purchase total production.
Here we have a government endorsing Major Douglas's theory without giving credit where credit is due. If we admit that there is a deficiency of purchasing power inherent in the system, in my judgment we should extend this plan to give to every Canadian citizen sufficient buying power to provide for him and for his family the bare necessities of life. Stuart Chase said recently:
Steadily, reluctantly, even kicking and screaming. western civilization is being driven to the hitherto abhorrent notion that the consumer must be furnished with purchasing power whether he works or not.
That is a very important admission on the part of a man who has held orthodox views for so many years.
In conclusion, I want to say a word to the post-war international planners who are springing up like mushrooms all over the country.
One of the most picturesque figures in all biblical history was that wise old patriarch Solomon, king of Israel. In his day he was pestered with planners, until in a fit of anger he turned to them and said, "The eyes of a fool are in the ends of the earth". I think that might be fittingly applied to the international planners of our day. We should wish our friends of the Soviet Union, China, France, Norway, Belgium, Holland and all other countries, success in reconstruction and reestablishment, of their countries, but we ourselves should get on with the immediate task of solving our own problems at home. Haakon Lie, secretary of the Norwegian Federation of Labour, speaking recently to the Wellesley Institute for Social Progress, said:
We do not want any army of occupation. We can administer our own affairs. We can buy what we need from Britain and America. All we want is our freedom. You can educate your administrators and send them over with the best will in the world, but in a short time they will be as much disliked as the German administrators.
That is something for our meddlesome planners to ponder. I feel quite sure in my own mind that there is a very rude awakening coming to those individuals when the "cease fire" sounds and our young men return from overseas.
I see my time has gone, Mr. Speaker, and there still remain such important questions as agriculture, old age pensions, housing, and so on. They are all big questions, and when they are under discussion in this house I shall have something to say in respect to them. I do want to say, however, that each of these questions is capable of a simple solution. The old axiom "there are none so blind as those who will not see" applies most fittingly to our present administrators. Will it take a revolution to shake them from their complacency?
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended taking part in this discussion. I was prepared to accept the suggestion of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) who, in moving his amendment, spoke briefly and said that in his opinion there should be few speeches on the address, that we should wait until the legislation was brought down and we knew what it was all about. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) accepted that suggestion and also spoke briefly, taking only about twenty minutes to deal with general matters before going on to read his statement in regard to the speech by Lord Halifax. It seemed to me that, since the speech from the throne was not very definite, we should wait until we had the actual legislation and then get on with the business

The Address-Mr. Perley

of the country. After listening to the political speech delivered yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), however, in which he referred to Liberal policies and to the floor prices on agricultural products, I came to the conclusion that I should say a few words at this stage.
May I say quite frankly at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that my first concern is the winning of the war. To my mind that is our most important problem, and the only thing that matters now. Having said that, however, I want to repeat what I said last session, that [ have no apology to offer for having supported certain measures brought down by this government since the beginning of the war, when I thought those measures were in the interest of Canada's war effort. Neither have I an apology to offer for having on occasion criticized this government, I hope constructively, when I thought such criticism would also help the war effort.
When I looked over the speech from the throne point by point, as was suggested by the leader of the opposition, I had to agree with him that most of the legislation there suggested was taken from the platform drawn up by the Progressive Conservative party at Winnipeg in December, 1942. But even at that the Progressive Conservative .party is by uo means stranded,, for there is much remaining in that platform which the government could well adopt and much that the people of Canada will approve when they have a chance to express themselves at the next general election.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Poor old Tory party I


Ernest Edward Perley: If the Minister of Pensions md National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) will just keep quiet for a little while I may have a few suggestions to offer him. I do not think 1 have said anything as yet that would call for any interruption by him, but when I do 'o, as always I shall be glad to hear from him.
I hesitate even at this stage to offer any constructive suggestions to the government with respect to marketing problems or similar questions, because during the last eight years f have had many such suggestions refused by i he government at the time they were offered, only to see them put into operation a year or two later.


Mr. SENN:: Too late.


Ernest Edward Perley: Yes, too late; but I think
the government will agree that I made the suggestions before they thought of them.
Yesterday we listened to two able speeches, delivered with great energy and force, by the 
hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) and the Minister of Agriculture. It developed into a real bout. I am not going to get mixed up in any of their little differences; I am not even going to suggest that I might act as referee, because each scored so many points that it might be a little difficult to say who won. I noticed, however, that each took many of his points from the Progressive Conservative party. The minister took credit, in a forceful way, for the policy of floor prices. In doing that he referred to the fact that the first person to establish floor prices in Canada with respect to the marketing of grain was Right Hon. R. B. Bennett in 1935. This is what the minister said:
My hon. friends opposite say that floor prices came from John Bracken.
Hear, hear; they did.
They forget that we had a floor price under butter in 1938. They forget that we had a floor price under hogs and cheese in 1939-40. They forget that we had a floor price-their own party put a floor price, if you like to go back-of 871 cents under wheat when Mr. Bennett was in power, but they have dropped the name of his party. We have put floor prices all the way from 70 cents to $1.25.
Then he goes on to say that on October 15 the Prime Minister made a statement with respect to floor prices. The minister's memory is not good. The statement made in October was made about a year after the Winnipeg convention, where the principle of an initial floor price was established and put into our policy. Then the minister mentioned the different prices-the initial price, the parity price, and the floor price-and said they were all practically the same, namely, floor prices. When the minister made reference to all these prices I was surprised that his memory was so short. He did not mention all the names pertaining to prices, because he and his parti' were responsible in the fall of 1935 and the beginning of 1936 for establishing what was termed a fire sale price. It will be recalled that following the election, Mr. McFarland was thrown out and Mr. Mclvor took office. It was at that time that a fire sale price was established in an effort to dispose of surplus wheat, which later proved to be a blessing in disguise. They tried to sell that wheat at fire sale prices, offering it in large quantities which the market could not absorb. The minister forgot to mention that yesterday.
The minister then reviewed the situation with respect to prices in 1937, 1938 and 1939, down to the present time. I am not going to go into detail on that matter. I shall say only that it was not very long before the Canadian Wheat Board Act, passed by Mr. Bennett's government in 1935, was set aside by what was

The Address-Mr. Perley
described by the late Hon. Mr. Motherwell as an illegal order in council. Hon. members know what happened. After the fire sale price had been established, in an effort to dispose of the wheat, the price changed; it went up until in 1937 it reached $1.47. Then the act was brought into operation again, and hon. members know the record from that time. As the minister said yesterday, we had a floor price of 70 cents, and then floor prices of 80 cents and 90 cents, down the line. The minister yesterday tried to take credit for the price at $1.25, but we shall have something to say about that later on.
It is hardly necessary, for me to say anything respecting my own stand in these matters. I think every hon. member knows where I stand in regard to prices, and particularly grain prices, which were under discussion yesterday. In 1938, after the fiasco of the fire sale price, I proposed in the house a policy which amounted to a floor price, to be effective not only from year to year, but over a ten-year period. After setting out the circumstances and conditions in connection with marketing I suggested, in 1938, that the government should authorize the board to fix a minimum price of a dollar per bushel for a period of not less than ten years. I mentioned further on that occasion that coarse grains should be brought under the operation of the board, and that a fixed minimum, or, if you like, a floor price, should be placed on coarse grains of export grades. So, who was practically the first to suggest floor prices in the house? On the occasion on which I made.the suggestion in the house we had discussion in our caucus, and I had the support of every hon. member there present for the policy I advanced. We discussed it, and in the main that was the policy of our party.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: The Conservative party, or the Progressive Conservative party?


Ernest Edward Perley: I was at the Progressive Conservative convention at Winnipeg when we adopted that policy in a plank providing for floor prices. The policy was adopted by the party as a whole on that occasion. The orders of the day in each session from 1940 will show a resolution in my name, asking for a parity price and a minimum price with participation certificates. I say therefore that my record in that respect has been consistent.
Last fall, when the price of $1.25 was announced, in my effort to be fair, as I try to be in all cases, I wrote to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) and complimented him upon his action in setting that price. In my letter I expressed regret that it had not been done sooner. I pointed 100-22i
out that the minister could have taken similar action in March, at the latest in July. It will be recalled that in March he had announced the policy that the 1943 price was to remain at 90 cents. Then in July, having in mind the circumstances surrounding marketing in western Canada, the United States and Europe, I asked the minister to reconsider his policy and to advance the price by at least twenty cents. He replied that he could not do so.
It is of interest to note that when the price was set at $1.25 I had made a motion in the committee on agriculture, in addition to my resolution on the order paper which, because it was private members' business, could not be reached. But on July 16 in the committee on agriculture I made practically the same motion which had stood in my name on the order paper. My motion in committee asked the government to consider increasing the price by twenty cents to $1.10. The committee's report states:
This committee recommends that in view of the changed market conditions the wheat [DOT]committee of the [DOT] cabinet should authorize the initial payment of wheat being increased to $1.10 a bushel basis No. 1 Northern at Fort William, instead of the present 90 cents paid by the Canadian Wheat Board, and the Wheat Board Act should be amended to permit this higher payment, at the present session.
The motion was made on the 16th, and it was ruled out of order on the 19th. When the committee met on the 19th the chairman announced that he had consulted with you, sir, and I believe also with the Clerk of the House, and he then ruled my motion out of order on the ground that it would involve the expenditure of public money. It is interesting to note that having ruled that out on July 19, they proceeded in September to adopt the principle. They even went a little further, for which I am glad.	-
There is another thing about which I am quite pleased. On that same day I moved, as will be seen from the records of the agriculture committee, as follows:
This committee recommends that the government should authorize the Canadian Wheat Board to handle all oats and1 barley on a pooling basis according to grade, with initial price not less than the established ceiling price.
They struck out the words "with initial price not less than the established ceiling price" and then adopted the motion. It is interesting to note that within two weeks they passed an order in council which was my original motion almost word for word. When that motion was put to a vote in the committee only the Conservative members and the C.C.F. members voted for it. It is interesting to note, too, that they have adopted some of my suggestions in that respect.
The Address-Mr. Perley

The farmers have done their part, and all they want is a square deal. They have done everything that has been asked of them in the way of producing products of all kinds. They have helped as much as any other class of our people to finance this war. I am proud to say that the agricultural districts in my constituency have gone over the top early in every victory loan campaign. They have done their duty in many respects and, as I say, all they want is a square deal and an adequate Teturn for their labour.
They also want some controls with respect to our marketing system. The government proposes to establish floor prices, I trust that these prices will not be lower than the ceiling prices now prevailing. There should be participation certificates and the wheat board should be given the necessary control in order to carry out orderly marketing. As has been suggested already, I am firmly of the opinion that the Minister of Agriculture should set up a board of live stock commissioners. If that board had the proper agricultural representation-no one knows better what should be done for the farmer than the man who is actually in the business-it would prove of great help to the minister.
Within the last two or three days questions have been asked by the leader of the Social Credit party and others in this house with respect to the marketing of beef, live stock and so on. This goes to show that conditions are not satisfactory. I shall not take the time now to go into this in detail, but I think the minister would he well advised to consider some of the suggestions that have been made. The western beef producers are dissatisfied, as are the hog producers. I should like to quote from the Regina Leader-Post of January 26, 1944. This is the mouthpiece of the Liberal government and the Minister of Agriculture in Saskatchewan. It says:
Returns for hogs are the lowest since 1938 and the bonus will only put the net return to where it was in 1942.
That shows that his own organ is not very well satisfied. The government should give more attention to what agricultural and cooperative organizations have to say. These organizations are. playing a most important part in the affairs of this country. The federation of agriculture is well organized, and it represents every branch of the agricultural industry.
I said a moment ago that I hoped the floor prices would be set at a level comparable to what the farmer has to pay for the things he consumes, comparable to the prices now being

received in the United States, and they should be set for a term of not less than five to ten years.
There are other suggestions I could make with regard to marketing and agricultural questions with which I am familiar, but I shall not take the time now. There will be an occasion later on. The chief whip of the Liberal party laughs. We shall have something to say on these matters. All the government has to do is to bring down its measures and' we will dissect them. I am generally on the job, and I think I shall be able to give him something to laugh about later on.
There are many matters forecast in the speech from the throne, most of which have been discussed during this debate. I refer to rehabilitation, social security, man-power on the farm, and other labour problems. With respect to social security I shall say just one word. If you want to solve that problem, if you want to'provide security for all the people of Canada on a proper basis, all you need to do is to enact measures that will provide employment for all.
I am going to make one or two suggestions. The government should1 adopt measures to put the four basic industries of Canada on a proper footing. First, there is agriculture with its subsidiary industries of milling, baking and so on. Then there is the lumber industry, with the different forest products. Then there is the mining of minerals, with which would be associated the production of hydro-electric power. And there is the fishing industry. If these four industries are put on a proper basis, every secondary industry will fall in line. They are our four chief industries, and if proper consideration is given to them our difficulties with respect to labour and other problems will be taken care of. I do not intend to gq into the details of what should be done with each industry; there will be another time to discuss these matters.
I regret that the Minister of Agriculture is not in his seat at the moment. I noticed he was here yesterday; it may be that it takes a speaker like the hon. member of Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) to bring him into the chamber. I listened with close attention, as I always do, to what he said yesterday. He made a speech with some punch in it. He tried to convince the members of this house that the present government of which he is a member nad implemented1 the policies laid down from time to time in the different platforms of the Liberal party, and I was surprised to hear the minister take credit to the government for the fact that the employment situation to-day is more or less satisfactory. He sought to leave the impression on the. house and, through Hansard,

The Address-Mr. Perley
with the people of this country, that the . alleged policies of the Liberal party were responsible for the present lack of unemployment. I use the word "alleged" advisedly, because I doubt if there are many people in Canada who have the remotest idea of what the Liberal policies are; they have been changing with such frequency that no one can keep track of them.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is progress.


Ernest Edward Perley: It is progress to change your policy? Surely, Mr. Speaker, thinking Canadians know full well the price we are paying in blood, sweat and tears for the synthetic prosperity of w'hich the minister spoke yesterday.
The minister also suggested that trade treaties alleged to have been negotiated by his government with twenty different countries were in line with Liberal policy and at least a contributory factor to the prosperity that he mentioned. Here again I think the people of Canada know that the present shortage of goods and services and any measure of prosperity we may now enjoy are not attributable to the government's policies at all but to the curse of this war.	.


John Gordon Ross: The minister was speaking of the period up to 1939.


Ernest Edward Perley: And since 1939, because there was no prosperity under the Liberal government prior to 1939. I know that the minister referred to the low prices of 1932. But who in Canada who knows anything about agriculture is not familiar with the conditions that prevailed in 1932? What about Mr. Dunning and the manifesto of 1930, when the Liberals admitted that they were responsible for the drop in prices and the depression that came upon us?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: In 1935 the people showed by their votes who they thought were responsible.


Gordon Graydon: You had better stick to fish.


Ernest Edward Perley: The credit for our larger domestic and foreign trade, to which the Minister of Agriculture referred, cannot be given to this government. Every man in Canada knows that our expanded foreign trade and our enlarged domestic trade is due to the producers in Canada, who are the ones, and the only ones, who should get the credit.
The Minister of Agriculture yesterday, in his little bout with the hon. member for Weyburn, devoted a lot of time to socialists and socialism. I said at the outset that I am not going to assume the role of referee between them.
I will content myself by saying that I do not think the people of Canada are ready for complete socialism. The failure of the Liberal government to solve the economic problems of Canada before the war, despite the ample opportunity they had to do so, and the "feeling in the minds of the people that they would not be able to solve the problems of the after-the-war period, was responsible, .1 think, for the adverse vote which the government received in the by-elections that have taken place in recent months throughout Canada. This was the only opportunity that the people of Canada have had since war broke out of expressing themselves; and how did they do it? Evidently they had concluded that the government was not responsible for the prosperity of which the Minister of Agriculture spoke yesterday.
I have one complaint to make in conclusion, and it is this, that the government, which boast now of setting a floor price of SI.25 for wheat, did not do it earlier. They announced their wheat policy in March of last year, when they said there would be no change in price for the 1943 crop. I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce in July of last year whether he would not reconsider the government's wheat policy, but to no effect. The government did not take action until September 21, when a great deal of our wheat had been marketed under the first quota -because with the present system of harvesting in western Canada, where combines are used, a lot of wheat is marketed in August and September. The open market price at that time was considerably over 90 cents, and many farmers, taking the government at their word that there wouid be no change in policy, sold their wheat at the open market price. I myself took the minister at his word and sold a considerable amount of wheat on the 1st of September. If I had held it a few days I would have got a better price, but I took the minister at his word and sold a considerable portion of my wheat at. the open market price. I think the farmer should receive a proper settlement for the wheat he sold during that period from August 1 to September 21. The settlement on the basis of the spread is not good enough, and the farmers will not forget it. I got three-quarters of a cent in the spread between the price on the day I sold my wheat and the price on the day the government set a floor of S1.25. I think something should be done even now about that. I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce when we may expect a statement from him with reference to the amount of wheat taken over by the board, the price paid for it, and the profit made. I think we should have that statement before long.
The Address

Mr. Coldwell

Much has been said in this debate about the price of hogs and other products, and I listened to the Minister of Agriculture yesterday trying to square himself or get himself out of the mess in which he apparently finds himself because undoubtedly there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the government's agricultural policy. It reminds me of the pictures of a boy riding a donkey. In one picture you see him riding facing one way, and in the next picture you see him facing in the opposite direction, so that you cannot tell where he is going. The minister has been riding the hog both ways and has got into trouble. We shall have something to say later on this question, *but I trust that this debate will close soon and that we shall get down to the business of the session.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I had not intended to participate further in this debate, but yesterday's remarks of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) have prompted me to do so. First, however, let me say that I agree with very much of what the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Perley) has said, though I would remind him that if we are entering into a competition to see who first suggested parity prices or floor prices we should look to many of the farm organizations in the west. I believe that as a matter of fact the movement for which I speak to-day was the first movement to incorporate such a plank in a political platform. I have before me our Regina manifesto of 1933 and I find in it clause 4 under agriculture:
The encouragement of producers' and consumers' cooperatives; the restoration and maintenance of an equitable relationship between prices of agricultural products and those of other commodities and farm services.
As long ago as 1933 we were urging and advocating that form of price level guarantee.
Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture made a political speech in the course of which he saw fit to make a number of statements that were inaccurate and that misrepresented the viewpoint and the basis of the movement which the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group represents in this house. He attacked particularly my hon. friend the member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) and chided him because he had not yet found a seat in the provincial house at Regina. Well, we must remind the minister, as we did yesterday, that for almost two years one provincial seat has been vacant in the province of Saskatchewan and that since July last three others have been vacant, one of them a seat formerly occupied by the present hon. member for Humboldt in this house (Mr. Burton), a seat occupied by a C.C.F. member. At any time the government 
of Saskatchewan could have opened one of these seats, and I am quite sure the hon. member for Weyburn would have been glad to seize the opportunity and attempt to enter the Saskatchewan house at Regina.
I presume the minister is alarmed because the political machine in Saskatchewan, upon which he has relied so long, has shown signs of breaking down. In the Humboldt by-election we had that machine in full force in the constituency. The minister was there himself, having left parliament before this house rose in July, to supervise that campaign, and he gathered round him the old cohorts of the Saskatchewan Liberal machine. And let me say that there has been no more devastating machine in the democratic world than that organized by the Minister of Agriculture in the province of Saskatchewan. Let me tell the house that employees of the federal government were there in force with cars belonging to the Dominion of Canada. We made a check of them. I have before me only a partial list of some of the cars that were present during the time I myself was in that constituency. I saw some of	them parked
outside the hotel where I was staying, which also happened to be the headquarters of the Liberal party. We took a number of car numbers; all the following are Saskatchewan licence numbers of the dominion Department of Agriculture, P.FjR.A. Regina.
No. 20475	No.	20444No. 20471	No.	20452No. 20474	No.	2045S



No. 20456

Gordon Graydon: They must have been a fleet of jeeps.
Mr. COLDWELL; No. They were not jeeps. Some were fine modem cdrs, including one fine maroon car which I am told the minister himself drove on one occasion to attend a political appointment. Who paid for the gas and upkeep of the cars? The people of Canada. But the political machine is so brazen in the province of Saskatchewan that it dared to do this sort of thing in the midst of a by-election. And so, when the minister talks about regimentation, let me remind the house that no other province in this dominion, at any time, has been regimented in poverty by a political machine to the extent that Saskatchewan was regimented during the depression years. Unless you were a member of the Liberal party or had a recommendation from that party you found it difficult to get relief work.


John Gordon Ross: That is untrue.


Major James William Coldwell: You found it difficult to get anything at all. I know the facts.

The Address-Mr. Coldwell


John Gordon Ross: That statement is not correct.


Major James William Coldwell: This statement is just as correct as the statement about the cars, the basis of which statement I witnessed with my own eyes. No other province has been controlled to the extent that Saskatchewan has been under the regime of the present Minister of Agriculture. And so I say that when the time comes wre shall want to know what the expense accounts were of those gentlemen who were in the town of Humboldt during the byelection between the middle of July and the 9th of August when the minister himself was there.
The minister took particular credit yesterday for the fact, as he claimed, that the province of Saskatchewan had on the statute books, in principle at least, everything that was to be found in the Beveridge report. Well, they may be there in principle, but there are thousands of square miles of territory in Saskatchewan without adequate social services upon which a community must depend at this time, particularly medical services, as the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie well knows. And as for taking credit for the municipal doctors and other cooperative medical facilities in that province, those of us who know their history know that health organizations arose out of the needs of the people and were organized first by the people themselves and then the government came along with its legislation.
As for social services like education, there were schools without teachers, teachers working in the province for $350 a year and not getting paid during long years of Liberal administration in that province, so that when the minister rises in this house and gives us the province of Saskatchewan as an example of what the Liberal government would do, I say heaven save us from a Liberal government in the dominion who would follow that example.
We learned yesterday too that the government took credit for the improved conditions when the war broke out or prior to the breaking out of the war. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle, who has just taken his seat, gave the house the reason for the improved trade conditions immediately prior to the war. Canada was assisting in the rearming of the aggressor nations. Session after session we and others in this house rose and pointed out the exports of nickel, exports of aluminum, exports of copper, exports of scrapiron that were going in an ever-increasing stream to the present enemy nations, particularly to Japan. We know that one large mine, the Granby mine, in the province of British Columbia, was permitted for several years to send to Japan all its output of copper concentrates. We know that well into 1940, long after we were at war with the German reich, this government was permitting the export of nickel, copper, aluminum and scrapiron to Japan, in order that she might rearm herself.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Part of which went to
Russia.


Major James William Coldwell: That, let me add, was
the cause, to some extent at least, of the increased trade figures which were presented to this house at that time. So I say that the government can find very little comfort in the statements made in that regard.
Then, of course, he twitted us with socialism. I am going to say something about that in a moment. But let me point out here that no government could have regimented our young men and women more thoroughly than the Liberal government regimented them in those years before the war. They regimented them in poverty and want. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perleyl made a statement regarding the condition in 1939 which was disputed by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross). If he will look up the relief figures for 1939 he will find that at one time in that year there were nearly one million people in this country on relief, and four hundred thousand registered unemployed. I say that no government in any country could have regimented in poverty and1 want the people to a greater extent than the present government which sits opposite.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Those were world conditions.


Major James William Coldwell: Five dollars a month on a farm and three cents for a meal. The minister yesterday denied that men were riding the rods during the regime of this government. True, they were riding the rods in 1933, 1934 and 1935, when Mr. Bennett was in power, but they were also riding the rods in 1939, 1938, 1937, 1936. I remember vividly one incident which occurred under this roof in 1939. About this time of the year, early in February, there came into the office of my friend, Grant MacNeil, half a dozen young men, who were the vanguard of a number who had ridden the rods into this city, having been sent first of all from Vancouver to the province of Ontario. They came in homeless, foodless and cold. We got in touch with the then Minister of Labour, one of the kindliest men who have ever sat in this house, the late Hon. Norman Rogers. Mr. Rogers said: "My department can do nothing for them. We make grants to the provinces." Grant MacNeil got in touch with the province of Ontario: "We can do nothing
The Address-Mr. Coldwell

for them; they have not been in Ontario a year." Mr. MacNeil phoned the civic authorities: "We can do nothing for them; they have not been in the city three months." And a Liberal member in this house at that time rose in his place and described those two or three hundred men who were here the following week as-what? "Bums, toughs, yaps, ne'er-do-wells." And they drifted away. After the war broke out, in September, 1939, I happened to be walking down O'Connor street, away from this house. As I passed a recruiting station, or what I supposed was a recruiting station, for there were a lot of young men around there, I heard someone say, "There is Mr. Coldwell." I turned to him and asked, "What part of Saskatchewan are you from?" He said, "I am not from Saskatchewan; I am one of the boys who were in Mr. MacNeil's office in February. I have joined up." I shook hands with him and I wished him good luck. That boy, who could not get a fifteen-cent meal from the Dominion of Canada in February, who was a "bum," "spineless," and all the rest of it, according to a Liberal member of this house, in February, joined up. What did he get? He got a good suit of clothes, a good warm overcoat, good underwear, socks and shoes, three good meals a day, a ticket to the Y.M.C.A.-and socialized1 medicine thrown in with it, as my hon. friends -remind me. These boys were "no good" in peace, but when war came they became necessary for our defence. But the government, which is yet in power, sat unmoved and did nothing to relieve their distress. They left them to ride the rods.


Mr. MacINNIS:: They waited on world trade!


Major James William Coldwell: Yes; as my hon. friend says, they waited on world trade. Yesterday the minister spoke to us of world trade. I believe in world trade; you export in order to import the goods which you need. But my hon. friends dare to tell me that world trade was the solution in this country when there were a million people on relief and four hundred thousand unemployed? In the city in which I live, and which is probably one of the best in the dominion in respect of relief so far as amounts go, three meals a day at three cents a meal was the average family allowance. And my hon. friends tell me that we ought to have exported more food? We say we ought to have fed some of the people. And we have reaped the nemesis since. I remember a former minister, the Hon. Mr. Thoi'son, rising in this house and telling us that forty-four per cent of the young men who had volunteered and been examined were turned down on account of physical 
unfitness. That was the result of the years when this government was in power. And then they say, "Put the C.C.F. in power and they will regiment you." We want to free men from that kind of regimentation, and if we ever get the opportunity, as we shall, we shall do it.
The minister said that we sent emissaries to national socialist countries to see what they were doing there. Where did he get his information from? We sent no emissaries. When we asked him whom he had in mind he named Major George H. Williams-a man who to-day is serving in the Canadian army overseas-as having been an emissary to a national socialist country to come back to teach this country national socialism, the thing we are fighting against. Major Williams is not only serving in this war but took part and was wounded in the war of 1914-18. Where did he go? He went to Russia. Did we send him there? No, we did not send him there. He was sent there by the farmers of Saskatchewan to study the agricultural problems of that country and how they were going to meet them, and what effect they might have in the future on the agricultural economy of our own country, and particularly of our prairie provinces. That is why Mr. Williams went to Russia. A few year's ago, of course, even three or four years ago, hon. members would rise in their places and call us communists. "Russia" was thrown at us. Now, of course, Russia is our ally, communism is a bit more popular, and so they turn around and call us national socialists.


Angus MacInnis: They have to have something.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, they have to have something. But let me tell them that calling names will not meet argument, and calling names of that description will do them more harm than it will do us. As far as we are concerned we are the most democratically based political party in this country, indeed probably anywhere in the world; and our democratic associations are recognized in other countries.
May I interject this personal experience. I know I am the only member of this house ever to be invited to sit in at a labour party caucus in Great Britain, as I did on November 10, 1941, with Clement Attlee, Ernest Bevin, Herbert Morrison, A. V. Alexander and the other men who to-day are giving leadership in this struggle against national socialism but who hold to exactly the same kind of democratic socialist principles that we in this group hold to in this country; and that is recognized. So that I do not think that such stupidity

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
is going to carry any weight in this country; and to vilify a man who is serving his country overseas at this time is almost beneath contempt.
The minister said he was quoting from a book. What book? Well, at the conclusion of his remarks he held up this book, "Make This Your Canada." I would recommend that all hon. members read it; then perhaps they may know something more about the C.C.F. and be prepared to discuss it intelligently. But later on, when the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) was speaking, I noticed that the minister interjected that the book was "Social Planning for Canada." We did not write or produce that book. It was written by a group of men associated with the League for Social Reconstruction of which, if I am not misinformed, some hon. gentlemen sitting on the other side of the house were members in the early nineteen-thirties.


Gordon Graydon: Who would they be?


Major James William Coldwell: Well, I am not going to say, but I will ask this. Who were the authors of that book? It was written by a group of brilliant young men, one of whom, Doctor Leonard Marsh, is in an advisory capacity to one of the most important committees this government has set up, the social security committee. Indeed, he drafted their plan for them. Another one, Graham Spry, is now the personal assistant to Right Hon. Stafford Cripps in Britain. Some national socialists, aren't they, people of that description? Page the Minister of Agriculture, somebody says. I' should say so.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Where is he?


John Gordon Ross: Probably busy.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Probably
scared.


John Gordon Ross: Of what?


Major James William Coldwell: Yesterday I think this house took the measure of the minister in the kind of speech he made, when he tried to suggest that people like those I have mentioned were national socialists. If he had called anyone in this house a national socialist then he should have gone further and laid a charge with the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) and had that person interned, because we are at war with national socialism. Therefore when we examine a speech like the one made yesterday, so full of misrepresentations, it makes us wonder just what idea the minister has of the quality of thinking of our Canadian people.
A few moments ago I said that ours was the most truly democratic movement in Canada, and it is. We are the only political party
organized in this manner. Back in our constituencies and throughout the country there are literally hundreds of clubs of ordinary, plain people meeting together regularly, studying the economic and social conditions of the country in which we live, formulating their ideas, putting them into resolution form, sending them to our constituency conventions, then up to the provincial conventions, held every year, and finally to the national convention, held every two years, to which the delegates are elected by the people. That is not like a Liberal convention held once every twenty-five years. The minister said yesterday, "Oh, yes; they held a meeting in Regina behind closed doors." Every political party holds its caucuses behind closed doors. The meeting referred to was a meeting of elected representatives, in the main, federal and provincial, in order to sort out some of the problems that confront both parliament and legislature. We thought that was a real contribution to the welfare of Canada at this time. What about the Liberal party? It has not had a national convention for twenty-five years. Oh, yes, they had a meeting last September. I happened to come into the House of Commons at the time a meeting was being held; and the meeting place, the railway committee room, was veiy carefully guarded by police. We did not have any police at our meeting in Regina; we did not need them.


John Gordon Ross: That was not a meeting at all.


Major James William Coldwell: It was a caucus, and ours was a caucus, too. Then a meeting of the Liberal federation was held at the Chateau Laurier. Was the press admitted?


John Gordon Ross: Part of the time.


Major James William Coldwell: Does anybody know what was adopted at that Liberal federation meeting?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes; it was given to the press.


Major James William Coldwell: No, it was not. We
were told that we would hear what the Liberal federation had decided when the programme of the government was brought down.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, yes, we were; I
can produce the press clippings to that effect. So that I say to the minister, let him beware when he hurls stones at some of the other people in this house, that he does not live in a very thin glass-house himself, for some stones may be hurled back at him.
I say we are a democratic political movement based on the people themselves. I have
The Address-Mr. Coldwell

no preemption of the position I hold to-day. I am elected or reelected every time there is a national convention, unless they wish to replace me by someone else. That is mass control; that is control by the people; that is democratic control, if you will, and we intend to keep it that way. I noticed, too, that the minister said he wanted to agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) the other evening. I am prepared to place the record of this movement in pre-war international affairs beside the record of any other party in this house. We are not provincial isolationists, like my hon. friends to the left; nor do we dodge every issue that comes along, like my hon. friends to the immediate right; nor do we delay issues, like the government.


Gordon Graydon: You were getting along pretty well until now.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, I should like Mr. Bracken to make a statement on some important matters. During pre-war years we demanded collective security, and the carrying out of league obligations. From 1931 right up to the outbreak of war we condemned the support that was being given by powerful interests throughout the world to Germany, Italy and Japan. We demanded that that cease. We denounced Mussolini when others were praising him, when they were coming back from Italy, as Colonel George Drew did, telling us that Mussolini was a wonderful man, that he had drained the marshes, made the trains run on time, and so on, and so on. We.were denouncing the same Mussolini.


Gordon Graydon: It is great to be perfect.


Major James William Coldwell: And we were denouncing Hitler all through those years, even when we were told that if Hitler had only stopped at a certain point he would have been, a pretty good man. I remember that being said by the late Doctor Manion, the then leader of the Conservative party in the house. And we denounced Hitler, too, when some of our Liberal friends in Saskatchewan were addressing meetings in swastika-decorated halls-yes, in swastika-decorated halls.
True, we did demand disarmament as had oeen agreed to in the league covenant. We did denounce wars which were fought for economic interests, imperialist interests, and purely for trade and for commerce. And during those years we drew attention again and again to the preponderance of league power, if we cared to use it, for the preservation of peace.
With respect to Munich I am prepared to put the record of this movement opposite that of any other group in Canada. When Munich came in September 1938, I telegraphed the League of Nations Society in Canada, a mem-

ber of whose executive I was at the time, and stated this:
Chemaimis, B.C., Sept. 30, 1938.
European situation direct result of desertion of league covenant and collective security by great powers. Believe shameful partition of Czechoslovakia could have been prevented and war averted if league nations had resisted unitedly.
Result of fascist aggression demonstrates peril of small nations which rely on pledges of great powers and the honour of their reactionary politicians.
Urge world-wide campaign to revitalize league to prevent further aggression so clearly foreshadowed by success of Hitler's threat to world peace and human brotherhood.
That was my view at the time of Munich.
What was the view of the leader of the Liberal party? I shall read it, and place it on the record. This communication is dated at Ottawa, September 29, 1938, and states:
The Right Honourable Neville Chamberlain, P.C., M.P., Prime Minister of Great Britain, 10 Downing street, London, England.
The heart of Canada is rejoicing to-night' at the success which has crowned your unremitting efforts for peace. May I convey to you the warm congratulations of the Canadian people, and with them, an expression of their gratitude, which is felt from one end of the dominion to the other. My colleagues in the government join with me in unbounded admiration at the service you have rendered mankind. Your achievements in the past month alone will ensure you an abiding and illustrious place among the great conciliators whom the United Kingdom the British commonwealtn of nations and the whole world will continue to honour. On the very brink of chaos, with passions flaming, and armies marching, the voice of reason has found a way out of the conflict which no people in their heart desired, but none seemed able to avert. A turning point in the world's history will be reached if, as we hope, to-night's agreement means a halt to the mad race of arms, and a new start in building the partnership of all peoples. May you have health and strength to carry your great work to its completion.
W. L. Mackenzie King.
That was signed by the present Prime Minister.
I did not rejoice in the autumn of 1938 when the gallant little nation of Czechoslovakia was sacrificed. Now we know that the sacrifice of that nation had tremendous and serious effects on the future of the world. Doctor Riptka, under-secretary of state for foreign affairs in the Czechoslovakian government now in London has published in his book, "Munich and After", the whole story of the Munich agreement, together with the Czech documents. Among them one will find, if he reads the book, that they had a firm commitment from Russia that if France marched, and Britain marched with her for the protection of Czechoslovakia, Russia would march, too. And because of the deep distrust placed in the

The Address-Mr. Crerar
hearts of the rulers of Russia at that time, a year later we have the Stalin-Hitler pact, and the way cleared for the outbreak of war in which, for a time, the British Commonwealth and Empire stood alone.
And so I say to-day I am not ashamed of the part we played before the war. In that connection, Mr. Speaker, I might refer to a speech I made on September 26, 1938, in the city of Victoria. I have the report of that speech as it appears in the Regina Leader-Post on September 27 of that year. This is a Canadian Press dispatch from Victoria, British Columbia.


Gordon Graydon: What year was that?


Mr. COLD WELL:: 1938.


Gordon Graydon: It is important to have the right date.


Major James William Coldwell: It states:
"Believing that Prime Minister Chamberlain has been forced into the present situation, if war conies we must give whatever assistance we can," he said.
"As a fundamental of participation, Canada must be organized economically to render maximum assistance. All essential industries muBt be placed under national control and profiteering of all kinds eliminated completely."
You see, at that time I thought perhaps the great powers might honour their obligations. The report continues:
"Canada must decide what her best contribution can be. To my mind this is economic. There probably is insufficient national unity to organize a large expeditionary force."
Practically everybody agreed with that. Speaking in this house in March, 1939, six months later, the Prime Minister made the statement that in his opinion we would never again send a force overseas, and that it was unthinkable that every twenty-five years or so we should send our youth across the seas. That was pretty much the general opinion at that time-that it would be difficult to organize and dispatch an expeditionary force.
Then the report goes on to say:
"The present situation arose from conditions that prevailed, prior to the great war," the C.C.F. member said.
"We desire not national rearmament but collective security," continued Mr. Coldwell.
"In other words, we hold that peace cannot be maintained by armed alliances. The League of Nations has not failed, but the statesmanship of the great powers has failed.
"To-day humanity seems to reap the whirlwind, whereas collective security properly applied could have prevented this situation.
"We tolerated the Japanese seizure of Manchuria in 1931.
"Having failed to disarm themselves the league powers allowed Hitler to commence arming. In 1936 his remilitarization of the Rhineland was permitted.
"Toward fascist Italy we have pursued a similar policy. Non-intervention policies in Spain in the face of German and Italian aggression strengthened the fascists."
That was my view in September, 1938. And I say quite freely that in September, 1939, with the people who had made the Munich agreement still in power I was afraid -yes, afraid, that we might once again find our boys sacrificed to the people who were in office, and had made the Munich agreement. But when Dunkirk came, when that government was overthrown and was replaced by one which represented the people of Great Britain, one in which we could have more confidence, the situation was different. To-day my own late leader, Mr. J. S. Woodsworth, who is sometimes vilified, has two sons in the armed forces, and my own son is serving in the air force overseas. So let us stop this kind of foolish name-calling and bandying of words. That was all the minister indulged in yesterday. If we stop that sort of thing we should get along with the business of the house and the war. But I am going to add this, that the kind of argument we heard yesterday will be met whenever it is made in this chamber. We are not on the defensive; we are on the offensive. It is the government that has to answer for many things. It is the government that kept the people regimented in starvation during the depression. It is the government that has no plan for the future. We will cooperate to make plans for the future, but when there is misrepresentation or vilification we shall not let that misrepresentation or vilification go unchallenged.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, until the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) rose in the house I had not the slightest intention of taking part in this debate. With what my hon. friend had to say concerning my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), I am not going to deal in my remarks. The Minister of Agriculture has demonstrated on more than one occasion that he can look after himself, and I have no doubt whatever that he will look after himself so far as the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar are concerned. But it is in connection with the latter part of the speech made by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation that I wish to make a few observations to the house.
If my hon. friend seeks to give the impression to this country that his record and the record of the C.C.F. so far as the war is concerned, so far as the conditions leading up to the war are concerned, are as rosy and fine
The Address-Mr. Crerar

and wholesome as he indicates, then he has a big job on his hands. My hon. friend states the position he took at the time of Munich. If Great Britain and France at the time of Munich had gone to war with Germany in support of Czechoslovakia, I put this question to my hon. friend and to those who sit behind him: Would they have favoured Canada's participating in that fight to crush the tyranny of Germany?


Major James William Coldwell: I said so in the very speech to which I referred.


An hon. MEMBER:: 1939?


Major James William Coldwell: 1938.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If that was the view of my hon. friend, then the position he took when war broke out was an extraordinary position.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not trust the governments.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend gives a very lame reason for not standing unanimously with parliament in support of the war when it was declared by Canada in September, 1939.


Major James William Coldwell: I did. I voted for it, as did every hon. member of this party except Mr. Woodsworth.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend did not
stand for effective participation by Canada in the war.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, I did.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I shall read the record in a moment. He gives us as a reason for his vacillating attitude at that time the fact that he did not trust this government or the Prime Minister of Great Britain. Is a' great national question like that to be decided by the hon. gentleman by his not liking some one who is in a government or at the head of a government?


Major James William Coldwell: I have to decide according to my own conscience.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: All I have to say is that my hon. friend has quite an extraordinary conscience.


Major James William Coldwell: If we are going to talk about consciences, I am not going to take anything of that from my hon. friend.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I did not interrupt my hon. friend when he was making his speech. I want to go back a little prior to the declaration of war by this parliament, September 9, 1939.

What was the attitude of my hon. friend and those who sit behind him when we were dealing with the defence estimates presented by the present Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) when he was Minister of Defence in 1936, 1937 and 1938? I have the record here. I shall refer the house to the pages of Hansard.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: "Facts are chiels that winna ding."


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It was clear to any one
who knew anything about the international situation that the storm clouds throughout the world were rising. When the Minister of Pensions and National Health as Minister of National Defence sought to get a modest increase in the estimates for national defence for Canada, what was the attitude of my hon. friend? I happened to have some notes in my desk which I sent for after my hon. friend rose in his place. The hon. member who leads the C.C.F. party in the House of Commons is reported on page 3203 of Hansard of May 28, 1936-my hon. friend can mark down the page number and check it up-as follows:
. .	. in my opinion a country the size of
Canada, with its diverse peoples and small population, is best defended if we rely upon our weakness physically and our good will as a good world neighbour, rather than attempt to ape the military powers of the European countries.
If my hon. friend's policy had been adopted when war broke out and the Japanese nation had attacked the shores of Canada, as was quite possible, where would we have been in the defence of Canada?


Major James William Coldwell: Oil sanctions.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend refers to
the shipping of materials to Japan, Germany, Russia and other countries. I am not going to debate that matter at the moment more than to say that it is a difficult and dangerous thing in peace time for a government of one country to throw down a challenge to the government of another country in the way suggested by my hon. friend. There is another delightful gem of the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) who took part in this debate yesterday. This was delivered when we were endeavouring to get a modest increase-let me repeat that-in the defence estimates in 1937.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Far too modest.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Far too modest, the Minister of Pensions and National Health suggests, in the light of events that later occurred.

The Address-Mr. Crerar
When on February 19, 1937, we were endeavouring to get this modest increase in the defence estimates the hon. member for Weyburn delivered himself of this gem, and I invite the attention of the house while I read it:
Against whom are we arming? What potential aggressor is more aggressive to-day? Oh,
I know that bogeymen have been trotted out in this chamber. It has been suggested that it might be Italy, it might be Germany, it might be Japan!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Finish the paragraph.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not need to.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You dare not finish it and give the context.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I did not interrupt my hon. friend yesterday when he was speaking, and I ask him to refrain from interrupting me.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is typical.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minister, without a Hansard before him rises and quotes a sentence from my speech without giving the context. He is quoting from page 1063, and I know the rest of that paragraph. I will give it to the minister if he wishes. But I ask him to quote the rest of that paragraph or to withdraw what he has already said.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Otherwise it is tantamount to a complete misrepresentation of my remarks.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I say to my hon. friend that I have had a little too much experience in this house-


Thomas Vien: Order. The hon. member for Weyburn has raised a point of order with regard to the quotation made by the minister. If the quotation made by the minister is not correct, of course the hon. gentleman will have an opportunity of correcting it. But the minister is making his speech and he is entitled to make it as he sees fit.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The quotation I have
made is a correct quotation from Hansard.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But an incomplete one.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend will find nothing in his speech at that time that will water down or qualify the definite statements which he made and which I have quoted.
But there is more than that. In 1937 the hon. gentleman who now leads the C.C.F.
took part in the debate on the defence estimates of that year and made this statement on November 15, at page 888:
Are we in Canada going to join in this mad race without knowing (precisely the policy that underlies the increased estimates upon which we shall shortly have to vote? Our answer in this little group is, of course, no, because we believe that such defence preparations only breed fear, and that hate, which, in turn, is the child of fear.
That was the lofty sentiment expressed by my hon. friend on that occasion. That would have been of very little avail against an armed Germany and an armed Japan, and I say to my hon. friends of the C.C.F. and to this house that if their point of view had been accepted by parliament at that time, not only would there have been no increase in the defence estimates, not only should we have had not even a modest preparation against the dangers that everyone could see were rising, but we would have dropped our defence estimates altogether and would have retired or, as my hon. friend suggested the year before, to defencelessness as our best defence.


Major James William Coldwell: We would have had an international policy.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, I leave that to my hon. friend.
There was a by-election in Selkirk last August. It did not turn out very well for the government; my hon. friends' candidate won. I have here that candidate's circular and some of his campaign literature in which he said: "If you want to win the war, vote for the C.C.F." My hon. friend nods his head in approval. But what was the position taken by my hon. friend himself when war broke out? The might of Germany then was known. Russia was not then a member of the allied nations fighting Germany because she had a truce, temporary it is true, with Germany, a truce that was uncertain in character. But at that supreme moment, when Britain was threatened as she never had been threatened before in a thousand years of her history, what was the position of my hon. friend and those who sit behind him?


Major James William Coldwell: The same as the government's.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: When this government
decided to declare war on Germany, my hon. friend made a declaration in this house. I do not wish to deal unkindly with him at all, but it is well known that in his group there were strong differences of opinion. The leader of the party at that time was the late Mr. Woodsworth, for whom I had a very great
342	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)
respect, and Mr. Woodsworth took a line in this house different from that taken by my hon. friend because Mr. Woodsworth said that we should not take any part in the war whatever. But my hon. friend made the declaration that our effort should be wholly economic in character and that no forces should be sent overseas. What would have happened to the commonwealth air training plan under that policy? What would have happened to the assistance we have given on the ocean in carrying and convoying supplies to Britain, without which she could not win the war? I say to my hon. friend and to this house and to the country that if my hon. friend's policy had been accepted and adopted by this country at that time Canada would have done nothing toward helping to win this terrible war. So when my hon. friend endeavours to give the impression that his party were the only real patriots at that time-


Major James William Coldwell: I never said that-


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, but my hon. friend has criticized everyone else, so what else can we think? I have not the slightest doubt, Mr. Speaker, that when the people of this country get all these facts before them, as they will, they will deal and deal effectively with my hon. friend the leader of the Commonwealth Cooperative Federation and those who sit behind him in this house.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. This afternoon the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) was permitted to place on the record a statement which he read from a piece of paper and which purported to be an extract from Hansard of a quotation from a speech which I had made. I objected at the time, and I now claim the right, first of all, to point out that the quotation made by the minister was incomplete and therefore incorrect-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No. I was not incorrect.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -and I claim the right to read to the house and to place on the record the statement from Hansard, not from a piece of paper which I hold in my hand but from volume 2 of the session of 1937, February 19, page 1063.	The quotation
follows-


Thomas Vien: Do I understand that the hon. member claims the right to reply to the Minister of Mines and Resources with regard to a statement which the hon. member declares is incorrect? Do I understand that to be his point of order? The Minister of Mines and Resources is of course the judge of his own speech, and if he makes a quotation from any speech or any document which has a bearing, as in this instance, on what the hon. member said on a former occasion, if the quotation he makes is in the exact terms of the record, he is entitled to make it. If the hon. member thinks and states that he has been incorrectly reported and therefore that what has been said is untrue, he has the right to make a correction. In this instance, however, I understand the hon. member to say, not that he has been incorrectly quoted, but that the whole quotation has not been given and that therefore the meaning which the hon. member intended to convey in the speech in question has been distorted. There is nothing incorrect, nothing untrue, in what the Minister of Mines and Resources has said, and the opportunity may arise when the hon. member for Weyburn will have the right to place on the record his interpretation of the statement made by the minister. On the basis of what the hon. member has now said, however, 1 cannot hold that he is in order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I point out that it is not a matter of interpretation-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am pointing out-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a right to rise to a question of privilege.


Thomas Vien: I am of course willing to give as much latitude as possible, but the point of order as stated by the hon. member is not well taken. It is a question as to the correctness or incorrectness of a statement made by the minister and is therefore not a point of order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My point of order is this: I am not calling in question any statement; the question I am discussing is whether or not the minister was quoting correctly from my statement. He had on his desk not a copy of Hansard but a piece of paper, and I contend that no member in this house has a right to quote from Hansard unless he quotes correctly.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On a point of order, I have before me a

The Address-Mr. Picard
copy of what the minister said this afternoon and I have also before me a copy of Hansard, and on my honour as a member of the house I say that what the minister said is absolutely correct in every detail.


Thomas Vien: I must rule against the point raised by the hon. member for Weybum. In the first place, I do not think it is a point of order. If an hon. member wishes to quote in his address any part of a speech he is entitled to do so. Here, however, no point of order is involved, and the hon. member will have to take any opportunity afforded him to place before the house what he intended to convey.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: An opportunity to refute political dishonesty.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The dishonesty is over there.


Thomas Vien: That of course must
necessarily be a matter of opinion.


Mr. L. PHILIPPE PICARD (Bellechasse):: Anybody rising at this stage of the debate on the address usually starts by saying that he had no intention of speaking but is forced to do so through some intervention in the debate by some other member. I will follow the tradition and say that I did not intend to speak but that tjie sub-amendment proposed by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) and now before us is the reason for my addressing the house to-night.
I do not feel that I should deal with the first three paragraphs of the subamendent because my position on such questions is well known. I have dealt with them on previous occasions and I shall have an opportunity to do so again in the future. But, Mr. Speaker, I represent an entirely rural constituency in the province of Quebec, and as the fourth paragraph in this subamendment reads that the government-
Failed to grant to farmers and fishermen exemption from military service in order to remove from them the vexatious proceedings resulting from the narrow application of the national selective service regulations.	*
I feel I should explain my position.
Even with 'these words in the subamendment I declare at once that I cannot vote for it because I am convinced that the farmers of my province as well as the farmers of all Canada have been treated fairly.
The farmers are not asking for any special law for themselves. The regulations existing at the moment give them all due opportunity to get deferments and to be left to till the soil if they properly present their applications to the different boards organized by the
Department of Labour. The farmers want to be treated as all other good citizens of this country are treated, and they are just as patriotic as other classes in the community. They know that the policy of this government has been to keep in their present occupations all men whose labour is considered essential to the prosecution of the war. In this regard they know that all important industries dealing with the war effort, munition plants, shipbuilding plants, and most of the war industries, have been given the privilege of declaring who, among their men, when they are called, are essential to production. And these men upon the declaration of these industries are given deferment.
The farmers occupy an even better position from the point of view of preferment. In the first year of the application of the mobilization act a farmer had to prove that he was essential on the land in order to obtain deferment. Soon after the plans for agricultural expansion in Canada were brought down the Department of Agriculture realized that, in order to send to Britain and to the other united nations the quota they had agreed to supply, all men occupied in agriculture, farmer-owners, sons of farmers or others engaged in agriculture, were necessary and had to be left to till the soil.
As I stated in this house on two previous occasions, the government realized "that the land is the first element that enters into the question of production and that farming is the primary industry and most essential in carrying on the war, because the best trained men, with the best and most modern equipment, cannot fight on an empty stomach."
From then on the farmers throughout Canada had only to establish their status to get deferment from military service either to work on their own farms or to work on the farms of their fathers, or, if those farms were well enough supplied with labour, to be sent to work as farm hands on farms where there were no sons of an age to work, or where there was lack of man-power.
My experience-and I say again that I represent a constituency 98 per cent rural-is that the farmers are satisfied, and I have ample evidence from letters from my own constituents showing that they recognize that they have been well treated and recognize what has been done by this government, not as a favour to one class of the population, but to ensure adequate production of food for Canada, to be sent to Britain and to be supplied to the United Nations. As I say that they have been well treated I intend, for the sake of the record and although we all know about this, to outline in a few words the
The Address-Mr. Picard

procedure which was followed, and which, when followed, permitted these farmers to remain on the farms if they were bona fide farmers.
The moment these men were called, as every other Canadian citizen coming of age was called, if they were notified that their medical examination classed them in a category where they were callable for service, they had to file a form stating the size of the farm, the quantity of cattle or hogs or other animals that they had; in short, to explain what sort of farm they had and how many people there were on the farm. Immediately that procedure had been followed, the registrar of their district would, if the evidence was suffi-ficient, immediately issue to them a certificate stating that they were deferred until further notice, which meant that unless the enemy landed on Canadian soil they would be left to till the soil and produce the food necessary for our armies.
Those who may not have supplied all the documents necessary to prove to the registrar their good faith, or the necessity of their remaining on their parents' farm, were, if there was enough evidence to show that they had been the larger part of their life on a farm and knew about farming and desired to carry on that kind of work, given deferments of from three to six months; and that limit was not to cause them any trouble, as this amendment might lead us to believe, but to make sure, as the government had to do, that these men would remain and work on the farm for the production of food, and were not trying to get deferment in order to go into industry, as was done under regulations which were in force during the last war.
Our people in good faith produced that evidence, showed it to the registrars or to the courts of inquiry that had authority to revise the decisions of the registrars and, once they showed their good faith, were immediately given deferments. Those who were given three to six months deferments, received further extension from six months to six months, after evidence was produced that they were really on the farms.
Some will say that there were men in the first months of the application of the mobilization act who were called at the time for four months and did not ask for any deferment, as they were willing to go for four months, that they entered the army, and that afterwards the procedure to get them out to go back and till the soil was a little difficult. Well, such cases have happened. I have had some myself in my constituency. I have some that are not yet solved. But most of them have been carefully scrutinized by the army authorities, and I must say that, especially in the last year, there has been a great improve-

ment. When the Department of Agriculture impressed upon national selective service authorities that all the men needed for agricultural production had to be returned to the land whenever the man was not in an operational unit and it could be proved that his father needed him on the farm, and when we presented the case to the military authorities, men who were in the different camps throughout Canada were released for periods of from three to six months for duty on the farms, and some of them had their leave extended for other periods of six months. Furthermore, these agriculturists have even been begged by the government to go into the forests during the months they were not absolutely necessary on the farms and work for lumber companies. This was not done to give preferences to special classes of the population, but in order that they could produce the lumber so much needed for the war effort. As regards most of these cases which at first gave trouble to some hon. members because the men had not applied for deferment and were inducted in the army because they were willing to serve, and whose fathers seeing the production on their land lagging, asked to get them back for a certain period of the year - they have been for the most part redressed. I myself have some cases which have not yet been solved1, of men who are already over one year in the army on the Pacific coast or the Atlantic coast. There may be difficulties in connection with their farms. I say there may be some such cases, but would this house be justified in passing such an amendment merely because in certain cases the circumstances have not been understood by some officers of the Department of National Defence as we expected they would? I do not think the situation justifies any hon. member voting for the subamendment. The farmers of Canada are satisfied to comply with the regulations as at present applied, and under which, if they choose to ask for deferment of their service when called, they are sent back to till the soil, to work and fight as soldiers of production.
I should not like to conclude this first part of my remarks without a word of praise for the sons of the soil who volunteered for service, or who, when called under the present regulations, reported for service. What would Jean-Baptiste Montminy, from St. Just de Montmagny, think of such an amendment? Jean-Baptiste Montminy volunteered in the first days of the war and has seen service in Italy, and a month ago this man was awarded1 the Military Cross, with the following citation:
During the attack against hill 246 at Santa Maria he led his platoon to assault. After the machine-gunner was killed he took hold of the

The Address-Mr. Picard
machine-gun and ammunition and advanced in the direction of two nests of enemy machine-guns and by skilful manoeuvring of his arm succeeded in reducing them to silence.
Climbing the hill with his platoon, despite heavy enemy fire he operated on his own initiative an encircling move, and utilizing resourcefully geographic accidents he succeeded in dislodging the enemy who was then impeding the advance of the Canadian unit.
Here was a man who had tilled the soil. Here was a farmer from Quebec, who had enlisted and is keeping alive by his exploits the tradition of the old 22nd battalion of the last war.
As to those who are yet on the farm, they are by their labour and their energy serving on the home front to help feed the country, to help feed Britain and our allies.
One thing I should like to say just now. I am sure that French Canada will realize when this war is over that it owes more to men like Jean-Baptiste Montminy of St. Just, who was decorated in Italy; that it owes more to men like Flight Sergeant Marc Chabot, who was reported missing after an air raid in North Africa in 1941 and who since then has been presumed dead in action and whose father and grandparents are from St. Francois in my constituency; that it owes more to all its sons who have served in this war and who have vindicated its reputation, than it owes to the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) and those who surround him and who share his views, or to the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix), who seconded this subamendment.
It might be opportune at this moment to see what the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency had to say in this debate, to examine his attitude during the past two years, and to form a conclusion as to the use it has been to his own province and to his own people. Speaking in this debate, the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency criticized all Liberal administrations since 1900. He criticized the late Mr. Lapointe's statement in this house in September, 1939, as to Canada's participation, and called it a gesture of colonialism. If the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency was so much against what Mr. Lapointe said in 1939, why did he support him; why did he run in Montmorency as a straight Liberal in support of King and Lapointe in 1940? I remember a meeting in the good constituency of Quebec East, with which I have many links because for a long time I was secretary to the then hon. member for that constituency, Mr. Lapointe. Everyone wondered what would be said by the brave member for Quebec-Montmorency, who only a few months before had spoken against Canada's participation in the war. Everyone
wondered how he would act when the election came along. In Limoilou, in the large hall where most political campaigns in Quebec East are begun, we had our honourable colleague sitting in the front row. When his time came to speak he rose very pompously, bowed very nicely in the direction of the then Minister of Justice, Mr. Lapointe, and said, "My respected leader, Mr. Lapointe." Then he bowed a little more mildly in the direction of the then minister of pensions, now Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) and said, "My good friend, Mr. Power," and proceeded to support the Liberal party which was appealing to the people at that time.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what the hon. member calls gestures of colonialism had been made before 1940, before that campaign opened. Why, then, did the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency, who now criticizes every move made by the government, support the government at that time? I will tell you it was because he felt that the province of Quebec, and indeed the whole of Canada, were behind King and Lapointe. Why does he not cross the floor now and sit in the far corner? Again, because he has his nose in the wind; he wants to make sure whether the people of Quebec will follow King again in the next election, he senses that the people of my province, with those of the rest of Canada, at the next election will be behind Mackenzie King again, and he wants to play safe if he can. The hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency tells everyone privately, "Well, I am just following the advice of Mr. Lapointe. I am staying within the party and trying to bring about reforms." That was what Mr. Lapointe said one day when he saw a few Liberals in Quebec form a group called L'Action Liberale Nationale; men who differed with the provincial government on no real question of principle but who did not agree with certain actions taken by that government. One of these men was a friend of Mr. Lapointe who, without trying to bring about any change within the party, had left to help form this other group. Mr. Lapointe said. "The Liberal party is broad enough to tolerate discussion within its ranks. Could they not have aired their views and differences within the party, instead of forming another party?" There is a great difference between that attitude and the one taken by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency in this house during the last few years. Mr. Lapointe meant that any reforms or alterations to be brought about in a party policy, or any differences of view, should be aired within the party councils rather than in public. Any member of the party whose views differ from those of the majority should endeavour in party caucus, by private conversations and in
The Address-Mr. Picard

group meetings to influence the views of the party and have the policy changed. Of course liberty of action should exist within any political organization. At one time or another any member of this house may vote against his party if his principles or ideals force him to do so. That may show the strength of mind of the individual member, and it also demonstrates the true democratic value of our parliamentary system. However, Mr. Lapointe's words, so often quoted by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency, never meant that a man whose views differed radically and constantly with those of his party, on matters of national importance, should remain apparently within the party in order the better to stab it in the back.
When an hon. member differs with his party on a vital question, or with the views generally accepted by his friends, he should do as the hon. member for Gaspe did when he left the Conservative benches. We know he is still a Conservative, though of a different species-a different brand of the same make, only temporarily isolated from the flock for the duration of the war-yet he did the proper thing when he. stepped down into the realm of pseudo-independence. The same might be said of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion), who I understand has been called in to reply to my remarks. He entered this house not as a Conservative but as an independent, but it might be interesting to see what he was in the past. During the election of 1940, when the present Conservative party was called the National Government party, if that is the right thing to say-I want to be precise and correct

the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay was the chief organizer in Quebec for that party. We must believe, however, that later on he saw the light md became converted to a spirit of independence, so that he now sits in this house as an independent. He has done the right thing; he is against the government, and we know it, so he sits' in that corner. When the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond), the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix) and the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) felt that their views could not be reconciled with those of the Liberal party, they crossed the floor; they moved, shall I say, to another "block." I do not approve their views; but if they considered that their views and those of the Liberal party were irreconcilable, they did the right thing. I have more respect for those who, having views opposed to those of the government, cross the floor and fight from the opposition benches, than for those opportunists who try to get whatever prestige they may from being considered Liberals but who are always lurk-

ing in the dark, a dagger in hand, ready to stab in the back those with whom they still pretend at times to be associated.
While our late leader, Mr. Lapointe, was in this house the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency, like many others who now invoke Lapointe's memory to try to justify certain attitudes, had not a word of friendship for him privately; yet in 1940 the hon. member rallied to the cause of the Liberal party and ran in Quebec-Montmorency as a Liberal. In his remarks a few days ago he criticized the policies of Laurier, which are a part of Canadian history. He criticized the stand taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) at the beginning of this war, which is a matter of record. He criticized the action taken in 1940, not many months before he ran as a Liberal; yet at the time he proclaimed himself as a Liberal and acknowledged King and Lapointe as his leaders.


Gordon Graydon: Are these matters at issue in your part of the country?


Louis-Philippe Picard: The issues in all parts of the country are really the same; they mean the winning of the war. My hon. friend should realize that what I am doing now is trying to convince the house that the people of my own province are all really united against the isolationists, so that the hon. gentleman has no reason to interrupt what I am saying. I am trying to prove that in Quebec sentiment is as good as in any other part of the country, and that my compatriots should not be classed with some few members in this house, the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency and others, who have taken the same attitude and spread the same doctrine at large in the province, believing that they can get more popularity by stating that they are against participation, and by criticizing every phase of the war effort. Let me tell them that they are mistaken. With the help of their near-seditious paper in Montreal, on the radio and on the platform they try to poison the minds of our population. And as we failed to counteract immediately, they may have influenced temporarily those of the less well informed elements and may have pleased a very small minority of people who accept their views. But the people of my province are intelligent enough that when we went and explained the situation in its true light they reacted with their usual good and sound judgment, and soon realized that their true friends were not those who tried to ring the bell of narrow provincialism, or to awaken racial prejudices, as some of them do in

The Address-Mr. Picard
Quebec, and as the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) never fails to do each time he rises to speak in the house.
In the early days of the war, soon after the declaration, it might have been possible that some who were not well informed in Quebec might have thought that some elements of the Anglo-Canadian population had been influenced more by their love for Great Britain than by Canada's interests, when they had pushed Canada into the war. I do not believe it was a fact. I was convinced we were going into the war because of our own interests. Ill-informed people might have been led to believe otherwise at that time. But after every country in Europe was involved, after the fall of France, after Pearl Harbor, was it still justifiable for any one in this country to be isolationist? I think everybody in my province, when the situation wras properly explained, understood that Canada was joining with all liberty-loving nations in preventing the enslaving of the world by the axis nations. Canada was acting to protect her sacred heritage of the past, and to ensure our liberty in the world of to-morrow.
I can assure the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency, and all others who take the same attitude, that the people of Quebec, just as the people in the other provinces, have greater confidence than ever in the present administration. They are just as proud as other people throughout the country in the government's war record. They cannot overlook the fact that, due to wise administration by this government, Canada has accomplished a magnificent war effort, undreamed of by many, while at the same time disturbing as little as possible the life of the country.
They cannot overlook the fact so eloquently outlined yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), that Canadian farmers are more prosperous to-day than they were before the war, that industry has been mobilized, and that the working class is better off to-day than at any time before the war- and all that while Canada has mobilized vast armies, has enlarged its navy tenfold, and has equipped and trained the most magnificent air force and managed so efficiently the empire training scheme-and all that while Canada has helped so magnanimously to feed and equip Britain and the united nations.
And I say here that these extraordinary accomplishments have done more to make of Canada a great nation, an important sovereign
state, than can or will the wailing of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency, and those who adopt the same attitude.
I am not more of an imperialist than the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency. I have just as much at heart the interests of Canada, and I want to point out to that hon. member that Canada evolved from colonial status to that of a great dominion, under Laurier, whose policies were criticized only a short time ago by 'the hon. member. Canada evolved under the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) from the status of a dominion, as the word meant in 1911, to that of an autonomous nation within the empire, as meant by. the declaration of the imperial conference of 1926. Canada has continued to evolve from that condition to that of a sovereign state, again, under the present Prime Minister.
I attach more importance to the broad policies of the government than to the eradication of a few symbols of the past, to which the hon. member ties his policy, and that can and will be corrected by one simple gesture at the proper time.
I am as much of a nationalist as is the hon. member, not in the narrow sense of provincial nationalism, as the hon. member advocates, but in a true, great, Canadian, nationalist sentiment, viewing Canada as a great united nation where the descendants of two great races and those who later associated with them, will develop in harmony with one common objective-not the narrow view of their own province, nor with the antiquated mentality of colonials, thinking always in terms of imperial interests, but with one common objective, making their Canada one great sovereign state, claiming its due part in the concert of nations, and helping to shape a better world for to-morrow.
That is what the present government is aiming at. It is, I believe, the reason of their actions, a reason which the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency and the hon. member for Gaspe and others of the same type fail to see, in their lack of perspective of the future. That is my reason for supporting the government, and that is why I am ready, as I have done in the past, to go to my people, and why I am confident they will understand me and give me their support.
Mr. WILFRID LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, in reply to my hon. friend from Bellechasse (Mr. Picard), I shall merely say-


Thomas Vien: I saw the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green).
The Address-Mr. Green

Mr. HOWARD C. GREEN (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, this evening I would ask hon. members for a few minutes to turn their thoughts to the west, not to the near west, the prairies, but far across Canada, over the Rocky Mountains, to the Pacific Coast, where they would find snowdrops and crocuses blooming -and', I must admit, might also find1 a little fog; and then to direct their thoughts farther out, across that vast ocean, the Pacific.
It is my purpose to-night to deal primarily with Canada's position in the war on the Pacific. Then I shall discuss the new Australian-New Zealand agreement signed less than three weeks ago. Following that, I shall touch upon British commonwealth defence and foreign policy.
But before doing so I wish to say a few words with respect to two points in the amendment to the address offered by my party, the Progressive Conservative party. Those two points are the failure of the government to provide adequately for the men and women in our forces and the protest contained in the amendment against the recent wages control order.
First, with respect to the men and women of the forces:	The young fighting men of
Canada have set a standard for the nation which has never been surpassed. I was very much pleased to read a statement by that great elder statesman Field-Marshal Smuts, where he said on December 8, referring to our present younger generation, that this war has proved that our generation is not degenerate, and accordingly that he looked forward with confidence and faith to the future.
Canada can expect great things from her young men and women on their return from this war. They will bring bold and forwardlooking leadership. They will bring a new and broader vision to this, their nation. In the meantime, however, what about those of us who are on the home front and, in particular, what about those of us who are members of the House of Commons of Canada? Our young men are going into heavier battles; there will be greater casualties as the year progresses. Canadians at home, particularly during this year, must never forget the personal aspect of waging war, that our fighting men are placing their lives between us and our enemies. They are making the greatest sacrifice possible; let there be no mistake about that. The very least we can do is to make certain that they and their dependents are cared for adequately, are treated in a spirit of gratitude rather than grudgingly. I regret to say that that is not being done by the government of Canada and I propose to give several examples.

My first reference is to the medical examination given to recruits. This has been far more thorough than was given to those of us .who enlisted in the last war and there has been far less chance for mistakes. Yet we find that only a small number of men who have been' taken on the strength as being in category "A" and then discharged as being in category "E" have been able to qualify for a pension. That is something I cannot understand. Last year I asked for a return, and the information received was that less than fifty per cent of the men who had enlisted in category "A" served overseas, come back and been discharged in category "E" .were able to get pensions. Of the men who served in Canada, only one in thirty-three could obtain a pension and yet, when they enlisted, they were placed in the top category and, when discharged, in the lowest.
The Pension Act is wrong, and it should be changed to provide that there shall be a definite presumption that a man's condition as recorded on his admission to service was in fact his condition and that any subsequent deterioration is due to service. It should be the responsibility of the government to overcome that presumption or else award the man a pension. Further, the insurance principle should be extended to men serving in Canada. It applied to them in the last war and it did in this war until some time in May, 1940. The present position is that a man must prove that his disability arose out of or was directly connected with service. A direct result of that provision in the law is, as I have mentioned, that only one in thirty-three of the men discharged in Canada under the conditions outlined has been able to qualify for a pension.
In another regard the government has not treated these men fairly. I refer to their pay and allowances on discharge. A man is given one month's pay and a clothing allowance which has recently been raised to $65. That is not sufficient to clothe a man coming out of the forces, and one month's pay is not sufficient to enable him to readjust himself and get settled in civilian life. I have had men come to my office who have served with our own Seaforth battalion which has given such gallant service in Sicily and Italy. They find that this allowance is not sufficient to purchase a proper outfit and it has proved a shock to their morale. They cannot understand why they should be treated in this way. This condition cannot be remedied too quickly.
As a third example, the government has failed to enact a Sparkman act for Canada. Members will recall that last year we had a debate lasting a whole afternoon on the advisability of setting up legislation of this kind

The Address-Mr. Green
in Canada. The Sparkman act is the United States act which protects the fighting man's home, protects him with regard to debt, mortgages, insurance, leases, loan interest and so on. Members of every party in the house spoke in favour of such an act, and so did the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). As reported at page 3055 of Hansard of May 26, 1943, he stated that a committee had been appointed to consider this legislation and had reported. He then went on to say:
I anticipate that action will be taken along lines which I feel ought to meet the situation.
And further on:
I can only assure the committee that every study will be made of the matter, and active consideration will be given to it.
Almost a year has gone by, but as far as I know no such provision has been made.
To sum up, I repeat that the government has failed to provide adequately for the men and women of the forces. The ministry seem to have little realization of the sacrifices that are being made, they go just far enough to save face and only that far after there has been a great deal of coaxing and prodding and long delay. So much for the men and women of the forces.
Then a word with regard to our protest against the recent wages control order, P.C. 9384. I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister (Mr.Mackenzie King) state to-day that there would probably be an amendment to that order in council. I think he would be well advised to go further and scrap the whole thing and start over again. When I read that order in council I was amazed at the government dealing in such a cavalier fashion with any group of law-abiding Canadian citizens, large or small. The whole tone of the order is punitive rather than friendly, and this at a time when labour generally has shown a keen desire to cooperate, has shown by and large a high sense of responsibility to Canada, as great a sense of responsibility as any other body of men or women in this country.
For example, the order in council provides for the setting up of a national board upon which the employees are to have only one representative out of six. This board must review the decisions or the directions of the regional boards which are on the spot and have a far greater knowledge of local conditions. The national board may of its own initiative, without a hearing of any kind, vary or revoke an order of a regional board. Then an iron-clad ceiling is clamped down on wage rates, and there are drastic terms outlawing strikes. The burden of proof is thrown on the accused, contrary to all our ideas of British justice. There is set up a dictatorship with regard to
prosecutions, which is placed in the hands of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). Finally, there is an intimation in the recital of the order in council that the order is necessary not only in war-goodness knows it is bad enough in war time-but also during the postwar period'. That period will be difficult enough even with friendliness and cooperation between all groups of Canadians, but with orders in council of this type there will be nothing but chaos. I urge that the order be cancelled and something at least approaching Canadianism substituted in its place.
I come now to Canada's position in the war on the Pacific. Our position in that theatre of war is most unsatisfactory. Although we are a nation on the Pacific and vitally interested in what goes on around the shores of that ocean, we are failing and have failed to accept our share of the responsibilities. Before Japan struck in December, 1941, we sent out our ill-fated and ill-equipped force to Hong Kong. I was saddened just last week to see a press dispatch covering the experience of a Chinese who had escaped from Hong Kong and returned to Canada. He reported the bayoneting of nine Canadian officers and men. He then went on to say that he had been in a prison camp with men of the Royal Rifles and the Winnipeg Grenadiers and that they had very little mechanical transport and were disappointed and angry over the delay in the arrival of their equipment. Some day, Mr. Speaker, there will be much more said about the failure to equip properly that force which was sent to Hong Kong. After Japan had struck; after great pressure from every sort of people in the Pacific province, and after, I believe, pressure from the United. States of America, the government finally established defence forces on the Pacific coast. Eventually some airmen were sent to Alaska, most of whom I believe have since gone to other parts, and then last summer a small task force was sent to Kiska with the United States forces which attacked that island. The Canadian troops did good work there; they made a good name for themselves and' upheld the reputation of Canadian fighting men. Now they have returned to Canada, and once again Australians, New Zealanders and the Americans are left to do the fighting in the Pacific war zone. If Canada continues in this way she will have very little voice in Pacific affairs, and she will deserve very little voice.
Why does the government adopt this policy in Pacific affairs? The answer is simple. It is because the troops on the coast, including the troops who went to Kiska, are home defence troops, and under the government's policy, not under the Canadian law, they cannot be
The Address-Mr. Green

sent to fight away from the American continent. That is the position despite the plebiscite vote, which was overwhelmingly yes. The result is, of course, that the government is in effect defying the expressed wish of the great majority of the Canadian people. These home defence troops on the Pacific coast cannot go abroad under the government's policy despite the fact that they are fully trained and equipped, and that those at least who went to Kiska are experienced, have a high morale and are eager to fight the Japanese. They are not so keen about going to Europe. I believe that questions have been asked throughout the force and there is a desire among them of their own free will to go and fight the Japanese. The government still maintains its policy despite the further fact that behind these Pacific coast troops there are in Canada thousands and thousands of other home defence troops piling up who can never be used in fighting unless that fighting takes place on Canadian soil. Finally, these troops are held in Canada despite the fact that Canada's duty is to do her full share in the war on the Pacific. And so I appeal to the Prime Minister of this country to stop this farce at once and send these troops to fight either beside the Australians and New Zealanders in the South Pacific or beside the Americans in the Central Pacific.
Canadians facing on the Pacific ocean are always greatly interested in what is done by our sister nations, Australia and New Zealand, because our outlook and our interests are much the same. We were therefore greatly interested in the agreement recently negotiated between Australia and New Zealand known as the Australian-New Zealand agreement, 1944. I think that agreement is of great importance not only to those of us who live on Canda's Pacific coast, but to all Canadians, in fact, to the whole British empire and to the different members of the united nations because it points the way to world peace. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that consideration should be given to printing this agreement and the accompanying press releases of the ministers of Australia and New Zealand in the Votes and Proceedings of this house so that the members may be able to give them more careful consideration. The agreement contains no secret clauses; everything is open and aboveboard. It begins with these words:
. . . having met in conference at Canberra from the 17th to the 21st of January, 1944, and desiring to maintain and strengthen the close and cordial relations between the two governments, do hereby enter into this agreement.
Then it goes on to define the objectives of Australian-New Zealand cooperation. It deals with such things as the prosecution of the

war, and with the armistice and the subsequent arrangements, and I would remind hon. members that the armistice period after this war is apt to be a long period, perhaps running into some years.
It also deals with the question of security and defence, and with civil aviation, outlining a new policy which Canadians should very carefully consider, a policy which among other things advocates international air trunk routes and the setting up of an international air transport authority.
Then it deals with dependencies and territories and with the welfare and advancement of the native peoples of the Pacific. It also provides for the calling of an international conference relating to the southwest and the south Pacific and for permanent machinery for collaboration and cooperation between Australia and New Zealand. That part of the agreement sets out measures whereby these two nations may cooperate for defence, and may collaborate in external policy; also for the development of commerce between them, for the full employment of Australians and New Zealanders, the highest standards of social security and the encouragement of missionary work and other activities directed toward the improvement of the welfare of native peoples. It goes on to invite other nations interested in the Pacific, of which Canada is one, to join Australia and New Zealand in promoting these objectives. That particular paragraph reads:
The two governments declare their desire to have the adherence to the objectives set out in the last preceding clause of any other government having or controlling territories in the Pacific.
I suggest that the government of Canada should give thought to collaborating with the Australians and New Zealanders under the terms of this agreement.
Then it provides for setting up a permanent secretariat with one branch in Australia and another in New Zealand. In explaining the agreement the minister of external affairs of Australia, Doctor Evatt, makes this statement which I think is of great importance to Canadians:
The war with its extension to the Pacific and its long sustained threat of utter disaster-
And these are words which Canadians would do well to mark, "its long sustained threat of utter disaster".
-has brought the two peoples closer together than ever before; it has made us realize that we can help each other only by pulling together in the struggles that still lie ahead; in winning, not only the war but the great struggle for improved standards in the years of post-war reconstruct on.

The Address-Mr. Green
Doctor Evatt concluded with these words:
This agreement is in effect a permanent understanding between two nations which are completely autonomous and are at the same time united by a common allegiance to the King and also trustees for British interests and British civilization in the Pacific.
The prime minister of New Zealand, Mr. Fraser, used these words:
It is an agreement of positive value in the sense that it is directed against no other people; on the contrary, other powers are invited to adhere to the principles enunciated .... I should like to make it perfectly clear that neither the holding of this conference, nor the agreement resulting from it, is in any sense a departure from the principles of the British commonwealth of nations, membership of which is in the very forefront of the policy of both Australia and New Zealand.
The agreement therefore is a very practical step not only in the direction of security but also toward cooperation among all nations, in short, toward world peace. Obviously it would be absurd to say that it endangers world peace and equally absurd to say that any similar British commonwealth pact would do so; Doctor Evatt has suggested in his release that:
In the successful outcome of the present Australian-New Zealand consultations, there may well be a precedent of considerable value to other members of the British commonwealth.
That brings me to my final topic, namely, British commonwealth defence policy and foreign policy. Recently there has been considerable discussion concerning the advisability of working out a British commonwealth defence policy and foreign policy rather than each nation of the commonwealth having its own policy on these matters. It is a question which will require calm and careful consideration by the Canadian people, of whatever party. Personally, I believe that the condition of the world is such that a commonwealth policy on defence and on foreign affairs is advisable. Apparently the Canadian Prime Minister does not. He believes otherwise. He differs from such men of the empire as Field Marshal Smuts, Prime Minister of South Africa, and from the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand, and Lord Halifax, a member of the British war cabinet; and he has rather summarily rejected the suggestions made by these men.
Now it can be agreed that all persons participating in this discussion have one common aim, namely, security and world peace. Prime Minister Smuts made that perfectly clear in his speech on the subject when he stressed as an objective human welfare, peace and security. Personally, therefore, I am hopeful that having
this one end in view, it will eventually be possible for all those who are involved to reach common ground.
Another fact upon which there is agreement is that all Canadians participating in this discussion are conscientiously thinking first of Canada's own interest. That must always be the basis for the foreign policy of Canada. What is the interest of our own nation? No one is questioning for a moment Canada's autonomy. That was settled long ago, not by a lot of politicans either, but by the men who fought in the last war, and it is being established further by young Canadians who are fighting in the present war.
So what about this question of a defence policy and a foreign policy? Before the war there was a very sketchy British commonwealth defence policy. There was no foreign policy; really, no part of the commonwealth had any foreign policy. Canada's foreign policy, as enunciated by the present government, was to have no commitments. We had no commitments to anyone; we buried our governmental head in the sand1 and let the rest of the world go by. That was one reason why the British peoples in the world were nearly wiped off the face of the earth in 1940 and 1941. During the war the reverse has been the case. The British commonwealth has had but one policy on defence, one foreign policy. We had to have such a policy; otherwise we would have perished, and with us civilization.
And so to-day, this very night, there are young Canadians fighting and dying beside young men from all other parts of the British commonwealth. We have in war time a commonwealth defence policy and a commonwealth foreign policy. What about after the war? Are we to continue in the same sensible way, or are we to have five or six defence policies and five or six foreign policies? Why not continue with the commonwealth policy and at the same time try to modernize and improve it?
Our Prime Minister says that Canada should aim at creating an effective international system. That is all very nice, all very general, and probably all very harmless. As reported at page 41 of the present debate he advocates creating an effective international system inside which the cooperation of all peace-loving countries is freely sought and given. No one can quarrel with that proposal, but it would not be affected or defeated by a commonwealth policy in addition. The Prime Minister thinks otherwise, because at page 42 he is reported to have said:
I maintain that apart from all questions as to how that common policy is to be reached, or enforced, such a conception runs counter to the establishment of effective world security.
The Address-Mr. Green

There, Mr. Speaker, he is dead wrong, and if Canada follows his lead she, too, will be dead wrong. He bolsters his argument by attacking statements made by Field-Marshal Smuts and Lord Halifax on the ground that behind their conception of three great powers in the world, the United States, Russia and the British commonwealth, there lurks the idea of inevitable rivalry. He is wrong to stress rivalry. It is unfair to shout power politics on this question. It is not only unfair but misleading to the Canadian people. Field-Marshal Smuts, in the course of his speech, stresses partnership. There is no question of rivalry. He stresses the word partnership- the partnership of this trinity, the United States, Russia and Great Britain. For example, he said:
In that trinity you will have two partners of immense power and resources-Russia and America. And you will have this island, the heart of the empire and of the commonwealth, weak in her European resources in comparison with the vast resources of the other two. An unequal partnership, I am afraid.
Then, referring again to an "equal partner", he used these words:
... an equal partner with the other colossi in the leadership of the nations.
He then pointed out that he would like to have the trinity, a trinity of equals:
I should like to see all three of them equal in power and influence and in every respect. I should not like to see an unequal partnership.
Field-Marshal Smuts is afraid that Great Britain alone, as distinct from, the British commonwealth, will be unable to do her share in the trinity; so he advocates that, rather than Great Britain alone being a partner, the British commonwealth should be a partner, and he says that this trinity is a protecting wall behind which the other nations of the world can organize. He uses these words:
I think this trinity will be the stabilizing factor, the wall of power behind which the freedoms and the democracies of the world can be built up again. It will be the protecting wall.
He appeals not only to the other members of the British commonwealth to join that partnership, but also to the small nations of western Europe. He says.
To my mind, it is a question whether those who think alike and feel alike, whose interests and whose safety rest on the same broad human political basis should not be together in building up that splendid trinity to which we look forward for the future leadership.
There spoke a realist. The Canadian people are realists, and if this issue is put fairly before them they will see the point. What
I Mr. Green.]
Field-Marshal Smuts proposes in effect is a very practical step; it is that this trinity will have to maintain peace until an effective world organization can be set up, and that may take years.
Therefore I appeal to the Prime Minister and to the government to give the whole question further consideration, and not to put Canadians in the position of arbitrarily opposing this plan for the commonwealth, not to put us in the position of refusing to take our part; and I warn him and I warn the government that if they do put the Canadian people in that position they may wreck the whole plan. Canada might be responsible for the wrecking of the partnership of these three great peoples, and Canada might be responsible for preventing the world peace which we all so much desire.
The record of the governments led by the present Prime Minister of Canada in international affairs is not as good as it might be. It does not cause one to have very much hope of the proper stand being taken. I have here a book entitled "The Lost Peace," by Harold Butler, who at one time was director of the international labour office of the League of Nations. He points out in this book that in 1924 Great Britain and France brought in a protocol the effect of which would have been to put teeth into the League of Nations, to give the league some force to back up its decisions. Then he goes on to say that that protocol was opposed by the dominions, and he adds:
The objections of the dominions were summed up by Senator Dandurand as delegate for Canada: "In this association of mutual insurance against fire, the risks assumed by the different states are not equal. We live in a fireproof house, far from inflammable material."
That was referring to Canada, and subsequent events have shown how foolish the statement was. Mr. Butler adds:
That ivas the prevalent feeling not only of the dominions, but of other non-European countries. They thought they were living in a big world. Europe was thousands of miles away; therefore nothing that happened there was likely to affect them vitally. They did not have this attitude on emerging from the world war; then they had subscribed willingly enough to the covenant. But when, only five years later, the protocol was framed to implement it, the drift back to isolationism was already so strong that they repudiated it.
This was without doubt the first turning point at which the league turned downhill instead of up.
In conclusion, may 1 say I am convinced that the destiny of Canada, of our Canada, is not to be a small nation, one of many small nations including now, I suppose, the new fifteen or sixteen small Russian nations: the

The Address-Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix
destiny of this nation is to be a world power standing beside Great Britain and the other dominions in a British commonwealth, a commonwealth that will be the leader in preserving peace and justice among the nations of the world.
Mr. WILFRID LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Belleohasse (Mr. Picard), may I quote the words spoken by Disraeli to Lord Peel, then Prime Minister of Great Britain:
I was elected to this seat and here I remain. It is, indeed, not I, but the government who have effected a change of policy.
Lord Peel reproached Disraeli for sitting on the side of the government. Disraeli then reminded the government of the promises they had made.
Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Belleohasse, may I say that I was elected by the voters of Quebec-Montmorency to the seat which I now hold, and that their decision only, and not his, can remove me therefrom. As regards the upholding of my views on the war and on imperialism, I should like to assure him that he need lose no sleep over them, as I shall keep on defending them in this house or elsewhere without asking for his opinion, and shall, above all, disregard the party spirit which, until now, has obscured the clear-sightedness of our ethnical group under the narrow red or blue angle. I feel convinced, moreover, that the hon. member for Belle-chasse will long since have relieved this house of the poisonous gas he distills and of the servile attitude he displays, while I shall still have the honour of representing the ideas and interests of the voters of Quebec-Montmorency.
Mr. Speaker, may I say further, that I extend to him a cordial invitation to. discuss this issue in my constituency, if he so desires.
I also wish to give some explanations in regard to my attitude on the sub-amendment proposed by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) and on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) acting leader of the opposition. In so far as the amendment of the hon. member for Peel is concerned, I wish to say that, notwithstanding my great reluctance to support an amendment proposed by the Progressive Conservative party, with whose imperialistic policy I disagree because it is utterly opposed to Canada's interests in regard to the war effort, I must admit, however, that an amendment must be considered according to what it purports and not according to the party which sponsors the motion.
Well, in the text of which I approve there is a passage which has given me particular pleasure, it is paragraph (d) which reads as follows:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have:
(d) Failed to lessen bureaucratic controls and regimentation and to recognize and restore the supremacy of parliament and failed to halt the continuing infringement of provincial rights and the centralization of authority.
There does not exist a shadow of a doubt that the province of Quebec has the greatest number ' of small commercial concerns and industries and that the vexatious measures enacted by the federal bureaucracy work the most havoc there, with the result that eventually the large trusts will gobble up all industries and small enterprises and that the rights of the province of Quebec will gradually be infringed upon, thereby depriving the French-Canadian minority of the influence necessary to maintain its prestige and separate entity.
Besides, these controls and enactments of the federal bureaucracy do not take into account the peculiar conditions affecting the Quebec farmers.
For these reasons, although opposed to the type of war effort advocated by the Progressive Conservative party, I shall support the amendment as it now stands.
I wish to add that I have not supported the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), because I am averse to any kind of socialization tending to a greater centralization in Ottawa.
Mr. FREDERIC DORION (Charlevoix-
Saguenay (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, I
would not have participated in this debate, had not the hon. member for Belleohasse (Mr. Picard) made a personal reference to me. I think the hon. member, in speaking as he did, has brought little credit on himself and still less on his party.
In connection with the first part of his speech, I have not much to say because he discussed politics. He voiced his opinion. To that part of his speech I know that the electors of Belleohasse will answer for me. But in the second part of his remarks, he claimed that I still had ties-if it were true I would not be ashamed to acknowledge it-with the party of which I have been an organizer. Neither am I ashamed to admit that, because I am not ashamed of my past record. If, in 1940, I was the National party's organizer for the Quebec district it was because I trusted the then leader of that party. I am not ashamed of having trusted the Hon. Mr. Manion. When after the 1940 election, I noticed that the party of

The Address-Mr. Dorion

which I had been a member was reverting to the imperialistic policy which we had already condemned, there was only one course open to me because I wanted to be consistent with myeelf and1 honest toward those with whom I had worked in the province of Quebec. Accordingly, in 1941, after the first session that followed the 1940 election and in view of the stand taken by the leaders of the then Conservative party, I severed my connection with the latter. In September, 1941, I called, in cooperation with the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy), a meeting at the Palais Montcalm, in Quebec city, which was attended by more than four hundred former active members of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec. At that meeting which took place on September 6, 1941, we defined what we deemed to be a true Canadian policy, consistent with the best interests of Canada. Let me quote the resolution adopted at that meeting:
This meeting expresses the wish that success may attend the Canadian people's efforts in the present war; it prays the divine Providence to help our armies and those of our allies achieve complete victory. Our country will then be in a position to enjoy an enduring peace, which will enable the various racial groups to achieve their full development and to cooperate in a spirit of constitutional freedom and social justice, so as to form at last a truly and1 wholly Canadian nation.
On that occasion I did not hesitate to tell all my friends that it was necessary for us to leave the party to which we, had belonged. Since then the people of my province have shown that they know I have not betrayed them. Indeed, in November, 1942, in the Charlevoix-Saguenay by-election, after a campaign that lasted for a month, .although the friends of the hon. member for Bellechasse claimed that "A vote for Dorion is a vote for Borden, for Meighen, for the war, and so forth," the electors of that constituency elected me because they trusted me, and I do not think I am remiss in my duty to them.
Mr. Speaker, a while ago the hon. member for Bellechasse, following an interruption by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon), claimed that his speech was made as part of his war effort and to help win the war; he also said that such an attitude was preferable to the speeches made by the isolationists, and so saying, he pointed to us. It is on account of that declaration that I rise from my seat believing that the House of Commons should know, once and for all, where are the isolationists, and why such people are to be found in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I have here a number of Le Soleil, which is known to everyone and styles itself the organ of the Liberal party in the province of Quebec. On July 25, 1930,
FMr. Dorion.]
on the eve of a federal election, this paper ran the following headline in five-inch type on its front page;
London, the Tories, and the War.
And please note the sub-title, on the eve of election day in 1930:
In Great Britain, it is hoped that the conservatives shall triumph in Canada so that war may be waged in Egypt and India.
In 1930, attempts were still being made to stir the population of Quebec against conscription, just as they had been made in 1917, also in 1921, then again in 1925; such attempts were repeated in 1926 and renewed in 1935. Then, Mr. Speaker, people wonder why it is that there are isolationists in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I heard the hon. Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) maintain that the leader of another group in the house had not been as loyal as he claimed to be since he had opposed certain estimates for national defence in 1936, 1937 and 1938. Well, on December 17, 1937, the former chief of the hon. member for Bellechasse, the right hon. Mr. Lapointe, speaking at St. Flavien de Lotbiniere, stated the following, and his words, reported in the December 20th edition of Le Soleil, of Quebec city, are found in the fifth column of page 10. I quote:
Our opponents say, he adds, that we incur these expenditures because we want war. But we want to preserve you from war, we advocate sending no one to war. I shall repeat this afternoon what I have already said from my seat in the Canadian parliament: every single one of these disbursements have been made solely and exclusively for the defence of Canada. Is there a single Canadian who could oppose that? You remember 1916 and 1917, the darkest period of the great war; at that time we opposed certain measures forced on Canada. We are all for the defence of Canada and its territory, but we shall never go beyond that. I have told parliament that I would not support anything more, and that if we went any farther Lapointe would not be a minister anymore.
And, during the same election campaign in the Lotbiniere constituency, the hon. Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power), who was then and who is still sitting in this house, made a statement which Le Soleil, of Quebec, again reported, as follows:
I have been to the war and I have returned; I shall not go back nor send anybody there.
That is what the hon. Minister of National Defence for Air stated in the Lotbiniere constituency. Further on, Mr. Speaker, Le Soleil of Tuesday, December 13, 1938, page 12, reported the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe as having stated, at a meeting held in his own constituency:

The Address-Mr. Doricn
Instead of going to war in foreign lands, we shall stay at home to defend the Canada we love.
There is more, Mr. Speaker, for the hon. Prime Minister of Canada has also made statements reported by Le Soleil, of Quebec city. He spoke at a meeting held in St. Roch market, on September 8, 1935, and, on September 9, in a report concerning this meeting held the previous day, we find the . following utterances of the Prime Minister:
The people of Canada are against war and a conflict raging in these far countries hold no interest whatever for Canada. No one has the right to engage our country in a war as remote as the present one without going before the people through a plebiscite.
And here is a statement of the hon. Prime Minister, on May 24, 1938, as reported at page 3178, vol. 3 of Hansard for 1938:
Our foreign and external policy is a policy of peace and friendliness, a policy of trying to look after our own interests. We have neither the power to attack other countries to promote our own interests nor do we wish to do it. Nor are we inclined to join in crusades in other continents.
Those are the words spoken by the Prime Minister of our country, in this 'house, on May 24, 1938.
And here is what he declared at the session of 1939, page 2419, vol. 3 of Hansard:
We have tremendous tasks to do at home, in housing the people, in caring for the aged and helpless, in relieving drought and unemployment, in building roads, in meeting our heavy burden of debt, in making provision for Canada's defence, and in bringing our standards of living and civilization to the levels our knowledge now makes possible.
This quotation seems to be a repetition from this year's speech from the throne.
There is no great margin of realizable wealth for this purpose; we must, to a greater or less extent, choose between keeping our own house in order, and trying to save Europe and Asia.
And here is a further statement made by Mr. Lapointe in Quebec city, on December 13, 1938, as reported by Le Soleil:
Instead of going to war in foreign lands, we shall stay at home to defend the Canada we love.
But there is something else, Mr. Speaker. In 1925, Dominion elections were held in this country, and you will recall that following those elections the Liberal party was returned to this house with 105 members including 65 from the province of Quebec. How had it succeeded in obtaining these 65 members from the province of Quebec? Mr. Speaker, I shall tell you. It is with such literature as I have here and with cartoons which I invite hon. members to examine, as 100-23J
they are very interesting. I have one here which depicts the honourable Mr. Meighen confronted by two grasping hands on which is written the word: "Imperialism". These hands drip with blood and the hon. Mr. Meighen is shown offering Canada to these blood-stained hands which are labelled "Imperialism". After this, can we be surprised that there are isolationists in the province of Quebec?
And on the following page, there is another cartoon; this one depicts Mr. King uttering
these words:
Not a cent will be expended, not a man will be mobilized for the empire without the people's approval.
This is the kind of political campaign which was waged in the province of Quebec. This is the kind of political campaign which was carried out in the province of Quebec for twenty-five years, and to-day we find a member who has benefited therefrom, who, to say the least, has thrived upon such campaigns, and who now questions the Canadian-ism of those people, and twits them with being isolationists. Let him come to the province of Quebec, let him come, I shall not say to my constituency, as the member for Quebee-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) stated, but to his own constituency of Bellechasse, anytime, anywhere, and we shall discuss the speech which he has delivered to-night.
And, Mr. Speaker, there is more than that.
In the same newspaper Le Soleil of May 12, 1942, an editorial reads as follows: Notwithstanding the direct pledges to the province of Quebec, the political heir of Wilfrid Laurier is exposing the Freneh-Canadian youth to an imperial servitude which has always been distasteful to him.
And this, Mr. Speaker, took place during the war, on May 12, 1942. Now, who is trying to arouse passions in the province of Quebec? Who indulges in isolationism, if it is not the friends of the Liberal party who, as I have stated a moment ago, have far too long thrived upon such policy? Fortunately, the people of the province of Quebec are beginning to see through that little game. This is the reason why there is not a single constituency where the government can have one of its supporters elected. Let them open any constituency in the province of Quebec and let them try to have a member of the government elected.
I shall conclude these brief remarks by saying how proud I am sometimes to note that certain English-speaking quarters realize the position in which the Liberal party has placed the province of Quebec in the last twenty-five years. And in concluding I wish to quote
The Address-Mr. Brunette

the last part of an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of Toronto, on January 26, 1944. The situation as depicted by this article is so true, so realistic that I wish to read it to this house. Referring to the separation of the province of Quebec, the newspaper says:
(Text)
The separation was deliberate. It has been continued deliberately as a political stratagem since the last war. There is no mystery about where the real blame rests. And it does not rest wholly on the racial spokesmen of Quebec. It rests even more heavily on the Prime Minister and the Liberal party in Canada. They have fanned the prejudices of Quebec to maintain political security, and in doing so they have worked a cruel injustice on the people of that province and on the nation which only time and deeds can remove.


Mr. H. E. BRUNELLE (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne contains a complete programme of social legislation, and is self-explanatory. I would have been content to vote for it without saying a word, had not so many other subjects been discussed during the debate. It is far from my mind, however, to undertake to cover all of them; on the contrary I shall limit my few remarks to the one subject which formed the theme or basis of the speech delivered recently by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix), who also seconded the amendment of the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy). The subject matter of his speech was Lord Halifax and the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King). I do not wish to give too much importance to the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency, but since his voice is quite loud in volume I thought it might take both the voice of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard) and mine to equal his.
At the outset may I say in all sincerity that it is a pity that such a speech should be made on the floor of this house, especially since the suggestion made by Lord Halifax had then been turned down and rejected by the Prime Minister. When that had been done at the beginning of this session it should have settled or closed the case. Most of the utterances of the hon, member for Quebec-Montmorency referring to the Prime Minister are contrary to the facts. I shall deal with just one of the hon. member's statements, that which referred to the Prime Minister as an imperialist. By W'hat process of thinking the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency comes to this conclusion, I do not know. In this house more than anywhere else statements should be based upon facts and truth rather than upon suspicion, intuition or simple suppositions. The hon. member made the
.Mi. Dorion.]
following statement, which I quote from the translation of his speech:
We must not forget, Mr. Speaker, that the audacity of the British government which, in spite of what might be said, inspired Lord Halifax, is but the natural consequence of our own weakness.
In making such a statement he bases his opinion upon suspicion, upon unfair suspicion, because the Prime Minister had already given it as his opinion that Lord Halifax was only expressing his personal views. Mr. Churchill had also stated that Lord Halifax had not spoken on behalf of the British government, but only for himself. The hon. member said that the British govenment had inspired Lord Halifax. Surely the opinion of our Prime Minister, whom the hon. member calls his leader, and that of Mr. Churchill, who is usually not afraid of the truth and who is certainly no weakling, should have made upon the mind of the hon. member in question some impression different from that which he expressed in this house.
Then he says that the speech of Lord Halifax is but the natural consequence of our own weakness. The hon. member should speak for himself and not associate too many of us with him in his own weakness. Speaking of weakness and1 strength and courage, I would say to the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency that the most elementary act of bravery is for a man to face his opponent and not stand to one side or behind him. The whole public life of the Prime Minister bears witness to the fact that he has never been an imperialist. He has not the time nor is it worth his while to rise in his place every time someone makes an untrue or unfair statement about him. I crave the honour in a humble way to do this little job of correction.
There may be some explanation, if there is no excuse, for an opposition member making a statement which is not in conformity with the facts: but, when such a false statement emanates from one sitting to your right, Mr. Speaker, I claim that the case is much different, that the case is deplorable, and a correction is then necessary. First, let us ascertain just what imperialism is. I find the following simple definition in Webster's dictionary:
Imperialism. The policy or practice of seeking to extend the control or empire of a nation.
The Americana encyclopedia defines "imperialism" as follows:
The national policy which tends toward the expansion of national domination and national ideas over a geographical area other than that of national boundary.
According to the opinion of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency the Prime Min-

The Address-Mr. Brunette
ister of Canada follows the doctrine of imperialism which I have just quoted. That is a ridiculous opinion. Anyone who is serious, anyone who cares anything about the truth, anyone who knows the Prime Minister and his life will know that the opinion of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency is contrary to the truth. I do not hesitate to say that our Prime Minister has always stood for the autonomy and1 independence of our country within the commonwealth of nations. Let me give only one of the utterances of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency. He said:
In the face of the unspeakable claim suggesting that we be associated to an empire with which we have nothing in common from the geographical and economic standpoints, our present-day Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) felt a sudden throb of Canadianism; this reawakening was evidenced by protests against this proposal-
The proposal of Lord Halifax.
-protests which I heartily endorse; the proposal, however, is but the corollary to an imperialistic policy for the shaping of which he must assume a large share of responsibility.
I assert that this statement is not borne out by the facts, and1 I should like to give some proof of my assertion. Following out the principle that a wise man says nothing that he cannot prove, I shall quote to the house the opinion expressed by the Prime Minister in 1923 when there was a crisis in the near east. England had had some difficulty with Turkey and had asked the dominion to send a contingent. The Prime Minister of Canada then made this statement in answering a question put to him by the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen, who was then leader of the opposition:
As regards the part which our government has taken in this matter, I would say to my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) that we have felt and feel very strongly that, if the relations between the different parts of the British empire are to be made of an enduring character, this will only be through a full recognition of the supremacy of parliament, and this particularly with regard to matters which may involve participation in war. - It is for parliament to decide whether or not we should participate in wars in different parts of the world, and it is neither right nor proper for any individual or for any group of individuals to take any step which in any way might limit the rights of parliament in a matter which is of such great concern to all the people of our country.
Now let me give the opinion of our Prime Minister as expressed in London during the conference which took place in 1937 on the occasion of the coronation. The Prime Minister then applied himself to keeping Canada out of any general imperial scheme. This is what he said as to imperial conferences and their purpose:
The task of an imperial conference has been well defined as that of considering whether the several governments represented, while preserving their individual rights of decision and action, can coordinate their various policies in such a way as to assist one another, and help forward the cause of peace. Its function is not to formulate or declare policy. The value of this, as of other imperial conferences, lies mainly in the free exchange of information and opinion.
Let me now quote a statement made by the Prime Minister in London, England, at the Mansion House, on September 4, 1941, at a luncheon tendered to him by the Lord Mayor. The Prime Minister said:
Canada is proud of her position in the sisterhood of the British commonwealth. But that position and association, had other reasons been lacking, would not have sufficed to bring Canada into a European war. Ours was not an automatic response to some mechanical organization of empire. Canada's entry into the war was the deliberate decision of free people, by their own representatives in a free parliament.
Canada is a nation of the new world. As a nation of the new world, we placed ourselves freely at Britain's side because Britain's cause was the cause of freedom, not in this island alone, not in the British empire alone, not in the old world alone, but everywhere in the world. Lincoln, in his day, saw that the United States could not survive half-slave and halffree. . . . We saw that if Hitler was successful in his immediate aims, the whole world would soon be threatened by the unlimited ambition of evil men, and by the might of the greatest military machine the world has ever known.
Now let me quote the words of the Prime Minister expressed on June 17, 1941, in a speech which he made in New York at a dinner tendered in his honour by the Associated Canadian Organizations of New York city. I quote:
The Canadian people entered this war of their own free will. As one people, we made the momentous decision by the free vote of a free parliament. Our declaration of war was signed by the king upon the recommendation of His Majesty's Canadian ministers. The king's proclamation vras in the name of Canada. We, in Canada, are as free to make war or to abstain from making war, as the people of the United States are free to make war or to abstain from making war.
The decision of the Canadian parliament was given as soon after the outbreak of war as parliament could be called together. It was a prompt and united decision. There was no hesitation. There was no compulsion.
Let me interject at this point that when Canada through this parliament decided to participate in the present war there was no opposition from any one of the members who now compose the Bloc Populaire in this house. The Prime Minister continued:
We knew humanity's crisis was upon us all. We took our stand as a free and independent
The Address-Mr. Adamson

people who wished to do our utmost to thwart aggression, to maintain freedom, to crush the cursed creed of nazisrn, to preclude world domination by any power, and to end forever, if that were possible, the substitution of force for reason as an instrument of national policy.
Our people went to war for the sake of Canada, but not for Canada alone. We went to war as well for the sake of Britain, for North American civilization which we are proud to defend, and for the sake of that humanity which is above all nations. We saw clearly that Canadian freedom, that North American freedom, was one with British freedom.
We went to war at Britain's side because we believed hers to be the right side. We committed ourselves to her cause because it was our cause-the righteous cause of the liberty of nations, great and small, and of all men, great and humble, rich and poor. If Britain had not been on what we believed to be the side of righteousness, the cause for which she had taken up arms would not have been our cause. I do not hesitate to say that Britain, or no Britain, Canada would never have entered the war if, at the outset, our country had not seen the issue clearly for itself, and believed it to be what all free peoples know it to be to-day.
Having so refreshed the mind and memory of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency as to the stand taken publicly and officially on all occasions by our Prime Minister both in the past and recently, as to the declaration made by Lord Halifax, I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of this house whether it was not a pity, to say the least, to hear the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency denounce the Prime Minister as an imperialist.
In resuming my seat, I wish to say that I did not rise to flatter the Prime Minister. I rejoice very much, however, in the fact that his actions pay him the highest of compliments. In rising, I was really moved by a sense of gratefulness and fairness to the right hon. gentleman, in whose veins runs the purest of Canadian blood. In brief, I only wished to do justice to him.
their actions in this house, their promises and protests made outside these stone walls. I refer to the petition to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) by hon. members supporting the government from the province of British Columbia and by hon. members from Hamilton and Wentworth, expressed at an open labour meeting, to the effect that they protested against the wholly indefensible and coercive clauses in this damnable order in council.
We in this party have officially stood against this order in council by a clause in our amendment which I wish to quote-clause (c): That the government has:
Failed to establish such a national code for labour as will ensure maximum production and give to labour its rightful place in our national partnership; and failed to provide for the correction of the unfairly coercive and restrictive clauses in the 1943 wartime wrages control order.
If these hon. members and all others who think likewise wish to give action to their words, action which the government cannot overlook, they can do so by supporting this amendment.
This, Mr. Speaker, is the supreme test of democracy and free parliamentary representation. If the power of the party whip is to be greater than the freely expressed opinion of individual members, then we have truly gone far on the road to dictatorship. The next few minutes will tell the story, they will be historic. I challenge hon. members who have taken this stand outside the house to support by their action the words they have uttered, and support this amendment.


Mr. A. R. ADAMSON (York West):: Mr. Speaker, there have been so much passion and heat to-day in this house, that, I think, we have performed the patriotic duty of saving one ton of coal in five. Before you put the question there is one item discussed in this debate that should be brought up in the house to-day. It is of immediate and vital interest to the country, the house and the government. I refer to the public statements made by a number of members of this house, outside the chamber, to the effect that they protested against the new wartime wages control order P.C. 9384. They will now have an opportunity to show their consistency and carry out, by
'Mr. Brunelle.]
Choquette
d'Anjou
Dorion
Gauthier
Abbott
Adamson
Anderson
Authier
Aylesworth
Bence
Bertrand (Laurier) Bertrand (Prescott) Black (Chateauguay-Huntingdon)
Messrs:
LaCroix (Quebec-Montmorency) Raymond Roy-7.
NAYS Messrs:
Black (Cumberland) Black (Yukon) Blackmore Blair
Blanchette Bonnier Boucher Bradette Brunelle Bryce

The Address-Mr. Gauthier
Burton
Cardiff
Casselman, Mrs.
(Edmonton East) Casselman
(Grenville-Dundas)
Castleden
Chevrier
Church
Clark
Claxton
Cleaver
Cloutier
Coldwell
Cote
Crerar
Cruiekshank
Dechene
Denis
Diefenbaker
Donnelly
Douglas (Queens)
Douglas (Weyburn)
Dupuis
Durocher
Edwards
Emmerson
Esling
Eudes
Evans
Factor
Fair
Farquhar Fauteux Ferron Fontaine Fournier (Hull) Fraser (Northumberland, Ont.)
Fraser (Peterborough West)
Fulford
Furniss
Gardiner
Gershaw
Gibson
Gillis
Gingues
Gladstone
Golding
Graham
Grant
Graydon
Green
Hansell
Hanson (Skeena)
Harris (Danforth)
Hatfield
Henderson
Hill
Hlynka
Howden
Hurtubise
Ilsley
Isnor
Jackman
Johnston (Bow River)
King. Mackenzie
Kinley
Knowles
Kuhl
LaFl&che
Lafontaine
Lalonde
Leader
Leclerc
Leger
Little
McCann
McCuaig
McCubbin
McCulloch
MacDiarmid
Macdonald
(Brantford City) Macdonald (Halifax) McDonald (Pontiac) McGibbon McGregor Mcllraith Maclnnis Mclvor MacKenzie
(Lambton-Kent) MacKenzie (Neepawa) Mackenzie
(Vancouver Centre) MacKinnon
(Edmonton West) MacKinnon
(Kottenay East) MeLarty
MacLean (Cape Breton North-Victoria) McLean (Simcoe East) Macmillan McNevin
(Victoria, Ont.) McNiven
(Regina City) MacNicol Marshall Martin Matthews Michaud Mills Mitchell Mullins Mulock Mutch Neill
Nicholson
Nielsen, Mrs.
Noseworthy
O'Neill
Perley
Picard
Pinard
Poirier
Pottier
Power
Purdy
Quelch
Ralston
Reid
Rennie
Rheaume	.
Rickard
Rose
Ross (Calgary East) Ross (Hamilton East) Ross (Middlesex East) Ross (Moose Jaw)
Ross (St. Paul's)
Ross (Souris)
Rowe
Ryan
St. Laurent
Sanderson
Shaw
Sinclair
Sissons
Soper
Stirling
Stokes
Taylor
Thauvette	Warren
Tremblay	Weir
Tripp	White
Tucker	Whitman
Turgeon	Winkler
Turner	Wood
Tustin	Wright-178.
Ward	
Mr. PIERRE	GAUTHIER l
(Portneuf)
(Translation): Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne outlines some measures which we
have long recognized as necessary. In an address broadcast on October 16, 1943, the leader of the Bloc Populaire Canadien made the following statements which are to be found on page 12 of his provincial programme:
Salaries
1.	The salaries now paid to Quebec workers are generally lower than in Ontario, even within the same industry, notwithstanding the fact that large families are much more numerous in our province. We shall put an end to such an unfair and absurd situation and we will see to it that the salary level is the same here as in the neighbouring province.
2.	We denounced last week the individualistic salary system which disregards the family. Accordingly, we advocate a generalized and compulsory system of family allowances. Single men should have no fear of such a system, which will enable them, incomparably better than does the present system, to fulfil their legitimate desire to settle down for life.
This is a preelection session, as evidenced by the spirited debates. The government did not wish, at least in words, to lag behind and through the governor general they have announced a series of reforms taken haphazard from the programmes of other political parties, in an attempt to regain the prestige which, after four years of war and expenditures beyond our means, and twenty years of antimilitarism they have lost in the minds of the Canadian ratepayers.
Family allowances are among the measures that had been advocated even before they ever thought of them. On the other hand, the speech from the throne announces measures which we cannot support, which we have denounced and against which we will continue to fight. They include the help out of all proportion with our resources, which the government is going to ask for the United Nations. Outstanding public men recognize-as evidenced by what Mr. Churchill, Mr. Eden, and Madame Chiang Kai-shek have stated in this house-and statistics show that on the basis of population, our effort is greater than that of any other of the united nations.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the time has come for Parliament to remember that besides the empire, there is a country called Canada which is now being bled white, with the result that its economy will have to be built up anew
The Address-Mr. Gauthier

and her citizens will suffer both from the moral and the physical standpoint. That will be a consequence of the hardships, the vexations of all kinds, and the various controls forced on the labouring classes, the farmers and workers. [DOT]
It is a far cry from the days of 1940 when the Prime Minister and the late Minister of Justice, the Right Honourable Ernest Lapointe, were giving us the assurance that conscription would be for service in this country and not outside our boundaries. It is a far cry from the free, voluntary and moderate war effort.
Yet the statute of Westminster made us independent, and free to take whatever decision we liked. We know to what extent our decisions are free.
I have here a book by Mr. Emile Vaillan-court, entitled "Le Canada est-il une plantation?" (Is Canada a plantation?) which amply shows, to what extent Canada is mistress of her fate and of her decisions. According to Lord Tweedsmuir's interpretation of the Statute of Westminster, Canada is independent and can govern herself from the standpoint of international relations. This is true of Australia, of New Zealand, of the Union of South Africa, but these countries, even though they are members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, have their own flag. Here, the Union Jack waves over the Parliament buildings, the army headquarters, the customs buildings and the post office building. Canada has no national anthem of her own; the only official national anthem is God Save the King. When passports or passes are issued to Canadian citizens, they bear the description: British subjects by birth or by naturalization. These passports are not issued by the Governor General in the name of the King of Canada but in the name of His Britannic Majesty. Mr. Speaker, according to the statute of Westminster, Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa may amend their own constitution, whereas Canada is required to ask the Parliament of Great Britain for leave to amend her constitution. Australia is a commonwealth, South Africa is a union, Ireland is a republic and Canada is a dominion. Now, according to the definition given by certain legal authorities, the word dominion is synonymous with colony, possession or plantation.
This evening's newspapers-I have one here -contain a statement by the Minister of National Defence, entitled:
Reduction of reserve army.
I quote from Le Droit.
A man-power pool will be set up for the active army.
IMr Gauthier.]
And the statement goes on:
While the reserve army is still necessary, it is possible, due to the improved military situation-
And mark these words, Mr. Speaker, mark them well.
-and the efficient results obtained, to curtail its training programme during the forthcoming year.
And further, it is stated:
Function of the reserve.
(a)	form a man-power pool for the active army in the event of future mobilization;
Not present, but future,
(b)	take part in the territorial defence of Canada in case of necessity;
(c)	supply a continuous flow of reinforcements to the active army;
(d)	assist civil authorities in the event of disturbances.
Therefore, according to the statement of the Minister of National Defence, Canada is no longer in danger, and we do not need conscription for the country.
Mr. Speaker, I have here a speech of the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond), leader of the Bloc Populaire Cana-dien, delivered on September 9, 1939, in regard to Canada's participation in the present war. The hon. member said the following:
Politically, in the first place, it would mean a formal recognition of the formula resorted to by the Prime Minister, with all its consequences, namely, "When Britain is at war, Canada is at war."
The hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie spoke of the consequences of our participation.
Consider the enormous investments which Great Britain must protect everywhere; reflect that she must undertake to defend on land, on sea and in the air a world-wide empire covering one-fourth of the earth's surface, that she occupies strategic and commercial posts located on every sea, that she must protect her markets against foreign competition everywhere, that the most important interests of her whole empire lie in Asia along routes which lead there, and that for their protection her policy must extend over the entire east, including the Black sea.
At that time the leader of the Bloc Populaire Canadien spoke against participation. In so doing, he was only following the arguments and teachings against participation and conscription which we had heard in the province of Quebec and to which the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay referred a while ago.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of moving, seconded by the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Choquette), that all the words following "that" be deleted, and the following substituted:

The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed:
(a)	to take appropriate measures to suspend conscription of men for military service and to put an end to mutual aid to the united nations;
(b)	to recommend the suppression of recourse to the Westminster parliament in matters of amendments to the Canadian constitution and the adoption of a distinct national flag for Canada;
(c)	to take such steps as to establish in the limits of the federal constitution, for labour and agriculture, a general plan capable of supporting the workers of both categories, during and after the war, in each of the Canadian provinces.
Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn); Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to detain the house, but wish merely to avail myself of the opportunity of placing on Hansard the remainder of a paragraph, part of which the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) quoted this afternoon. I asked for that privilege earlier to-day, but it was not possible to have it at that time. Therefore I wish to give the quotation now, and my reason for doing so is that this is not the first time that these few sentences have been wrested from their context, in radio broadcasts in Saskatchewan and other parts of Canada. These sentences have been quoted over the air, without any statement as to the circumstances under which they were made, and without giving their context. In an advertisement which appeared in the Brandon Sun during the recent byelection this is the sort of thing which appeared:
Rev. T. C. Douglas, M.P., chief military critic of the C.C.F., in a pre-war public debate on defence estimates asked this question:
"Against whom is this country preparing to defend itself? Is it against Germany? Is it against Japan? Or is it against an invasion of Canada by the Eskimos?
They did not even take the trouble to keep close to the text, let alone keeping it within the. context. This afternoon the Minister of Mines and Resources came into the house with a sheet of mimeographed paper on which were some extracts purportedly from Hansard,. He quoted one statement by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and gave the date November 15, 1937. The House of Commons was not sitting on November 15, 1937. I found out later that the proper date was February 15, 1937. The Minister of Mines and Resources is too old a parliamentarian not to. know better than to come in here with a piece of paper from which to quote extracts without having Hansard on his desk and being prepared to give the proper date and -proper quotation.


Mr. GARDINER:: The hon. member is out of order. He is referring to a previous debate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The debate is not finished.


James Garfield Gardiner: The debate was finished when the vote was taken.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to quote from page 1063 of Hansard of February 19, 1937. At that time I had placed on Hansard a table from the dominion bureau of statistics giving the exports of nickel from 1929 to 1936, after which I made this statement:
Against whom are we arming? What potential aggressor is more aggressive to-day? Oh, I know that bogeymen have been trotted out in this chamber. It has been suggested that it might be Italy, it might be Germany, it might be Japan.
That is where the Minister of Mines and Resources stopped, but Hansard does not stop there. It goes on:
I cannot suppose that the government has any real fear of the intentions of the'e nations, for I noticed in the figures I have just read that Canada is shipping nickel to them. Knowing that we control the major part of the world's nickel supplies, I cannot believe that we would ship to them material which we feared would be returned to us in the form of high explosives. Surely those who talked about the Italians bombing this House of Commons did not imagine that the government of the day would allow us to send them the nickel with which they made those bombs, or did they?
That is the rest of the paragraph which the Minister of Mines and Resources so conveniently omitted to quote.


John Gordon Ross: I should like to quote from the same speech of the hon. member. On page 1059 of Hansard of February 19, 1937, a few pages prior to that from which he quoted, I find the following:
I speak for my colleagues and myself when I say most categorically that we are opposed to the increases in the defence estimates.
Then in the same quotation which my hon. friend just gave there is a first part which he left out. This reads:
May I now state the three reasons why I cannot vote for the increase in armaments. First, I do not feel that the government has shown that we are in any way more menaced this year than we were last year. This group has not said that it is not in favour of defence, but we are opposed to an increase in the defence estimates because it has not yet been demonstrated that the danger has become any greater now than it was twelve months or twenty-four months ago.
Then he continues with what he said in regard to nickel. He knows quite well that Canada could not have stopped exporting nickel unless she stopped the export of that commodity to every country in the world.

362	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)


James Lester Douglas: Not at all.


John Gordon Ross: Further on in the same speech as reported on page 1064 of Hansard, there is a full sentence, as follows:
I object to increased armaments.
No matter how much the hon. member wants to read Hansard, if he goes back to the debates of 1937, 1938 and 1939 he will find that his party was against increasing any estimates for defence when we were badly in need of them.


Mr. ROY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Merrier (Mr. Jean). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I was paired with the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I was paired with the hon. member for Mereier (Mr. Jean). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Louis-Philippe Picard: Is there not a rule, Mr. Speaker, that any hon. member in the house at the time of a division must vote?


Thomas Vien: I should prefer not to give an opinion on that point at the moment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the said address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this house as are of the honourable the privy council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is a rule of the house

that immediately the address has been agreed to the house then appoints the two committees of the whole house, the committee of supply and the committee of ways and means. I therefore move:
That this house will, on Friday next, resolve itself into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister) moved:
That on Friday next this house resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.
Motion agreed to.
It being twenty-five minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday February 11, 1944