1944-02-07

INCOME WAR TAX ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. H. KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 4, to amend the Income War Tax Act (communicating information).
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. KNOWLES:: This bill would add to the proper section of the Income War Tax Act these words:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall operate to prevent a minister of the crown from communicating to the Senate or to the House of Commons any information obtained under the provisions of this act.
In my view the restrictions as to secrecy imposed by subsection 1 of section 81 as it now stands have the effect at times of preventing a minister of the crown from giving the Senate or the House of Commons information which might be legitimately asked for and given. This amendment would also affect the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, since sections 40 to 87 of the Income War Tax Act are by section 14 of the Excess Profits Tax Act made to apply thereto.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Has the Minister of
Finance nothing to say on this bill?


Mr. ILSLEY:: Any hon. member has the right to introduce a bill.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. This matter is not debatable.

Mobilization Act-Call-Up Notices


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It is ridiculous, though.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day :
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: I have a question to direct to the Minister of Finance in connection with the procedure relating to the war appropriation resolution. I should like to ask the minister if, following the procedure adopted last year in connection with the war appropriation resolution and the bill founded upon it, he will give, not only the total estimated expenditures of each department of government, but also a complete detailed break-down of the estimates of each such department, in order to enable us to scrutinize more closely and in greater detail the various governmental expenditures which enter into the -war appropriations. In view of the fact that the government intends to proceed with this resolution almost immediately after the conclusion of the present debate, it is essential that the break-down be furnished at once; otherwise we shall be severely handicapped in debating both the resolution and the bill. I might add that a similar request was made and acceded to by the government last session.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, I had in mind going even farther this year than we did last year.


Gordon Graydon: Then I hope my request will not stop you.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My recollection is that last year when I moved the resolution I gave a break-down of the expenditures of the various departments, but that the ministers supplemented the information which I gave by giving a more detailed break-down when presenting their respective estimates. I intend this year to give as far as possible all the information when I introduce the resolution, and to give also comparative expenditures for the present fiscal year, which I think will facilitate the discussion of the resolution. I intend to give that information in the speech with which I introduce the resolution.



MOBILIZATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: May I ask the Minister of
Labour what steps he has taken to ensure that call-up notices under the mobilization regulations are not sent to those who are already in the armed forces? This question has been before the house in previous sessions, and I thought by now the whole matter had been cleared up. However, a young soldier, who had been in the army since March 30, 1942, came into the parliament buildings yesterday and saw me quite by accident. He said that although he had been in the army since March 30, 1942, the day before yesterday he received his notice of call-up, order for medical examination, transportation warrant, and a single ticket from his home town to Ottawa, whieh he left with me. I want to ask the minister why such things are still occurring in connection with the call-up notices for our armed forces.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour) :: Mr. Speaker, since the mobilization work was taken over by the Department of Labour one of the matters which has been giving us constant concern is the question raised by the hon. leader of the opposition, and a great deal has been done to prevent the sending of notices to men who are already in the armed forces. During the latter part of 1943 regrettable occurrences of this kind were, I am glad to say, few and far between.
The whole mobilization plan is worked out on the basis of the 1940 national registration; that is, the basis on which the notices are sent out is the record as indicated by the national registration. The plan is that the registration as to addresses, movements, and so forth will be kept lip to date through the method of the person concerned notifying the registrar at Ottawa and the registrar of the mobilization division, in the place of residence, as to change of address and other relevant matters. Hon. members will realize that it is not too easy to keep these records up to date, nor is the importance of notifying the registrars fully realized by all our citizens. In the earlier days of the war the- importance of having a prompt report go from recruiting officers to registrars, I am afraid, was not fully appreciated, and in many cases we found that men were in the armed forces and a report had' never reached the registrars. I think, too, it is only fair that I should say that in the earlier days of mobilization registrars were not fully organized to take care of the work of keeping their records up to date.
With reference to the young man referred to by the hon. leader of the opposition, who, he said, joined the armed forces in 1942 and was called for service in February, 1944, I cannot without investigation give factual information but I suspect that this young man
t
Labour Conditions

had joined the armed forces and that through some neglect on the part of the recruiting officers, or indeed it may be of our registrars themselves, this fact was not recorded. If the hon. gentleman will give me the particulars of the case we shall be glad to get the exact facts.
My hon. friend in his question mentioned that the man was young. We have found quite ft number of cases where young men have joined the armed forces when they were considerably under the age of eighteen years and six months. In their anxiety to get into the army they would not state their correct age. At the time the age was attained, a file would be made and a notice sent out. It is just possible that something of the kind occurred in this case.
As to what we have done to prevent this kind of thing occurring, I would say that we have strengthened our organization and arranged for cross-checking with the records of the three armed forces, and generally developed many plans which have the effect of perfecting our records. While I have not the exact figures, I think a good guess would be that over one million men have passed through the armed forces, and I think it is to the credit of the recruiting officers and of the men and women throughout the country engaged in the registration that we have not had more cases of this kind. On the law of averages, human nature being what it is, some people are bound to make mistakes; I am frank to admit that I do myself sometimes, and I hope that we -shall never live to see the day in this country when all the people in this chamber are as perfect as some members of the opposition ithink they should be.


Gordon Graydon: I sent over to the minister an envelope containing the information in this case, and I should be glad if he would return it to me when this matter is closed.


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall be glad to do so.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last the hon. leader of the opposition referred to a press report as to a labour pool for work in the Maine forests, as reported at page 70 of Hansard. I replied at the time, "There is not a labour pool." That was with reference to certain Quebec counties along the border of the New England states. Since then a survey has been conducted by the local agronomes
(Mr. Mitchell.]
under the supervision of Mr. Theriault, agricultural director of the Quebec regional office, and Mr. Rioux, the director of the dominion-provincial farm labour programme. It may take me a few minutes to read this report but in view of the publicity given to the matter in certain directions I think it is just as well that the whole matter should be placed on the record.
In the ten border counties of Quebec, after the intensive campaign carried on in the autumn, 2,235 men left farms for winter woods operations, of whom several hundred have since returned to the farms to do necessary work before spring.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Seven hundred and six have returned?


Humphrey Mitchell: I did not say that; I said "several hundred".


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Will the minister say what he means by "several hundred"?


Humphrey Mitchell: If the hon. member waits until I have finished he will probably find that I have covered that.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I am doubtful.


Humphrey Mitchell: I quite appreciate that my hon. friend would doubt it.
In the opinion of the agronomes, 1,575 more men could be used at present on farms in these counties to maintain agricultural production. There are, however, a few men on individual farms who could be spared until spring, men who refuse to move to other farms where they are more urgently needed, but the agronomes would not place the total of these at more than 185.
In this same area of ten counties the employment offices have 500 or 600 outstanding orders for woods workers needed by Canadian companies.
A check was made by the agronomes of 100 representative farms in the area under survey. Out of 201 men on these farms normally, 108 are now in the woods, 7 in other industry, and 86 remaining on the farms. The proportion of men away from the farms is much higher in counties like L'Islet, where out of 23 men only two remain on the farms, and Beauce, where out of 24 only four remain on the farms. Further, those who remain on the farms are usually the old men and the boys.
A good example is the farm of Mr. Xavier Belanger, at St. Marcel in L'lslet county. This farm has 200 acres, of which 110 acres are under cultivation. There are 19 milch cows, 10 other cattle, 4 horses, 4 pigs, and 25 poultry. The three men who are regularly employed on

Labour Conditions
this farm are now in the woods, leaving a wife and a young boy to look after milking and the other farm work.
In Quebec as a whole there are almost 60.000 men employed in woods operations at present.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: How many of military age?


Humphrey Mitchell: This is eighty-five per cent of requirements, but at least 7,700 more are still-needed.
Since receipt of the report covering the survey, I arranged with Mr. Paul Goulet, associate director of national selective service, to telephone the mayors of several communities in the border area to obtain definite statements as to their views. Charges have been made that the general opinion in the communities was that hundreds of men were available and should be allowed to go to the state of Maine for work. Mr. Goulet reports that the mayors responded as follows:
Mayor Thibaudeau, of Aubert Gallion (Beauce), stated that he himself had difficulty in securing help when he needed any, which proves that there are not many without work in this village. As to farmers in the vicinity, he indicated that it was very hard for him to give any kind of definite statement on the number available.
Mayor Larochelle, of St. Prosper, stated that there may be five or six men in his village unemployed. As to the farmers in his vicinity, he stated that all who could leave the farm had already done so for the reason that they are anxious to work during the winter and earn some money.
Mayor E. B. Groleau, of St. Zacharie, stated that there were possibly fifty men on farms not of military age and thirty-five of military age around this village who might be available. Most of these farmers, however, cannot leave their farms for more than two weeks and have to come back every five' or six days to do essential work. For this reason they will not accept work for Canadian operators because they would have had to go 125 miles north.
Mayor Elie Boulanger, of St. Come, claims that in his village it is very difficult to obtain help when needed. At times, transients from distant parishes remain in the village for a few days hoping to get an exit permit. He said that there might be about 100 farmers in the district who have come back from the camps of Canadian operators because their *cutting is about terminated, and who, due to the lateness of the season, cannot leave for other camps in the north because of the heavy railroad fares involved. Logically, these same men should remain on the farms for the
reason that they are needed there, since when they are away the women and children have to look after the work. The only reason actually for their willingness to accept work in Maine is the alluring high wages to the south of the line.
Mr. Gregoire, manager of the employment and selective service office at Thetford Mines, states that his quota was filled up to 98 per cent, and he understands that the quota of the Levis office was filled 100 per cent. In his opinion, out of the 3,500 men authorized, there are about 3,420 who are actually working in Maine. He claims that quite a few men of military age were anxious to go and work in Maine on account of the high wages and that this might have impressed the companies' agents. These men could not be allowed to go, however, and are now busy on the farms looking after the cattle, cutting the fuel wood, repairing machinery, etc., and otherwise preparing for the spring work.
In review the following would appear to be significant facts:
1.	That there are many farms on which the work is being done by women and children. Those in a position to know, namely, the agronomes, say that too many men have been taken off the farms. It seems evident that the task of national selective service in a very, few weeks will be to move men back or productivity of the farms will suffer.
2.	All told, in this very large area the agronomes estimate that there are not more than- 185 men still on the farms who could be taken off. It should be noted that during the time this survey was being made we were recruiting men to fill out the 3,500 total, and no doubt all or mostly all these 185 men will have been recruited for this purpose.
3.	Emphasis should be placed on the fact that our Canadian woods operators are still urging the need for more men.
4.	It seems evident that this district has been thoroughly and efficiently checked over for man-power and all the men that can safely be taken from farms have been taken, apart from a few individuals in whose case there may be some doubt.
In view of the situation revealed by this survey, the labour department reaffirms the necessity of maintaining the limit of 3.500 men allowed to cross the border for employment in the forests of the northeastern United States this winter.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister one supplementary question after his long statement? If national selective service is functioning in that district, why is it necessary, first of all, to have a survey, and second, why
Western Stock Feeders

is it necessary for the minister to give the opinions, which are only opinions, of mayors and other heads of municipalities in connection with the labour situation in that part of Canada? That is what selective service is for -to know through its local offices the exact position of the labour market in the dominion. I think the minister owes the house an explanation as to why he has taken secondary evidence when first-hand evidence should be available.


Humphrey Mitchell: The question is a fair
one, and I think when my hon. friend reads this statement in Hansard he will find that his question is answered. In view of the statements carried by some newspapers in this country, made by a certain newspaper writer in another country, he felt it necessary, even prior to my hon. friend's bringing the matter up in this house, that thorough check should be made so that we might be assured of the true state of affairs. I have quoted the evidence of the selective service officer in charge of the district, but it is only natural that we should get the opinions of the mayors of the communities where this individual is supposed to have had interviews. I think the statement shows conclusively that there is no surplus of labour in that district as claimed in a certain newspaper article published in this country.



WESTERN STOCK FEEDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Has the Minister of Agriculture received representations from western Canada to the effect that feeders of beef cattle finishing for market there cannot market this beef? If so, what is the minister doing about the situation?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: Representations have been
coming in for about a month to the effect that some fat cows that are ready for butchering cannot be disposed of. The reason is that very early in the season, last November and December to be exact, the packing plants across Canada found it impossible to handle all the hogs and beef coming on the market. The farmers were asked to hold their unfinished cattle and cows and sows off the market as long as possible. The result of that has been that in some areas, mostly in Alberta -all the representations have been from that province-there are some fat cows that have not found a market. The department therefore has been attempting to find facilities whereby these cows can be handled, and some 
have been taken in; but we have not been able to take care of all of them. The meat board is in touch with the situation at all times and is doing the best it can to see that cows are marketed.



EFFECT OF REGULATIONS UPON SMALL SLAUGHTERERS OF HOGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo
South): May I ask the Minister of Agriculture what is being done to enable small slaughterers to carry on their business, which has been interfered with by the new regulations? Not having the right to get the subsidy on hogs, the small slaughterers are going out of business, and everything is being shifted into the hands of the big packers of the country.
James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member, as the representative of a constituency in which a packing house is located, probably knows the answer fairly well-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I don't know the answer and I want it.
M". GARDINER: -but I may say that a very much larger number of the hogs that are being slaughtered in Canada at the present time is going through the small butchers than was going through them six or twelve months ago. That is due not to the change in regulations referred to by the hon. member but fo the change in the regulations made last fall which permitted those slaughtering for home consumption to slaughter any number of hogs for which they can find a market.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: That does not answer the question at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the fact that the hon. member makes a statement does not say that it is true either.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Of course, I never believed the Minister of Agriculture in my life, because no one else in Canada does. No one ever did believe him. The Minister of Agriculture has been swinging on-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: He doesn't know wnere he is.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I am asking-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.

Meat Supply


Thomas Vien: The hon. member must place the question on the order paper.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: All right, but I am asking-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: The Speaker is on his feet.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Well, when he sits down I will stand up. I am asking the Minister of Agriculture what he is going to do about the small slaughterers who to-day are not put on a par with the big packing houses of the country. What is he going to do for them?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: They are not being treated fairly and they want to know what he is going to do.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member has asked his question-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: And the minister cannot answer it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You cannot ask it properly.


Thomas Vien: -and if the hon. member is not satisfied-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I certainly am not.


Thomas Vien: -he has the right to place the question on the order paper and get a reply.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You cannot get a reply.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have listened to the hon. gentleman asking questions for some years-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Order.


James Garfield Gardiner: -and I would say to him that when he comes into the house to ask questions-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Order.


James Garfield Gardiner: -he should ask them in accordance with the rules of the house.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The minister has no right-


James Garfield Gardiner: The rules require that members shall place their questions on the order paper. When the question is put on the order paper I will answer it.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You cannot answer it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You cannot ask it.



MEAT SUPPLY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: May I ask a question of the appropriate minister, perhaps the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Munitions and Supply. It is based on a press report appearing in the Ottawa Journal of February 5. The caption . of the article is: "Surplus of Meat, Period of Scarcity Over for Duration." I should like to read one or two sentences that explain the question:
J. S. McLean, president of Canada Packers Limited, said to-day that within the past few weeks the meat supply situation in Canada has swung from a position of acute scarcity to surplus and "we can all make up our minds that the period of scarcity is over" for the duration of the war.
The article states that every foot of freezer space in Canada is full. In view of these facts, is it the intention of the appropriate department of government to discontinue, or at least to make some change in, the rationing regulations in regard to meat? I would ask another question with reference to the same subject.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Ask a lot of them.


Mark Cecil Senn: The next question is based on another press rep.ort, appearing in the Montreal Gazette of February 5, under the caption: "500,000 Pounds of Meat Condemned at Quebec." Is it the intention of the appropriate authorities to investigate this great loss and assign the responsibility? If so, will appropriate action be taken, if it is found that responsibility has been improperly assumed, to ensure that these men are prosecuted?


Thomas Vien: These are certainly questions that should be placed on the order paper.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The minister cannot
answer them anyway.


EFFECT OF WHEAT DELIVERY QUOTA ON DELIVERIES OF OATS AND BARLEY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: I wish to direct to the Minister of Agriculture a question arising from an article appearing in the Winnipeg Free Press of February 3, which states that, by arrangement of the railroads and the Canadian wheat board and the Department of Agriculture, feed grain shipments were held up to provide oars for wheat shipments. The
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy

government asked producers in 1943 to main-'1 tain decreased wheat acreage and increase oats and barley acreage, stating emphatically that wheat producers could deliver only fourteen bushels per acre on the basic acreage of 1940. The Minister of Trade and Commerce having stated that the wheat delivery quota will be increased to eighteen bushels per acre, may I ask whether this will be done before the producers of oats and barley, who find it very difficult to finance, are allowed to deliver an equitable quota.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Leave it to the minister of pensions. He will tell you whether it should be answered.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That question is entirely out of order under the rules.


Thomas Vien: I have at various times pointed out that on the orders of the day questions involving policy, and the procedure which the government intends to adopt, should be put on the order paper. These questions must be put on the order paper.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On a- point of order, Mr. Speaker, with your consent, I would point out that it is a distinct rule that questions on the orders of the day may not be based on extracts from journals outside. That is a distinct violation of the rules of the house.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The point is not well taken.


James Arthur Ross: 1 have had similar questions on the order paper since the opening of the house and other members have risen and asked the same questions on the orders of the day. We have not come to those questions yet.


GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. L. D. Tremblay for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Graydon, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South):: I have been particularly pleased this session with the number of members who have called attention to the omission from the speech from the throne of any reference to the subject of education. Apparently all the members of this house are becoming education-conscious.
I want to emphasize, as I have emphasized before, that no national plan for social recon-
struction after the war can be considered complete that does not give education the proper place to which its importance entitles it.
There was an excellent report presented to the James committee last summer. The substance of that report was that where Canadians are now spending one dollar on education they require two, not for something fantastically idealistic, but for the moderate practical advances in education in keeping with the aspirations and the temperament of the Canadian people. It is not a question of interfering with provincial rights; it is a question whether this government is prepared to assist the provinces in assuming and carrying out the responsibility which the British North America Act left on their doorstep. Until this government realizes the importance of education to the point where it is prepared to assist the provinces on an equitable basis of need in financing education, young Canadians will remain deprived of the equality of educational opportunity which is their heritage and their right in a democratic society. I would urge upon this government that they give consideration in their reconstruction programme to the need of assisting the provinces to carry out their responsibility as outlined in the British North America Act. There is no necessity that financial assistance should in. any way interfere with the rights and autonomy of the provinces in that regard. As I have already stated, until we are prepared to give assistance to some of the provinces, which cannot under any circumstances provide an adequate educational programme for the use of these young people, we shall not be giving the youth of Canada, their right.
There are one or two points, Mr. Speaker, that I should like to suggest. There are certain needs the satisfaction of which will contribute to unity in Canada, and no institutions of this country can do more to build Canadian unity than the public and secondary schools of the nation. We need an anthology of Canadian poetry by French and English authors, in both languages. We need an anthology of Canadian prose. We need a book of Canadian songs. We need reprints of those pictures that were done by Canadian artists for distribution overseas. We need a book that will give the young people of Quebec "an insight into" life in English speaking Canada; we need a similar book for the English speaking students of this country that will give a picture of French Canadian life. These cannot be sold at a price that will make them available to the schools unless they are subsidized. No province can subsidize a book for the entire country. May I suggest to the minister responsible for education, the

The Address-Mr. Sinclair
Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) that some consideration be given to subsidizing these books; if the government is unwilling to do anything else in the field of education. That,
I am confident, will render a great service and cost the people of this country very little.


Mr. JAMES SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, it is more than three years since I last had the opportunity to stand in my place and address this house. I have no apology to offer for my absence; for my constituents knew when they elected me that I had enlisted in the R.C.A.F. I am very glad to say, however, that they have not suffered by my absence, because my colleague and very good friend the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) has taken care of my riding in the interval, and for that I thank him. I have, however, one complaint. He has set so high a standard of service to my riding that it is going to be very awkward for me to measure up to it.
When I last spoke in this house I believe I was regarded as a rather impatient and critical supporter of this government. I may tell this house I was consoled when I was in the British House of Commons in 1942 to hear Mr. Churchill tell his followers not to be mealy-mouthed in debate and chicken-hearted in the lobbies. May I now tell this house that while I may still be critical of some points, my service overseas has given me increasing pride and confidence in this government's conduct of Canada's war effort. I know it is increasingly the custom in this country to complain and rant about every minor restriction and regulation that the government has of necessity to impose in this country because of the war. People also point, of course, to other countries and compare our actions in the most unfavourable light. That seems to be the line taken in Canada. Those of us who have served in Britain and the middle east and the far east have a much better appreciation of what Canada has done. We have lived in countries where there has been a very marked increase in the cost of living, where there is no wage ceiling. Because of government control of wages soldiers realize that there is no great gap between their earnings and the wages of war workers in industry.
It is not, however, only the members of this house who feel an increasing pride in Canada's war effort. I need not recount to this house our efforts on the war front; I need not recount to this house our efforts on the production front. That has been very well said by Mr. Churchill himself. I can, however, tell this house of my own personal pride in that last great advance across Libya in seeing
that the greater part of the vast fleet of trucks which moved the supplies of the 8th army and desert air force across the desert came from Windsor and Oshawa. A very great portion of the supplies in those trucks, of food, guns and ammunition, were also of Canadian origin -even a little beer; very little beer. I shall speak of that on a later occasion.
On the home front I believe the government is worthy of much more praise than has come its way. What has impressed me, and I know what has impressed most returning soldiers, is the abundance of everything in Canada, an abundance of food, of clothing, of cars on the streets. After the war-worn clothing of England, needfully strict rationing, and the total absence of pleasure driving, we find Canada practically a country at peace. The second thing which impresses a returned soldier is how little the cost of living has changed in this country in his absence-a signal tribute to the government's lone and brave fight against the perils of inflation. I say "lone" advisedly; for I believe the government has received little praise in this country for its magnificent effort.
The imposition of ceilings on wages has I believe aroused labour. The imposition of a ceiling on prices has aroused the farmers and business men; yet these steps are unavoidable if there is to be a real control of inflation. Everyone in this country seems to agree with the principle but objects very bitterly to the practice if it affects them personally. No mention of wTage control can be made at this time, however, without reference to P.C. 9384. I am not one who is going to rant and rail against government by order in council. Anyone who has been at war knows the necessity of instant executive action, and that power should be given to a government which has the confidence of this parliament. But I do believe that any such order in council should be capable of justification to parliament by the minister concerned. I do not believe that a Liberal minister of labour can so justify certain clauses in this order.
May I turn first to the actual constitution of this war labour board. There is a common complaint in this country from coast to coast that labour has not been given adequate representation on the many government war boards. If there is one board on which labour should have decent representation it is this national war labour board; yet we find that on a ooard of six they have one nominee. It is true that the government nominates four members and that one of these may be a labour man, but labour does not want government appointees; labour wants its own nominees.

The Address-Mr. Sinclair
To my mind there are three groups involved in wage control, the employer, the employee and the public as represented by the government; and I would say that it would be fair to set up a board of six consisting of two nominees from each of these groups.
My next objection is to the third stated object of the order, which is:
.	. . to provide machinery for an orderly
rectification of any gross 'inequalities and injustices in wage rates so established. . . .
Up to this point I agree, but in the mention of the words "gross inequalities and injustices in wage rates" I take it to be tacitly admitted that such conditions still obtain in some parts of this country. The wage ceiling should be elastic. There is no intention of freezing sweatshop wages for the duration of the war. However, the joker is in the last clause, which reads:
... in so far as it is possible consistently with the paramount principle of the maintenance of stability in prices. . . .
In other words an increase can be given in sweat-shop wages provided it does not affect the price of the product of that sweat-shop, which is manifestly impossible. The people of Canada do not believe in sweat-shop wages; they are willing to pay prices which will give the labourer a decent wage.
I think all hon. members will agree that strikes caused by disputes between unions over jurisdiction and other such illegal strikes should be outlawed in time of peace as in time of war. Hon. members may debate whether the right to strike after due arbitration and conciliation should be given to labour in war time; but I do not think many hon. members of this house will agree to the terms contained in sections 33 to 36 of this order. These have to do with prosecutions for offences, the first with the case of an employer who contravenes the order by paying illegal wages or causing a lockout. Section 33 (2) provides that the burden of proof shall be on the accused. Section 35 deals with the employee who is alleged to have taken part in an illegal strike; it provides that the burden of proof that the strike was not illegal shall rest on the accused. Section 36 deals with the man who is alleged to have aided or abetted an illegal strike; it provides also that the burden of proof that the strike was not illegal shall rest on the accused. To my scanty legal knowledge this means just one thing: that the man is taken to be guilty until he proves his innocence, and this in the year 1944, in the fifth year of this war for freedom. I cannot conceive why the Minister of Labour should introduce these things; I cannot conceive why the Minister of Justice should permit it. It
[Mr. Sinclair.)
cannot be said to be due to the exigencies of war, because I have taken part in summary trials and in courts martial in Libya within the sound of battle, and even there the airman was considered innocent in every particular until he was proved to be guilty.
These bad causes have had one good effect; they have united Canadian labour from coast to coast as never before. A.F. of L. unions, C.I.O. unions, independent unions, and in fact all but the lackey company unions, are unanimous in their opposition to these features. I therefore urge the government to rescind this order, and to replace it with an order which will treat labour, to use the phrase of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), not as a commodity but rather as a deserving partner in Canada's war effort, because the record of Canadian labour in this war is good. AVe who have been overseas know that it is better than the British and American records. Our wonderful war production record has been made possible by the efforts of the Canadian working man. In so urging I speak not only for the labour unions in my riding but also for the Liberals of my constituency, who at their annual convention last month condemned these clauses in the strongest terms as being contrary to their conception of Liberalism.
Next I should like to touch very briefly upon the speech from the throne, which I believe to be one of the most heartening and progressive programmes ever offered to the people of Canada. I believe that national health insurance, adequate old age pensions as a right and not as a charity, and a national housing plan, when carried to fruition will be the very brightest jewels in my honoured leader's long career of public service. As far as health insurance is concerned, fortunately in this country there is a very large body of men who are completely sold on the idea; I refer to the 750,000 men in the services who are now receiving the benefits of state medicine. So, too, with family allowances; here again we in the services have had actual experience. I have never heard a single unmarried airman complain because a married man of the same rank, doing the same job, actually was getting more money because of his dependents' allowance; they all agree that it is a first-class thing. I understand that there is considerable opposition from some groups because they feel that this is going to give undue advantage to the large families of French Canada. I say this is a reproach not to the large families of French Canada but to the small families or lack of families in the rest of Canada. If family allowances increase

The Address-Mr. Sinclair
the size of the families in the rest of Canada it will be a very fine thing, far better than any system of unrestricted or selected immigration.
The part of the speech from the throne which most interests me, naturally, is that part dealing with reconstruction, rehabilitation, demobilization and reestablishment. I do not intend to speak of reconstruction or demobilization now, but I should like to speak on the rehabilitation of the soldier who returns from overseas. I do not pretend to be the spokesman of the man overseas; however, I do say that I have a fair knowledge of what the airman overseas is thinking. Life with the Sth army in the desert and with the Canadian army in Sicily has given me a little knowledge of the soldier. The sixty-five days I spent at sea in convoy and my trip home on a Canadian destroyer at least gave me contact with our sailors and our merchant mariners. Discussions with these groups have convinced me that they have a common outlook on rehabilitation, so that when I say "soldier" or "sailor" or "airman", these words are interchangeable. In one way the service man of this war is very different from the service man of the last war. Those who fought so bravely in Flanders fields really believed they were fighting to create a world worth living in, because they had not known the aftermath of a world war. Those who are fighting in this war have no such illusions. They know the bitter disillusionment of the soldiers of the last war. They remember the years of the hungry thirties, and they are determined that this is not going to happen to them. Unlike the soldiers of the last war, when they return they are going to have two very powerful organizations to give them guidance, the Canadian Legion and the Army and Navy Veterans.
The soldiers know what they want; what they want must be established in concrete legislation long before the end of the war, and they must know of it. That the government lealize this is shown by the fact that legislation has been brought down, that blue cards were issued to soldiers telling them about it, and that later on little blue booklets were issued. I feel, however, that the present programme falls far short of what the soldiers expect in one respect. Since the speech from the throne has announced that certain amend- ( ments are to be made I hope that my comments will be taken not as critical of the past but as constructive for the future. To introduce this subject to the house I can do no better than quote the collective opinion of the members of the squadron which I have just left, the City of Windsor squadron. This
squadron could well be taken as being representative of the Canadian fighting man overseas. They have had greater and more varied combat experience than any other unit in the Canadian army or air force during this war. They have served in Great Britain, in Egypt, in Cyprus, in Libya, (in Tunisia, in Malta, in Sicily, and now they are the crack fighter squadron with the desert air force in Italy.


Mr. MARTIN:: Will the hon. member permit me to observe that my city will be most grateful for his observations?


James Sinclair: Shortly after the government issued these little blue cards, one of which I have here, the squadron had an open forum of both aircrew and ground crew to discuss these problems. That little meeting on a forward landing ground at dusk was to me the most educative and interesting experience I had1 overseas. Out of it emerged one bald, bare fact. These men do not want charity or pity in the way of being given a hand-out. All they want is the same fighting chance in peace time as they are now taking for their country in war time. I think I can summarize briefly as follows the collective opinion of their meeting that night:
When the war broke out and our country needed us, the government accepted our services. They took us and trained us in the best manner in the very best of training institutes. During that period of training they clothed and fed us and provided full medical and dental treatment. They paid us a basic rate of at least $1.30 per day and full service dependents' allowance to our dependents, amounting in all to $75 per month for a single man, $110 per month for a married man and $134 a month for a married man with two children. When we have served our country and returned to train for peace we want, first of all, jobs. If we cannot fill those jobs, we want the necessary training. We want jobs not of death and destruction but of peace and construction, under similar conditions of pay and allowances.
With this simple demand no one can find fault. I believe the people of Canada themselves are willing to give these boys that much.
Let me trace what happens to a soldier when he is honourably discharged under existing regulations. Here I must compliment my friend the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) upon his recent action which has cut my feet from under me in my criticism of the old regulations. Under the old regulations a man needing medical treatment was discharged and then given a pension on a much lower scale. Under the exist-
The Address-Mr. Sinclair

mg regulations he is retained in uniform while undergoing treatment. Officers are paid at the rate of flying officers or the equivalent, and airmen at their existing pay. The retention of the uniform is a fine thing, because a disabled man in uniform is an object of respect; in civilian clothes he is quite often the recipient of unwanted1 pity. If he is partly disabled, on completion of the treatment he comes under the Pension Act. I do not propose to speak of that matter at this time, although here again I should like to compliment the minister on the recently announced extension of the burnt-out pension scheme.
We now have a man in good health ready for discharge. First he gets his clothing allowance so that he may return to civilian life. Previously this was the ridiculous sum of S35, but it has lately been increased to $65. This sum may be sufficient for a man who has been less than a year in the service, because it would permit him to supplement his civilian clothing, but it certainly is not sufficient for a man who has been overseas for three or four years. Quite often when he returns he has outgrown his clothing; it may be moth-eaten, or his loving relatives may have given it away to the Salvation Army or the Red Cross. I would say that the clothing allowance should be based on a sliding scale according to length and character of service.
There is another important point about the clothing allowance which I want to bring out. Before a man gets his clothing allowance he must turn in his uniform. He is allowed to keep his shirts, underwear, socks and shoes, but he must turn in his gun, tools, uniform, blankets and things like that. Since I returned home 'I have been stationed at a west coast station. One wet day a man paraded in the squadron dressed only in a sweater and a pair of white cook's trousers and wanted a pass to go to town. He was reproved for parading in such clothing, let alone for asking to go to town, but he explained that he had just turned in his uniform, had got his $65 and now wanted to go to town to get his civilian clothes. When I told that to my colleague, the hon. member for Fraser Valley, that old soldier, with his customary vigour, said that if he had been in that man's place he would have paraded to town in the shirt, underwear, socks and shoes which his grateful country had allowed him to keep.
The very least this country could do for an honourably discharged soldier is to allow him to keep his uniform. The cost of a No. 1 blue is $13.70. When it is turned in it becomes a No. 2 blue worth just $7. A No. 2 blue when turned in is either made into salvage or given t"' the Indian department. It would not cost
'Mr. Sinclair.]
the government over $7. Giving the uniform to the air man-I am confining my remarks to the air force-would permit him to return to his home town in uniform. More than that, he would be able to spend his $85 wisely. He could use that money to supplement his civilian clothing when he is at home by purchasing from the home town stores. Let me tell this house that every sailor, soldier or airman is just as proud of his uniform as any officer, and will want to keep it so that in the years to come he can show his children and his grandchildren the uniform in which he served his king.
Next, our man is given a discharge button. This is a most excellent thing, as is the provision of a button to those who have volunteered but have been found unfit, who have tried to join but have been rejected for medical reasons. My one suggestion here is that these buttons are not well enough known in Canada and do not get the honour they deserve. I suggest that the government should omit one of these civilian morale advertisements that clutter up our newspapers'and devote the same space to returned soldier morale by featuring, first of all, the red maple leaf of the man who tried to join, who tried to do his bit, and the discharge button given to the man who has been honourably discharged, who has done his bit. In that way the people of Canada would come to know these badges and honour them.
Now our man is ready for his gratuity. I dislike the term "gratuity" because it implies charity. What he actually gets is a grant in aid to enable him to tide himself over the very difficult period of demobilization. At present this is one month's pay of rank and allowances for those with more than six months' service. With both the method of payment and the payment I disagree. There is a great difference between the need of, say, a Seaforth private in Italy who has been serving for $1.50 a day and wTho is returned to civilian life, and a major-general whose service has been confined to the rigours of Ottawa at $20 a day. Theoretically the higher the rank, the easier it is for a man to return to civilian life. The Seaforth private will go back to civilian life with $45, whereas the major-general will be given $600. This is a case of to them that have had, more shall be given, and to them that have had very1 little, very little shall be given.
I would take the minister's own yardstick in the case of medical treatment. The basic pay of a flying officer, an army lieutenant or a navy sub-lieutenant should be the basis for paying gratuities to all service men on discharge, and for each year of overseas service

The Address-Mr. Sinclair
or eighteen months of voluntary service in Canada the man should be given one month's pay at this rate.
Our man is now fit, discharged with his clothing allowance, button, and grant in aid. Now comes rehabilitation. Men in this war differ from men in the last in another way. There has been a high degree of mechanization in this war, and there is a great proportion of skilled tradesmen in the service. Three-quarters of the ground men in the air force are highly skilled technicians, fitters, riggers, wireless operators, welders, and so on. The same is true to a lesser extent of the men in the army and navy. These men are going to have very little trouble in getting jobs when they return, if the jobs are there. That, of course, is the problem of reconstruction.
There is a second group who will have little trouble, those who will return to their civilian occupations because of the government's very good soldier reinstatement act.
There remains another group, estimated by the Canadian Legion to be between 150,000 and 200,000, who will have no civilian trade or who will want to complete their training which was interrupted by the war. In this group will be the very greatest number of the men who deserve best by this country, the actual combatants, the soldier in the line, the aircrew in the air, the sailors on our fighting ships whose only trade right now is to kill or be killed. I have had the opportunity of carefully studying the educational programme drawn up by Doctor Weir and his staff under the Minister of Pensions and National Health, and I find it a wonderful scheme. No returned soldier can say that a suitable training syllabus to train him on his return to civilian life was not prepared. My objection is a simple one. The soldier, sailor or airman will not be able to take this programme because of financial inadequacy. Let me read from this little soldier blue book on the subject of grants-in-aid:
Grants may be provided to service men while taking refresher courses, vocational training, university education, awaiting return from crops or private enterprise, temporarily incapacitated or out of work, if fit and capable of working.
All very admirable and completely comprehensive. These grants cover (a) tuition fees, student fees, athletic fees or other charges and costs of courses given; (c) allowances for dependents. These are on the service scale as regards children, and I find no complaint with either of these clauses (a) and (c). It is clause (b) that I find fault with. Clause (b) provides for living allowances of $44.20 a month for a single man and $62.40 a month for a married man. This living allowance can be regarded as a basic $44.20, plus $18.20 for wife. Against this I protest.
To begin with, as a mathematician I am fascinated by the $44.20. I would certainly like to know the mathematical basis on which the need and reward of a service man can be figured right down to twenty cents. I am told it is based on unemployment insurance benefits. I scorn that comparison. There is no conceivable relation between reestablishing a veteran who has served his king and country and unemployment insurance benefits.
Some will say it is a wonderful benefit. How they wished they had had it when they attended college! I am sure that the minister, when he recalls his own grim struggle on meagre bursaries through Scottish universities, might regard it as munificent. I worked my way through university by working in the mines, and would have been highly pleased with such assistance. But here again the comparison fails. These are not boys struggling ahead for themselves, but men who have earned men's wages, who have hazarded their lives and sacrificed the best and most formative years of their lives for their country, on meagre pay, and who deserve well by their country'. Now when they return they are to be trained for peace. Even from the point of view of the narrowest and most selfish of national interests it is our duty to see them properly reestablished; for they represent our greatest single national asset, the fittest, the bravest, the most self-sacrificing of our youth, those who will create the Canada to come.
I am going to give you actual examples of what is happening to-day. At the beginning of the war, when air force standards were high, junior matriculation or better was required. As the drain on man-power began, standards relaxed, but still a certain minimum equivalent to second year high school mathematics was necessary. To enable candidates lacking this to qualify for the air force, the dominion-provincial youth training plan began giving this training to otherwise qualified candidates. They got only $1.25 a day subsistence. As the need grew greater, the air force took over those lads who where deficient in elementary education and sent them to public schools. In Vancouver, for example, to-day there are about 400 attending two public schools and a technical school. Now these lads get $1.25 a day for board as they lodge near the schools, and $1.30 a day basic airman's pay, a total of $76.50 a month in cash, plus airmen's clothing, full medical and dental care, all costs of tuition, and all the opportunities for free or cheap entertainment and recreation available for men in uniform. Their one complaint is that $37.50 a month is not adequate for board and lodging in Vancouver.
Also in Vancouver we have returned men starting rehabilitation training. Take the case
The Address-Mr. Sinclair

of a pilot with three years' overseas service who is resuming his interrupted course in engineering at the university of British Columbia. He gets his tuition fees, as the trainee does, and $44.20 in cash-nothing else. No clothing, no medical care except for war injuries, no dental treatment, no opportunities for free or cheap entertainment or recreation. Deduct the $37.50 which the government deems adequate for board for the trainee and we get this comparison:
To the man who is getting elementary education to enable him to begin real air force training to serve his country, $39 a month in cash, tuition fees, board and lodging, clothing, full medical and dental treatment, free or cheap recreation and entertainment. To the man who has served his country on the field of battle and is now training for peace, $6.70 in cash, tuition fees, board and lodging, no clothing, medical treatment only for war injuries, no dental treatment, no chance for free or cheap entertainment or recreation.
I mentioned before that in this group are going to be a large proportion of the most deserving, the actual combatants, the soldiers in the line, the aircrew and the fighting sailors.
In a sympathetic and understanding speech some sessions ago, the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) pointed out that this group would present the greatest problems on return; for not only had jobs to be found, but the men would have to be conditioned to accept the quiet routine of civilian life after years of great hardships, intense excitement and the most incredible nervous strain in the line of battle. What hope is there for conditioning these men to a normal civilian life on a net cash grant of $6.70 a month, out of which they must pay for replacement of clothing, laundry, car fare, medical and dental treatment, recreation, and then find money for leading a normal civilian life? I tell this house that if these men return to such conditions their song will not be "Land of Hope and Glory"; it may well be the red flag. They will remember Kipling's bitter little song, "Tommy Atkins":
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes", when the drums begin to roll.
That is what it was when they were called up. But when they find themselves getting $6.70 a month it will be "We serve no redcoats here". These men will know the score, just like Kipling's Tommy did.
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool-you bet that Tommy sees!
No Canadian at home should accept the excuse that what we are doing is more than
IMr. Sinclair.]
any other country is doing. There is only one standard: to our ownselves be true. Give these men the one thing they are asking for, the same fighting chance in training for peace that we gave them when we were training them for war. I therefore propose that a basic sum of $75 a month be paid, plus standard service allowance to wife and children, plus medical and dental care at the nearest military establishment, for the duration of the period of rehabilitation. This is still less than the trainee taking elementary training gets, but it will give the returned soldier a fighting chance. That is all he wants.
While on the subject thete are one or two other things in this booklet that I would like to mention. First, soldier land settlement. I do not know very many airmen who are proposing to go on the land after this war. That may be because farm life is unsuitable after service in the air force. It may be because they remember too well soldier settlement after the last war. It may be because they remember too well the plight of experienced farmers before the present war.
Those who are going on the land expect three conditions to be fulfilled. First, that the land be suitable. They are not going to try to raise crops on barren acres. Second, that it be cleared. No British Columbia boy is going to spend the rest of his life trying to tear up British Columbia stumps by hand. Third, that the land be accessible to market.
I have two observations on finance. Every soldier, sailor or airman who reads page 13, and continues to read until he finds that the ex-service man must make a down payment to the government of ten per cent of the cost of the land, or $480, and that this down payment must be made prior to the receipt of any financial assistance, is going to say, "Where the blank am I going to get a down payment of $480?" Out of their savings or their war pay of one dollar and one-half a day? No. Out of this gratuity of $45 in all that the government is proposing to pay? No. From our chartered banks or money lenders? No. Where? I ask the government. It may well bother them. It is bothering, I know, many soldiers, sailors and airmen.
I had thought that in view of the experience in soldier settlement after the last war, the government's approach would be a little different. I do not like making statements without figures, but I am quite sure that if all the cost of land settlement boards and administration and legal costs and surveys and royal commissions were added up, the total would vastly overshadow the actual returns. I therefore propose that any soldier who is still

The Address-Mr. Esling
fanning his land after five years be given his farm outright. This would save the government money; it would give the soldier a real incentive to farm, and it would mean the end of at least one war board after the war, because five years after the end of the war the work of the land board would automati-. eally end, not drearily drag on for twenty-five years as has the present land board.
There is one conspicuous omission from this little booklet. The soldier will read it through and say, "Where am I going to live after the war?'' We all know what an appalling shortage of houses there is all over Canada. A national housing scheme must come, but ahead of this must be a provision of some decent place for the returned soldier to live in. I am proud of the industrial war workers' housing project in my riding. Similar provision can be made for the soldiers-not mansions fit for heroes to live in, but decent homes fit for good Canadians.
One thing more, in conclusion. In my maiden speech I am supposed to have suggested that there was too much complacency in Ottawa. I heard a lot about that. As a returned soldier I would like to say again that there is far too much complacency and selfsatisfaction. Not in Ottawa, however, but in the country at large. I believe that the government are far ahead of the people in realizing that 1944 is no year for complacency or selfsatisfaction. Our early days in this war were nothing but one -long tale of defeats and reverses. Now that the tide has just begun to turn, and we are having occasional victories, too many people in this country are relaxing and thinking that the war is practically won. The days of great advances over the deserts of Libya or the plains of Russia are past. The fighting becomes more dogged, more bitter, day by day. The bloodiest battle that British troops have ever attempted is just over the horizon.
When we come back we hear a lot about sacrifices in Canada, restrictions, regulations, loss of earning power, and things like that. These are not sacrifices; they are minor hardships incidental to war. It is those who have given their lives, those who offered strong young bodies to their country and who have returned with those bodies shattered, those who have lost sons, husbands, fathers-these are the ones who can talk of sacrifice. Our women folk too: the mothers who are sick with apprehension when they read of our nightly loss of bombers for fear their boys have gone flaming down in the night; the wives who pale at the approach of a telegraph boy for fear he brings the dreaded message; the quiet anguish of all women who can but
watch and pray at home while separated from their men overseas-these know the terror and horror of war.
A little earlier I spoke rather strongly of this wage control order. When I read, however, in yesterday's press that certain labour leaders in Canada are proposing an illegal one-day strike as a protest, I am filled with nausea and disgust. Such an action will not help labour with the people of Canada, and I should be ashamed of this government if it paid any heed to such a protest. Such a strike will hurt just one group-the fighting men overseas. A one-day strike will mean that when that bloody morning dawns and our Canadians wade ashore on the beaches of France under a hell of fire and bombing, they will have been weakened by the lack of one day's output of war material, in the most terrible battle in which Canadian troops ever engaged. Let me tell you that those who survive will remember it.
This is no time for self-satisfaction and selfcomplacency in Canada about our war record, our industrial record, our home front record. This is the year of decision, the year which will decide a rapid victory or a long and protracted war ending probably in a stalemate; a year of blood, sweat and tears for every one of the United nations; a year when our fighting men must be given every conceivable aid and support and encouragement by every man, woman and child in Canada, no matter what the personal cost may be.
Mr. W. Iv. ESLING (Kootenay West).: May I join with all members of this house in a generous welcome to the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair), who has just returned to his parliamentary duties. He has given the people of this country a clear and accurate presentation of the indebtedness of the government and the people to the fighting forces overseas, and it is to be hoped that full note will be taken of his submission.
As the speech from the throne presents an extensive programme of new and revised legislation, my reference to it at this, early stage of the session is with the hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) will include in that programme better provision and better opportunities for handicapped people in the dominion, no matter what that handicap may be. The speech contains one point about employment and another on pensions, each of which is closely associated with a third, social security, and on that social security is to be based the new postwar order which is the topic of discussion in every community across Canada. If the government is really in earnest in bringing
21S
The Address-Mr. Esling

this new order into effect, there is no better time than the present to establish a foundation for it.
At the meeting of the social security committee, perhaps the most interesting and informative submission was that presented by Colonel E. A. Baker, of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. If I could persuade the members of this house to visit the workshops of the blind in the larger cities across Canada they would get a first-hand view of the effort and the energy of blind persons to become self-supporting. They are doing splendid work and their one endeavour is to be free and divorced from all government support.
Colonel Baker's submission was unique in the fact that, instead of asking the government for something, it proposed to relieve the government and the taxpayers from a contribution by way of old age pensions. As hon. members know, a blind person is pensioned at forty. He is permitted to earn, in addition to the pension, the sum of $200 if he is single. That makes $440. A married man is permitted to have 8S05 including pension. Because he is blind it must not be thought that he is not just as keen to have the comforts and joys of family life and to bring up his children as the children of sighted persons are brought up. And so I ask hon. members this question: Would any man in this House of Commons like to be in- the position of having to rear a family on $805 a year, which is the limit set for married men?
It is to that end that Colonel Baker suggests the new method whereby, instead of deducting dollar for dollar in excess of the amount a blind person is permitted to earn, the government will deduct only fifty cents from the pension, so that the blind person may continue to earn until he has reached $680, at which time the pension is wiped out entirely and he no longer receives benefits from the government. That looks like a reasonable proposal. Further, the proposal is that a blind boy who is taking his limited vocational training be pensioned at the age of twenty-one. He too will be better fitted to earn his living. As his earnings increased there would return to the government that proportion of his pension, so that the government would be free. It would be an incentive to all blind persons to earn as much as possible and be released from the receipt of a pension from the authorities. Regardless of what a man's earnings might be in one year, he would still be eligible for pension-the next, but he would be most earnest in his endeavour to free himself from the necessity of receiving a pension.
The submission further suggests that, legislation for the welfare of the blind, including pension, be placed under a separate act.

I should like to refer to a matter that came up at the last session. It has to do with those people who are hard of hearing. That is in the nature of a handicap and it is something to which people give little thought. Many times a child in school is backward, perhaps depressed, and is often spoken of as indifferent or as being, in more direct terms, "dumb", Quite often that is due entirely to the fact that the child's hearing is impaired. That is borne out by a national health survey made in 1935 and 1936, which showed that there were in Canada 155,000 adults who were hard of hearing. The survey showed also that two per cent of the children of school age had defective hearing. As a result there has been incorporated in Canada the national society for the hard of hearing and for the deaf. It has a splendid membership across the dominion. The purpose of the society is to assist people who are hard of hearing or deaf, by way of welfare work and particularly by placing them in positions so that they may be able to maintain themselves.
At the last session, in referring to certain people, I used a word which I know some distributors and manufacturers take exception to-the word "racket." The fact is however that there are people who are making immense sums of money out of the afflicted. The hearing device is beyond the reach of so many people who are hard of hearing. In the first place, these people are not able to earn a normal standard of living and they are deprived of the benefits of this device because it sells from S150 to $200, though the instrument is a very simple one and the material in it represents just about one-eighth of the cost of this hearing aid.	.
I asked the Minister of Finance during my remarks last year if he would not appeal to the wartime prices and trade board and ask what was a reasonable price at which this instrument should be sold, and the minister kindly did so. I think he was disappointed in the reply, as I was, because the board seemed to assume that it had no concern about hearing devices except as the price applied to the base period of September to October, 1941. The minister must have thought that he was right or he would not have asked his question of the board, but the board replied that they had called in half a dozen distributors from the Montreal district and had been informed that the prices at which these distributors were selling the instrument were the prices that prevailed in the basic period of 1941. Suppose that by some combination of circumstances or war conditions just before that basic period the distributors had jumped the price $100, the reply of the wartime prices and trade board

The Address-Mr. Esling
would have justified the asking today of $300 or $250 instead of current prices. What I particularly asked last year was that the wartime prices and trade board refer this matter to the national research council and to have . the national research council determine a fair and reasonable price at which the people of Canada could be supplied with this device. Apparently nobody seemed to be responsible. As I say, the wartime prices and trade board was not concerned. The Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) said that his department was having an expert body look into the matter, but in so far as it went beyond the department he did not think he had any authority to deal with it. Well, it does seem to me that the minister, as minister of health, should take particular steps to see that the Department of Pensions and National Health does take up this matter and does see that the national research council determine a reasonable price.
There are other complications that arise, because the picture has changed entirely since the last session, and the change indicates exactly what the national research council could have done. One of the largest radio manufacturers in the United States has placed a cheaper instrument upon the market. It sells at $40 in the United States as against $150 and $200 in this country. The Department of Pensions has accepted that instrument. It is being dealt with through the orthopaedic branch. It has secured the approval of the American medical society; it has secured the approval of our own national research council. What should be kept in mind is this: that United States concern has practically broken the combination which sells the hearing device on the Canadian market at a price of $150 to ' $200; and it is for that reason we may expect chaos in the distribution or in the marketing of cheaper grades of instruments to the deaf and hard of hearing people. There are other difficulties. There are high pressure salesmen who are able to convince a buyer that he should have this instrument or that. After he has paid his money, however, he finds that it does not answer the purpose. My suggestion to the government is that they have the national research council go into this matter and establish a specific code for the standardization of material and construction; for achievement and performance; for the permit and for the nature of advertising, and arrive at a graded cost of such instruments in accordance with the cost of the material, the cost of construction, distribution and research that should apply. I know that the government does not want to go into this business,
but it should go into the business of protecting the general public against these high pressure salesmen; it should go into the business of seeing that no instruments are sold in Canada unless they pass the approval of the national research council.
I make an appeal to the Minister of Finance. I ask him to have a thought for these people who with great difficulty have saved sufficient money to purchase one of these instruments. It is true that there is no customs duty on them, but there is a war exchange tax of ten per cent and a sales tax of eight per cent. There is also an upkeep cost of about $25 a year. I ask the minister if he will not, in thinking this matter over, endeavour to have these three items deducted from a person's income tax, just as is a reasonable portion of one's doctors' and hospital bills.
The other day the Prime Minister spoke about the various committees and the work which was ahead of them. Every member of this house knows that the members of these committees were worked to the limit at the last session. They were worked to the extent that they had to sit between sessions. May I offer the suggestion that some of this work be turned over to the members of the red chamber. Senators are capable men. They are able to deal with this committee work perhaps as well as the members of the House of Commons. Any committee appointed in the red chamber has a majority of government members; therefore there is no danger of a report being presented contrary to the wishes of the government. If you go through the "Parliamentary Guide" you will find that of the eighty-one members of the red chamber one-third of them have been either members of a government occupying ministerial positions or leaders of parties in their respective provinces. Surely we all know that when they were called to the red chamber, due thought was given to their responsibility and to their qualifications for carrying out the duties of their office, and it is merely with a view to hurrying the session and placing a lot of the work where it could be well done that I offer this suggestion. There is another reason, and it is this: for practically one-quarter of the time of the last session the Senate was without anything to do.


Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I have undertaken a task that is beyond my ability because I am going to venture into the professional realm this afternoon. I am not professionally minded by any means, nor have I had any training whatsoever along that line. I pride
The Address-Mr. Leader

myself on being a practical man though, and I believe even in the professions-and the medical profession especially-one can be practical.
The speech from the throne declares that provision should be made to expand research activities, and that will be the basis of my remarks this afternoon. I am going to speak on only one phase of it, and that is the phase of cancer research. Coupled with that I wish to give the story of Doctor J. R. Davidson, 232 Somerset block, Winnipeg, and some of the results of his investigations of over thirty years in searching for a cure, or as he puts it, a preventive and a possible cure for cancer.
This matter was introduced in this chamber last year by two hon. members. It is true I suggested that these hon. members might mention the case of Doctor J. R. Davidson, because they had both known him well, and at least one hon. gentleman had been associated with him for thirty or thirty-five years. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) was the first to bring the matter before the house. He was kind enough to mention my name and to say that I certainly appeared to be improved in health as compared with previous years. Following that mention of my name I received literally hundreds of letters from all over Canada. I did not know that the newspapers had got hold of it, but evidently some of the newspapers in the east did, because I received some of the most pathetic letters I have ever read. One woman wrote to ask me what she would have to do in order to bring her husband, who was afflicted with cancer, to Winnipeg to undergo the treatment prescribed by Doctor Davidson. I asked Doctor Davidson if I should tell her to bring her husband to Winnipeg for treatment, but he replied, "Harry, don't; I have far more than I can attend to now." Two months later I received a letter in which this lady told me that her husband had passed on.
I mention that instance to indicate the ravages of this, the world's greatest scourge. The other hon. member who mentioned this subject was the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden). He is a medical man, and I was particularly anxious that he, with his knowledge of the situation, should bring up this matter in parliament. It was not that I wanted to shirk my responsibility, but I told him that in a few days I was going home to continue my treatments with Doctor Davidson, and that in my opinion he could deal with the matter much better than any hon. member, because he had the advantage of having known Doctor Davidson for so long.


Mr. MacNICOL:: And he is sincere.


Harry Leader: There is no question about that; he is one hundred per cent sincere.
I do not intend to tell the story of Doctor Davidson's work or to outline his treatment, though we have discussed it many times. I am a patient of his, and from my place in this house I say that he has done me a lot of good. I am not going to say that he has cured me, because I have had cancer for twelve years. I am sure he would be the last man in the world to say he could cure me; but he did say, "I think I can help you," and that is just what he has done. I should like, however, to recall the gist of what was said by the hon. member for St. Boniface, who, as I have said, has been associated with Doctor Davidson for thirty-five years. He pointed out that medical associations, even as far away as Rochester, have been kept informed of Doctor Davidson's work, and he told us that Doctor Davidson has carried on his work on his own premises and at his own expense. Finally he paid tribute to Doctor Davidson as a doctor and as a good citizen.
Hon. members who are interested, as I am sure all hon. members are, may find the story of Doctor Davidson's professional investigations in Hansard for Wednesday, July 14, 1943, in the speeches of the two hon. members I have mentioned. I should like, however, to quote from the discussion that took place at that time, in order to show the interest that was taken in what these hon. members had to say. The hon. member for Fort William asked, as reported at page 4800 of Hansard for last session:
Will anything be done in regard to this matter? I do not wish to press the minister too hard, but the people who have been cured are most anxious that all the scientific research which has been carried on by Doctor Davidson shall not be lost.
The minister, who has been entirely sympathetic to every effort to have the work of Doctor Davidson investigated, replied:
There is 'a committee functioning now in conjunction with the national research council which investigates cases of this kind, and I am sure it is important that this be done in connection with this matter. Certainly I shall bring this discussion to the attention of that committee.
If the records are consulted it will be found that within a very few days the minister did bring the matter to the attention of this committee, which is a branch of the research council. Then the leader of the Progressive Conservative party (Mr. Graydon) had a word1 to say which showed his kindly interest:
Has this work by Doctor Davidson been under consideration by the national research council?

The Address-Mr. Leader
To this question the minister replied: "Not to my knowledge." Then the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Marshall), continuing the debate, said:
I think we were all very glad to hear the statement made by the hon. member for St. Boniface; the members of the medical profession can make valuable contributions to the debates of this house.
This leads me to remark that we can all make valuable contributions to the debates of this house, but it will take more than debate to settle many of the difficulties which confront Canada, and particularly the matter with which I am dealing to-day.
Dyson Carter, a scientist, had an article in Saturday Night of October 23 in which he quotes the authoritative Journal of the American Medical Association as saying editorially:
The only hope of solving fundamental problems of cancer lies in research.
Then in the draft national health bill the first explanatory note reads:
To place within the grasp of the people of Canada the benefits of a comprehensive scheme of health insurance, designed and organized for * the prevention and cure of disease and the conservation of health.
In the proposed bill the statement is made that deaths from cancer number 12,000 annually, but I believe that in 1942 that number had increased to 14,000, and since cancer is on the increase it is only reasonable to suppose that in this year upon which we have just entered the number will be even greater, perhaps 16.000. Dyson Carter concludes his article, which is based on Doctor Davidson's work and the speeches made in this house last session, by saying:
One savage fact to strike home the truth: so rapidly is cancer increasing that to-day, on our continent, twenty-four veterans of the great war are entering hospital with this disease every twenty-four hours.
As a rule, Mr. Speaker, it is not nice to deal with one's personal affairs in a public way. Sometimes the less said about one's own personal affairs, the better it is for everybody, but it is necessary for my purpose to bring my own particular case to the attention of the house. I told you a few moments ago that I have suffered from cancer for many years. Of course I did not know this at the start. I finally went to Rochester and my trouble was diagnosed as cancer. This was arrived at not by a physical examination but by the exploration of my abdomen. They told me-I shall deal more fully with this in a few moments-that nothing could be done for me, but if I would be good I might live a long while. Then comes a joke which perhaps should never be told in parliament.
However, it is so good that I want to tell it to-day. They told me not to do any hard work or to have any mental worry and I immediately said, "Will I be able to attend to mv duties at Ottawa?" and a doctor said, "Oh, yes."
I was persuaded to go and see Doctor Davidson. I found him a very modest man, reluctant to speak of his achievements. He would not claim that he could cure cancer, but he was enthusiastic in his belief that cancer could be prevented by the proper diet. He said that all of his experiments led to that conclusion. May I repeat in this house that Doctor Davidson has helped me. If I am allowed I should like to tell you how simple and easy it has been to effect a better condition of life. For ten years I had been constipated and in constant danger of bowel stoppage. He said, "The first thing we must do for you, Mr. Leader, is to get nature functioning properly; we will prescribe a certain diet for you and see if we can get you back to normal." I followed that diet religiously. It consisted of vitamin pills, wheat germ on my porridge and radio-malt twice a day. I am able to eat anything that agrees with me. I have followed this diet religiously and for nearly a year after starting Doctor Davidson's treatment I have not had a laxative. He has helped me to regain my health. As Doctor Davidson says, it is all so simple that most people will not believe ' it. However, many people are now following his advice.
I started this dietary treatment and then commenced with his cure. It must be remembered that he did not say he could cure me; he never told me he could cure cancer, but he feels he is on the right track and I believe that he is. He has a preparation which he has developed-I will call it a serum but that may not be the proper term-which the hon. member for St. Boniface referred to last year. I could go into this at greater detail to-day but I have not the time. I started to take his treatments and they have done me a lot of good.
I was taking these three times a week, and one day when I was in Winnipeg I went to the office of Doctor J. R. Davidson and his secretary told me that he was sick in the hospital with a heart attack.
I had1 feared that something like this would happen, because he had been working entirely too hard with the very limited staff which he had at that time. I asked at which hospital and then I went out to see him and found he was feeling a little better. But he had suffered a heart attack even though he was able to come back to his office in a few
The Address-Mr. Leader

days. Then I realized that it was time for me to move. At that time it was perhaps three or four months since the matter had been, mentioned in the House of Commons and still no action had been taken. I wanted to keep in the background until I was able to rise in my place before you and offer myself as a living example of this man's work. I wanted to be sure; I did not want to try to put anything over. However, I thought it was time for me to get busy. I called up my friend, the hon. member for St. Boniface, and asked him whom I should approach in the medical profession in Winnipeg in order to direct attention to the condition of Doctor J. R. Davidson. He told me to call up Doctor Cadham, the pathologist in the Manitoba medical college. I talked to him over the telephone. He said he knew Doctor Davidson and had great respect for him. I asked if he knew he was in the hospital and he said that he did not, that he was sorry to hear that. I told him that there was a danger of this man passing, and that with his passing would perish the secret of his years of investigation. He then told me that I would find Doctor Davidson a very difficult man to deal with, that he had worked with him during the first years of his experiments but that he always played a lone game, that he would not play ball with the rest of the profession. He told me that they had investigated his early work but that there , was nothing there. I told him that I had been to Rochester; I explained my experience there, and I offered to go to Doctor Cadham that afternoon to have a physical examination. I received no encouragement. I told him that if the medical association of Winnipeg would appoint a committee I would come down any day since I was in Winnipeg three times a week. I did not receive any invitation. When I suggested that the research council should take this up he did say that that was the proper body to deal with the matter.
Right here I might just as well say that the research council has a representative in Winnipeg. You may wonder why I mention names, but I do so because I believe in telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Doctor Thorlakson is the representative in Winnipeg of the research council, and I have been told that he is absolutely opposed to any investigation being made into the work of Doctor J. R. Davidson. He represents a body that is going to investigate, or should at the present time be investigating the work of Doctor Davidson. I then wrote to the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), and I should like to read

this letter because it outlines in a concise manner the situation as it existed at that time. The letter reads:
Dear Mr. Mackenzie:
I am again drawing to your attention the case of Doctor J. R, Davidson of Winnipeg, Manitoba. You will remember the reference to the doctor's work when the matter was mentioned in the house last session by Daniel Mclvor, M.P., and Doctor Howden, M.P. I also mentioned the matter to you during the recent national Liberal convention in Ottawa.
Apparently nothing is being done to check officially, the work of Doctor Davidson in his search for prevention and a possible cure for cancer notwithstanding the publicity given in several magazines and first-class newspapers.
As a patient of Doctor Davidson and as a public man, I can assure you that I am deeply interested in Doctor Davidson's cancer experiments, and believe that he has long passed the experimental stage and that his work should be given the proper official recognition. Therefore I would respectfully ask you. the responsible minister in such cases, what procedure I should follow that would hasten an official investigation.
Within the last month Doctor Davidson was sent to the hospital with a heart attack. He is again attending his patients, but the danger of collapse is ever present. Can we afford to sit idly by and see this Canadian doctor's work in cancer research perish with his passing?
Will you please designate the procedure that I should follow in getting some immediate definite action in this supremely important matter.
The minister answered promptly. I am not going to quote his letter. In fact, I wrote him again soon after that, and again the minister answered promptly. But I wish to quote a paragraph from his letter just to confirm the argument which I made a moment ago in regard to the attitude of some of the medical men at. Winnipeg and some of those who are higher up. This paragraph says:
Two items of information have come to the department recently by way of gossip:-(1) that the medical men in Winnipeg, many of whom were quite outspoken in regard to the hopefulness of something genuinely good coming out of Doctor Davidson's studies, have in recent months apparently been less hopeful. The second point is that we have been informed, that the Doctor, who is 73 years of age, has suffered a stroke or some other serious disability.
I perhaps was responsible for the latter rumour.


John Horne Blackmore: Would the hon. member say from which letter he is quoting?


Harry Leader: I have just quoted a paragraph from the minister's reply to me. I have other replies from the minister here which I shall not quote. I have another letter here from which I should like to quote a paragraph, but I dare not.


John Horne Blackmore: Go ahead.

The Address-Mr. Leader


Harry Leader: No, not that it is very serious at all, but it just makes me a little dubious of the outcome of the investigation which is now taking place in Winnipeg.
I learned in correspondence with the minister that the research council had never received any request from Doctor J. R. Davidson for any aid in his experiments. When I heard that. I got busy and advised Doctor Davidson that that was what he would have to do. The research council went on to say that they were prepared to deal with the matter in a judicial manner after a request had been received. I told Doctor Davidson that he would have to have his findings put in concrete form, substantiated and certified by medical men who had dealt with his particular cases. He told me that he had done that just the night before. "I sent it away last night," he said. Then I found out that others were working besides myself, many others, in fact, but the man I speak of in particular lives in Regina, and he says that his wife was cured by Doctor Davidson. This man had found out that an application for aid was necessary; I think he supplied the information to Doctor Davidson, and the request for aid from the research council was sent down, I believe, on December 14. Acknowledgment was made on January 5. A questionnaire was sent at that time to Doctor Davidson by Doctor Ettinger, of Kingston, secretary of the research council, I understand, asking the doctor to fill out the questionnaire so that the council would have a basis on which to make an investigation. That questionnaire was sent back January 25. I have here the questionnaire, filled out by Doctor Davidson himself, which I shall not read.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If the hon. member will permit me, I called to see Doctor Davidson twice with reference to someone I knew, and he showed me a long list of people whom his serum or treatment had evidently cured. Has the hon. member seen that list?


Harry Leader: Yes, and I have also with me the addresses of some of the patients. I will give them a little later. I have them here.
I want to give the house a little personal experience that I had with Doctor Davidson and his work. Doctor Davidson emphasizes the prevention of cancer rather than its cure. His original theory that a nutritional deficiency in diet causes cancer has been ibundantly proved by his experiments with mice, and the serum treatment he has developed is a direct result of his research work in discovering the cause of cancer. He has told me many times that his
deep concern centred in finding preventive measures to control the incidence of cancer rather than in finding a cure, where a cure so often is impossible. The old adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure applies with terriffic force in matters of public health.
May I now give some concrete examples of Doctor Davidson's work. I have before me cases certified by medical practitioners and by representatives of clinics which have made investigations of cases treated by Doctor Davidson where the cancer had cleared up and the people were now evidently in good health and showed no symptoms of cancer. Let me refer to my own condition.
Here is the report from Doctor Waugh of the Mayo clinic, Rochester. I asked Doctor Waugh if I had his permission to use this letter and I told him about Doctor Davidson in Winnipeg. Doctor Waugh sent a copy of this letter to Doctor Davidson and he closes by saying that if he could render help he would be glad to do so. The doctor found a condition in my abdomen which had been there for many years and which had become so extensive that it was not even wise to try to find the primary site. He said my case was hopeless.	.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Your case?


Harry Leader: Yes; he said my case was hopeless. He went on to say that he had thought of doing some short-circuiting because of potential bowel obstruction, of which so many people die, but he said even that was impossible. Doctor Waugh told me when I left Rochester that he has known of cases like my own, carcinoid tumour, where people have lived for twelve or fifteen years after the condition was surveyed. If you will recall, sir, what I told you about this vitamin diet which the doctor prescribed for me, and remember what he did to take care of that potential obstruction, you will realize what Dr. Davidson has done for me and is doing for hundreds of people in Manitoba at the present time. It is no exaggeration to say that Dr. Davidson's fame is becoming known all over the world. He is getting letters from Australia. The other day I read a letter in his office inviting him to California, telling him that there are a number of institutions in that state which would be glad to have him continue his experience in those institutions. I said "Doctor, you would not want to leave Canada?"- remember he is seventy-four years old-and he replied, "No; this is my home, I want to stay here." But this goes to show that unless some effective action is taken immediately, either this man will leave Canada and go to
The Address-Mr. Leader

another country, or, on account of his age, pass on and we shall lose the value of his experiments.
I should like to say something about the case of Mrs. J. N. de Stein, of Regina. An abdominal operation on November 22, 1941, was performed by Doctor J. A. Brown. At that time an extensive cancer condition was found. The pathological report confirmed the diagnosis as cancer. The patient also received radiation treatment, but no hope was held for her recovery. Since November, 1942, the patient has been under the care of Doctor J. R. Davidson. On examination by Doctor John H. Gunn on December 15, 1942, she was found to be in excellent health. Mr. de Stein is using all the persuasive powers at his command to see if something cannot be done in the way of investigation. A statement was published in the papers in which he said that owing to Doctor Davidson his wife was completely cured of cancer and has been living at her home, happy, and in good health. This is the tj'pe of record with which the research council will have to deal.
I come now to the case of Irwin Cowan, 202 Brooklyn street, Winnipeg. I give addresses in case some hon. members may wish to write to these people and get'their own personal story. This boy was admitted to St. Boniface hospital on July 24, 1936, under the care of Doctor Edwin Corrigan. He had a mass of glands removed from the neck, but no pathological report was made at that time. He returned to hospital, in January, 1937, and had more glands removed. A pathological report determined the case as cancer. The patient returned again in December, 1938, and another gland was removed. Since that time he has been under the care of Doctor J. R. Davidson. An X-ray examination on December 2, 1943, conducted by Dr. Wheeler, revealed the boy as absolutely free from cancer. This boy was a patient of Doctor Davidson and is still under his supervision.
Here is another case, that of S. S. Coulter, 212 Maryland street, Winnipeg. This man was referred to the Abbott clinic on October 26, 1939, by Doctor J. R. Davidson. In 1937 the man had an operation for cancer of the lower lip. Another operation was performed in October, 1939, and a third operation on May 22, 1940, when more portions of the cancer were removed. On May 29 the patient was sent home. On December 3, 1943, he returned for examination. There is no evidence of any recurrence either in the lips or in the glands of the neck. The patient is enjoying the best of health and is apparently free from
IMr. Leader.]
cancer. He has been under Doctor Davidson's care for some years and is still under his supervision.
Here is the case of Mrs. A. MacDougall, of Pembina, North Dakota. She had a tumour removed in 1933. It returned in 1938, and she was again operated on, on October 23, 1939. The pathological report pronounced cancer of the breast. This patient has been undergoing treatment by Doctor Davidson, and an examination by Doctor Wheeler found her free from cancer and in excellent health. I met this woman in Doctor Davidson's office one day, and she told me that she was in perfect health, but that when she came to Winnipeg she always wanted to look up the doctor who had made her well.
Another case is that of Mrs. J. Catton, of 1308 Portage avenue, Winnipeg. She was sent to hospital for operation re cancer in brea,st. The pathological report was "cancer," and the cancer was removed! in July, 1942. Examination in November showed no sign of recurrence and the patient appeared in good health. This is a report by Doctor Neil H. Blakie.
One of my hon. friends advises me I have only two minutes left, and I shall conclude in a moment. I do not wish to take advantage of the good nature of the house.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Go ahead and finish.
Mr. LEADER I thank hon. members very much for the attention they have given me. It shows deep interest in this subject.


John Horne Blackmore: Go on and finish.


Harry Leader: Remember that there are thousands upon thousands of people in Canada who are just as concerned about the treatment and cure of cancer as is any hon. member.
What I have had to say is for the purpose of getting definite action and no side-stepping, and let the chips fall where they may. If, after a thorough investigation by a competent tribunal, it is determined that Doctor Davidson has discovered nothing of value, the people should know. We want no false hopes: that is the danger: if there is nothing to Doctor Davidson's experiments, false hopes are being built up in the breasts of many people, and the reaction will be very serious. If, on the other hand, a great discovery has been made, the world! should share in its blessing. This is the whole purpose of my remarks.


Mr. McIVOR:: Will the hon. member for
Portage la Prairie say what is the attitude of the Kiwanis service club toward an investigation and towards support of the work of Doctor Davidson?

.	The Address-Mr. Maclnnis


Harry Leader: Tlie answer to my hon. friend, and it is something I should1 not have overlooked, is that the Kiwanis club of Winnipeg have set aside a sum of money to help Doctor Davidson in his work over a period of six months. I believe the amount donated was $2,500.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Are the governments
not doing anything?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: What is the attitude of
the government with regard to Doctor Davidson?


Harry Leader: The attitude of the government, as far as I can understand, is that this is a proper function of the research council; that they have within the research council a medical council whose duties are to go into these matters. But I am fearful, and I am basing my concern on remarks which I have made this afternoon, that that investigation will not be final. I take this opportunity to ask the government-and I think it is their duty-to undertake a thorough investigation of their own and give the matter all the support which any government can extend to one of the most worthy of causes.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I am sure that all hon. members were glad to hear the opening remarks in the speech from the throne, that war conditions had improved. I was glad to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the leaders of other groups, and also the member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair), when he spoke to-day, warn the house that while the situation has improved, the war is not ended. Indeed, far from its being won, there is much fighting and much suffering and there will be many casualties before peace comes.
Like other members of this group who have already spoken in this debate, I welcome the modest programme of social betterment mentioned' in the speech. I wish it were as comprehensive and as important as friends to my right fear it is. Possibly they are thinking of it in terms of vote-catching while I am thinking of it in terms of social improvement, which makes all the difference in the world. Some objections have been made in various places to this modest programme of social reform, to the effect that it would detract from the country's war effort. Personally I do not agree with that. In my opinion, not only will it not detract from our war effort but it will do much to improve it.
Defeating Hitler is not the only objective in this war. While that is very important we must also have as an objective the elimination of those conditions that create Hitlers. If we 109-15
do not remove the cause, other Hitlers will arise. I do not believe that there can be a better time than the present, when the minds of our people are attuned to change, for making social improvements that are long overdue.
I was astonished that there was nothing in the speech from the throne in regard to labour. If it were not realized before, I think it is realized now that industrial relations in this war constitute one of the spots in our whole war effort where we have fallen down. In previous sessions, since the war began I have done my humble best to try to get this government to realize the direction in which we have been moving. No heed was taken of the dangers I was trying to point out. The result is that never has discontent been so rampant as it is at the present time.
Just before coming to Ottawa, along with other members of parliament from the greater Vancouver district, I attended a meeting of the Vancouver, New Westminster and district trades and labour council, affiliated to the American Federation of Labor. In the language of the street, we heard an earful from the three hundred delegates present who represented some 22,000 workers. Since that time I have received resolutions from labour organizations all across Canada denouncing the government's latest wage control order. To put on record what I believe to be the universal attitude of organized labour, I cannot do better than read a resolution passed by the Trades and Labour Council of my own city:
Whereas the new wage control order, P.C. 9384, announced by the government on December 10 following a broadcast on the subject by the Prime Minister, reflects the further intensification of an anti-labour attitude in official government circles that has long stood in the way of implementation of a constructive labour policy in Canada;
And, whereas we are alarmed at the increasing influence over government of big financial interests and large industrialists so clearly demonstrated by many of the orders in council adversely affecting the workers of Canada;
And. whereas said wage control order is in opposition to all the basic principles of the trade union movement and against the recognized principles of freedom and justice;
And, whereas there is a growing tendency of ruling the country by order in council instead of by acts of parliament:
Therefore be it resolved that we urge upon our elected representatives in the dominion parliament the immediate need of them performing the duties for which they were elected and to insist on the reestablishment of the rights of parliament.
Be it further resolved that we most emphatically protest the refusal of the government to heed the expressed wish of labour for a more constructive policy.
And be it further resolved that we hereby demand the immediate withdrawal of the new wartime wage control order, 1943. P.C. 9384, and we hereby authorize President Bengough to

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis

make any representations on our behalf, and promise to support him in any action he may recommend us to follow.
That, I believe, is a fair expression of the feeling of organized labour throughout Canada, and I think members of parliament who sit here year in and year out and see these things being done without a word of protest have something to account for to the labour people in the constituencies which those members represent. I believe that members of parliament are beginning to realize this.
I have in my hand this morning's Globe and Mail in which is reported a meeting held yesterday at Hamilton. I am not going to read all that is here reported. I will give two paragraphs that indicate that organized labour is at last receiving some support from their representatives. This report states:
A surprise feature of the rally was the admission by two local Liberal M.P.'s . . .
I will not give their names.
. . . that the members of parliament have not been consulted on such matters.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The paper does give their names.


Angus MacInnis: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member for Hamilton East and the hon. member for Wentworth.


Angus MacInnis: . . . that the members of parliament have not been consulted on such matters.
It goes on to quote what these men said, and it is as follows:
The government is run by a bureaucracy ; the members are nothing, and I fr.ankly admit it. If the order had gone through the house it would have been better prepared.
Then the other hon. member spoke along somewhat similar lines. He had a good word to say for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). If it. was not a good word it was at least not a bad word. He said:
The Minister of Labour is not as bad as you think he is, but his hands are tied by these men who supposedly guide the destinies of this country.
I have tried to help the Minister of Labour. I am afraid, however, that he thought when I was trying to help him that I was really criticizing him. I wish to say that I was not. I tried to help him privately by advice, but it appears that my advice was not taken. I am not as much surprised as are those members of parliament, or as the representatives of labour at this new order. It is a legitimate successor to all the wage control orders that preceded it, P.C. 7440 of December, 1940, 8253 of October, 1941, and 5963 of July, 1942.

Each of these orders took a little bit away from labour and the government got away with it. The government seeing that labour stood for it took a little bit more next time. I have not the time, and it is really not necessary to analyse this new order in detail. Its various' points have been touched on by other hon. membfc, by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) and by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) as well as by other members.
This group has been advocating adequate labour representation on war boards. When the national war labour board was first organized under P.C. 8253, it had nine members-a chairman, four members representing employers and four members representing employees. A year ago that was changed and we had a board made up of three-a chairman, one member representing employers and one member representing the workers. Under the new order the board is composed of six members-a chairman, a vice-chairman, two members representing the public, one member representing the employers and one member representing the workers. Organized labour believes, and I agree, that under this new set-up they have one representative out of six. It may be said that the chairman, the vice-chairman, and the two members representing the public may be taken as representing labour as well as the employers, but from my experience I would say that any person the present government appoints to a board of this kind, if he is not appointed with the approval of organized labour, will have the employer's point of view. I submit that is not the way to give labour equal representation on war boards.
The order is bad in many ways. The machinery for appeals is inadequate. Regional boards have really no power at all in the present set-up. They are merely agents or the puppets of the national war labour board. The regional boards -must submit every decision and every finding made to the national board; the national war labour board of itself, without these findings being submitted to it at all, is authorized to review and vary ih any way it sees fit the findings of a regional board, and the decisions of the national board become the decision in that particular case.
The hon. member for Vancouver North pointed out for the first time in this house the worst section of this order, namely section 14, which outlines the purposes of the order. I shall read it:
14. It is the purpose of this order
(a) to provide for the establishment of wage rates incorporating therein cost of living bonuses, payable in respect of the rise in the cost of living.

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
I submit that is not correct. The order does not provide for the establishment of wage rates. They have frozen the present wage rates and incorporated in those wage rates the cost of living bonus. Therefore the first paragraph gives an altogether wrong impression of the purposes of the board.
(b)	to stabilize the wage structure in Canada established in this manner in order to maintain stability in prices and prevent increases in the general cost of living; and
(c)	to provide machinery for an orderly rectification of any gross inequalities and injustices in wage rates so established, in so far as this is possible consistently with the paramount principle of the maintenance of stability in prices, and this_ order shall be administered and enforced to give effect to these purposes.
As was pointed out this afternoon, it can be clearly seen that the national war labour board or the regional boards have authority only to deal with cases where gross inequalities and injustices are apparent, but if in the opinion of the board the removal of those gross inequalities and injustices should interfere with the maintenance of the price structure they are to leave them there, they are to freeze inequalities and injustices. It is no wonder that organized labour resents a policy of that kind.
I should like to make this quite clear. As I have said in this house on many occasions, I am not opposed to wage control and price stabilization. I am convinced they are absolutely essential at the present time. I will go farther than that and say that this government is to be commended for its achievements in that regard; but I submit it is not fair and it is not just to put the burden of price stabilization on the shoulders of those least able to bear it-the underpaid workers. That is what this order in council does.
I should like to read a short paragraph from the majority report of the national war labour board in regard to the matter to which I have just referred. The report states that a wage of fifty cents an hour, $24 a week, could not provide a decent or a healthy standard of living for the heads of families. I agree. But this order in council freezes wages not at fifty cents an hour but at thirty-five cents an hour. I should like to point out that it has long been an axiom of the capitalists that in the carrying on of their business they should not have to draw on capital assets. This applies equally to workers. The capital of the worker is his health and energy; and if he is compelled to live, as he will be compelled to live under this order in council, on a wage rate which does not give him a standard of living sufficient to maintain his health and strength, then he is using up the only assets he has.
100-15J
This is the view of the national war labour board, and I suggest to hon. members that they read the majority and minority reports of that board, for they make good reading.
I derived a great deal of comfort from reading the majority report, because it bears out almost every contention in regard to labour that I have raised in this house since 1940. At page 17 the report says:
Even in a war economy a policy which consigns human beings to economic serfdom when a large portion of the community escapes it is incompatible with the ideal6 on behalf of which we are waging war.
I agree with the national war labour board, and I believe the government must agree also. If they do agree, then they will have to dp something about it; at least they will have to leave persons working for a wage of less than fifty cents an hour free to negotiate for increases in wages without being tied down by the condition mentioned in this order, of maintaining prices.
I would and could and do take exception to various other sections of the order in council under review. There is the provision forbidding strikes and providing penalties for striking. Personally I do not believe in the strike-as a weapon. Sometimes, however, the workers have no other recourse, but I believe that it is a rather unintelligent weapon and that it should be used only under the greatest provocation. But a time comes when workers' reach the stage where it makes no difference to them whether they remain at work or go on strike. When that time comes they will strike, I do not care how many laws are on the statute books saying they shall not; and there is nothing you can do about it. It would be just as effective to pass a law saying mules must not balk as to pass a law against strikes, because when the burden becomes intolerable both men and mules will balk.
The order is totalitarian in its conception and, as I pointed out in regard to strikes, it is foolish and cannot be enforced. The sections that place the onus of proof in connection with violations of the order upon employers or employees in my opinion is wrong; I believe it is something new in British jurisprudence, and we should not tolerate it at this time. I believe we should more and more compare our actions with the ideals for which, we are fighting; find if we do so we shall find that this practice of placing the onus of proof upon the accused and many of our other practices are altogether out of harmony with our contention that in this war we are fighting for freedom. There is also the provision in the order which gives the national board the right to change agreements, to reduce wages, to change hourly rates to piece work rates,
22S
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis

and so on. This takes away the whole function of organized labour to negotiate wage agreements.
In concluding what I have to say on this matter, I suggest to the government that as an indication of its good intentions toward labour it refrain from putting this order into effect [DOT]on the date mentioned, which I believe is February 15. Further I would suggest to the government and in particular to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) that the whole question of the stabilization of wages and industrial relations be referred to the standing committee on industrial and international relations. Let that committee, composed of members of this house, hear what representatives of labour and of employers have to say. There is no reason why that could not be done. Officials of the government could appear before the committee, if they wished, and in the presence of representatives of labour outline the difficulties they have to meet. I am sure that if we had a full discussion of these questions some satisfactory means of dealing with them would be found. I also associate myself with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) and with the leader of this group that this committee should be divided, that there is sufficient material under those two headings for two committees. I see no reason why a person who is conversant with labour matters would of necessity be conversant with international .affairs or vice versa.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
, The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was referring to the government's labour policies and their inadequacy in the situation in which we now find ourselves. When one looks back on our labour policy and our labour difficulties since the war began; when one realizes the resistance of employers to collective bargaining, the failure of the government to give labour representation on war boards, the resistance, I believe, of both employers and the government to the inauguration of labour-management production boards, one really feels that we are not progressing very fast. I should like to quote once more from the report of the national war labour board inquiry. I quote from the majority award because it is signed by the chairman and the representative of the employers, although I believe the minority report is just as worthy of consideration. The majority report has this to say:
(Mr. Maclnnis.]
To any one with an eye to see and an ear to hear, it must be clear that labour, more particularly organized labour, is suffering from a sense of frustration as far as the war effort is concerned. It wants to take a responsible part in production, the planning of production and the revising of planning when the same becomes necessary.
We expect the cooperation of labour and we do nothing to give labour an opportunity to show that it can cooperate. The failure of the government's labour policy, the failure of the government to understand labour's place in modern production and indeed the government's hostility to organized labour are aptly demonstrated by two orders in council. One of these, recognizing collective bargaining in crown companies, was passed in 1942, in the third year of the war. The other was tabled a few days ago by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Martin). This order in council sets up an industrial production cooperation board. In the fifth year of the war we have come to the stage where we recognize, at least on paper, the value of labour's cooperation in industry.
I should like to say something about the proposal in the speech from the throne to pay family allowances. There is not much I can say because I do not know exactly what is implied in the reference in the speech. It is extremely vague and we cannot offer an opinion in regard to the particular legislation until we know what it is going to be. But I should like to know if this is part of the government's social security legislation, or is it proposed as a substitute for low wages? From -the way it has come up it appears to me that it is a substitute for low wages. In the majority report of the national war labour board two alternatives are set out. Labour must be permitted to bargain up to a certain wage or provision must be made for paying family allowances. If it is the purpose of these family allowances to supplement low wages I am opposed to family allowances.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think I can put my hon. friend right; that is not the purpose.


Angus MacInnis: I am glad to hear that.
That being the case, there is no reason why I should say anything more on the subject at this time. Real family allowances will be supported by the group with which I am associated.
I should like to make a brief reference to a matter which was referred to on Thursday last by several speakers. I refer to the question of refugees and immigration. I think it is disgraceful that such statements should be made in this house. I can understand people who are opposed to Canada's participation in
FEBRUARY 7, 1944	jY '
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
the war -making such statements, but I cannot understand people who favour participation in the war rising in their places and saying that we are not going to allow any refugees into this country unless they are examined, not by one doctor or by one board but by a series of boards and doctors. That is not understandable to me. However, I am glad to say that there is another view in this house. I am happy to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck). I should like to read his closing reference to this matter in his speech, and I commend it to those who would put immigrants and refugees in the same position. The one has no relation to the other. The hon, member for Trinity said:
But aside from the immigration problem. I do believe that Canada should, and I hope will, extend a hand, along with other Christian nations of the world, with a view to saving as many as possible from the fury of the nazi butchers.
That is the kind of attitude that will make this country a nation. We cannot build a wall around ourselves and say that we are going to enjoy all the good things of life; tha-t other people must stay outside. We cannot say to people, "No matter how you are persecuted, no matter how cruel your rulers may be, we will not help you un-til we look after every last man, woman and child in the country." That is not the way to help the refugees meet their problems. That is selfishness of the very narrowest kind.
In the few minutes I have at my disposal I should like to make some comments on the statements made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) when he spoke. I am glad to see he is just taking his seat.


Gordon Graydon: I have been here all the time.


Angus MacInnis: He said that the Progressive Conservative party was the spea-rhead in the fight against socialism. All I can say to that is that both the spear and the head were conspicuous by their absence in the place where socialism could have been most effectively fought, that is in the by-elections which took place in August last. If that is an indication of the effectiveness of the spearhead, then we feel quite easy about it. He goes on to refer to the policies of his party:
Our party stands for a programme of rational reform, as opposed to a policy, on the one band, of rigid reaction, and a policy, on the ither hand, of reckless revolution. Our party stands pledged to remove the abuses and reform the present system.
I ask hon. members to take note of these words:
We will go right up to the precipice on the pathway of rational reform with the C.C.F.
or any other party, but at the edge of the precipice we must part company with those who would lose their balance and plunge headlong over the cliff into the unfathomable depths of chaos and revolution below.
I do not know whether the leader of the opposition gave much thought to the figure of speech he used, but it is unfortunate and most peculiar. This is the first time I have heard of reforms leading us to the precipice; I always thought that reforms took us away from the precipice. Reforms were conceded when- it was realized that if they were not conceded there would be trouble. The use of the word "precipice" in this connection is very revealing because it indicates a fear of reforms by my hon. friend and his party. They associate reform- with danger, and they- are willing to go only a certain distance.


Gordon Graydon: You taught us that lesson.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, and we will teach you a whole lot more if you will listen. My hon. friend also said:
Our party stands for a policy of expanding production as the basis of prosperity.
That is fine! We all agree with that. But the fact remains that capitalism can no longer expand. I wonder if it has escaped the observation of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition that the only two occasions on which capitalism has been able to give full employment within the last forty years have been in periods of war, and unless my hon. friend proposes a policy of permanent war, capitalism can no longer give full employment.


Gordon Graydon: Was there a war in 1919?


Angus MacInnis: No, we had just finished one; in fact we had not quite finished-it. But there was no war in 1930, and no war from 1930 to 1935 and no war from 1935 to 1939. Yet did my hon. friend or his friends use their opportunities to expand production? As a matter of fact we have reached the fantastic position where a war is necessary for capitalism to give full employment.


Mr. JACKMAN:: How about New Zealand?


Angus MacInnis: New Zealand has done very' well. I see my time is up, Mr. Speaker, and I shall conclude with two or three words. Capitalism is not able and has not been able for years to make full use of the potential productive capacity of the nation. This is only now being realized and admitted by the capitalists themselves. Full employment under the present system is -impossible, and so now they insist that private enterprise must have
The Address-Mr. White

.its way, but that the government must meet the problems that private enterprise cannot solve.


Mr. G. S. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Tremblay) and the seconder (Mr. Tucker) of the address. These two members made a notable contribution in the first war and are to-day serving again.
I should also like to offer to the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) my most sincere congratulations - upon the very fine .address that he made to the house this afternoon. He gave to the members an insight of what our fighting boys overseas are thinking about and the kind of Canada they wish to come back to. This young -member is typical of the young Canada of to-day who rare serving in the army, the navy, or the air force and writing the name of Canada high up on the scroll of history. This young member is attached to the air force,, and I think all hon. members will agree that Canada is especially proud of the boys who serve in the air force. Only a short time ago these were the boys who filled our schools and playing fields. Yet to-day they are flying with silver wings [DOT] to blast the enemy wherever he may be found, and in their flights they bring hope and comfort to millions of people, now slaves, that the day of victory and peace is coming nearer. It is to that type of young man who represents young Canada to-day that we who stay at home owe so much, and our first duty must be to see that these young men will be fully reestablished and rehabilitated in the peacetime life of this country.
As was well pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver North this afternoon several times during his speech, our boys who are fighting to-day do not want charity; they do not expect charity. All they want is the opportunity to have a stake in Canada, the ;hance to reestablish themselves in the peacetime economy of this great country. It is quite fitting, therefore, that the speech from the throne should indicate that there is to be a full-time minister charged with the administration of soldiers' affairs.
Another very interesting announcement in the speech from the throne was that at last some further attention is to be paid to mustering-out pay for the men in the armed forces. There have been many debates in this house on the welfare of soldiers returning to civilian life, and members of all parties have indicated their earnest desire that the very best that Canada can do for these young men should be done. Many of the measures

passed by this house and many of the measures described in the press indicate in glowing terms the things we are proposing to do, but unfortunately when we see how some of these things work out, we find they are not so satisfactory. An indication of this was given only a week ago to-morrow when the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) tabled in the house two new orders in council whereby the grave injustice in the matter of pay to soldiers in hospital has been corrected. I for one find it very difficult, to understand why such a condition was allowed to exist until the first day of February, 1944. The minister must have full knowledge of the many sore spots of which the returned boys complain. But it seems as though the government will never act until they are forced to do so by public opinion through the press. One illustration of that is what happened in regard to Christie street hospital. Hon. members will remember the debate which took place in this house last year. It was not until after that debate and the clamour that arose in the press that any change was made in the most unsatisfactory and disgraceful conditions which existed at that hospital. Canada expects that we shall provide well for our returned soldiers, and I am quite sure that the minister found out through the clamour which arose that the general public was not satisfied with the treatment our boys were receiving at Christie street hospital.
I have learned from my experience in talking to discharged soldiers-and there are many from my section of Ontario who have been in action overseas and who have now returned home-that there are many things of which they complain. As I mentioned before, these men do not want charity; they do not expect any benefit that is handed out in a grudging spirit by the pensions department or any other department of government. These men have a first claim upon the country, and they are legally entitled to full compensation for any injury to their-health through either sickness or war wounds. What must any soldier who has served overseas and gone through experiences there far worse than any described in Dante's "Inferno" think when he comes before the pension board and is brushed aside by some hard-hearted official or when he is confronted with a form letter with his name typed on the top and that newly-coined phrase that is now being used on the form letters "pre-enlistment-not aggravated by military service," or when he is told that he has no apparent disability? Our soldiers are entitled to the most sympathetic consideration by the officials of the pensions department. It was

The Address-Mr. White
not lor the kind of treatment that I have described that these young men gave up everything and went overseas to defend freedom. In many cases the long and unreasonable delay in dealing with pension cases is most embarrassing to the soldier. It is quite true that he receives certain benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act, but in many cases these benefits are exhausted before his pension claim is adjusted. It is many, many years since the scale of pensions has been revised in any 'way. Various other benefits, such as pay, clothing, and dependents' allowance, have been increased. Labour has a cost of living bonus; it is enjoying much higher wages than it received before the war. But in the matter of pensions payable to soldiers there have been no changes for years, and I think it is only reasonable and fair to expect that a soldier drawing a full disability pension should have some reasonable increase to cover the increased cost of living.
Many hon. members have spoken about the clothing allowance. I was very glad to hear the announcement of the minister that it had been increased to $65; but, along with other members, I wish to say that in my opinion that is not sufficient. I for one would be much interested in having one of the defence ministers place on Hansard a table showing how the sum of $65 is broken up to enable a soldier to refit himself for civilian life. A soldier while he is in the army is very proud of the uniform he wears. I think the very least we can do is fit him up properly so that when he steps out into civilian life he will still be proud of his appearance, and I do not think he can do so on a grant of $65.
Then there is the question of the amount of pensions payable to officers and men. I have always felt that a soldier, whether an officer or a private, if he should lose an eye or a limb, should receive the same amount of pension. Rank should not affect the award in any way, because both officer and private have to compete in civilian life.
I should like to draw to the attention of the minister of pensions the case of soldiers who have a pensionable disability of less than fifty per cent. On the death of the soldier with a disability of less than fifty per cent his widow does not continue to receive a pension; yet it has always seemed to me that during the lifetime of the husband the pension department recognized the right of the wife. It seems to me that after the death of the husband the wife is more than ever in need of that help.
The hon. member for Vancouver North dealt this afternoon with the matter of the very small rehabilitation grant, which at the nresent
time is only one month's pay and allowances. I was very glad to see the statement in the speech from the throne that this matter is to be investigated, and I sincerely hope that the amount granted will not be small, but liberal, and that when the amount is decided upon the provisions will be made retroactive to cover all soldiers discharged to date.
Each session many hon. members speak of the insurance principle, and I think the min-.ster of pensions will agree that this provision should be reinserted in the Pension Act. I for one have never heard in this house any explanations of why this provision was taken out. Surely a man who served in the army in Canada is entitled, whether on duty or on leave, to the benefit of the Pension Act. It is quite true that under certain amendments-I believe it is section II-there are compassionate provisions, but I do not think that is enough. They are of a charitable nature, and at the best they are only temporary. There have been many cases where soldiers discharged in "E" category received no pension. To date the number of men discharged from the armed forces exceeds 100,000, yet the number receiving pensions is somewhat between five and six thousand. This seems rather hard to justify, where a man enlists and is placed iq "A" category. Hon. members who know anything about the method of the medical examination of a soldier will agree that it is a thorough, rigid and complete examination, including X-ray. If that man is accepted for service and placed in "A" category, and after service in Canada or overseas is discharged in "E" category, it is only reasonable that any disability should be attributed to war service. This is not now the case. Every hon. member must know of many cases where soldiers have been discharged in "E" category and have received no pension. How can any medical doctor, examining a soldier upon his discharge, say, two or three years after his enlistment, that his present disability is not due to war service, when on the medical history sheet there is no record of a disability? Unfortunately, however, the onus is always on the soldier to prove his case. Surely in any case where there is doubt the soldier should receive the benefit of that doubt, and private soldiers should not have continually to fight the pensions department to get their rights.
I have said before in this house, and I repeat, that in my opinion it should never be necessary for any soldier to have to consult his reeve, his mayor, a lawyer, or his member of parliament, in order to prove his case before the pension board and obtain the benefits to which he is entitled. The people of Canada most earnestly desire and expect, I am sure,
The Address-Mr. White

that every member of the armed forces will receive the most careful and most considerate attention in the matter of pension allowances.
I would like to concur in the proposal made last week by the horn, member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), that any changes in legislation, or any new regulations affecting the welfare of soldiers or their dependents, should not be instituted by order in council but should be brought before this house for discussion and debate. The new regulations announced a week ago by the minister illustrate the importance of this suggestion, because they will affect the welfare of many thousands of soldiers. Surely this change is of enough importance to be brought before the house.
While some changes for the better have been made, there are still many points to which soldiers object. I would draw the attention of the house to two letters which have appeared in the press throughout Canada, one written by Everett Bristol, district commander of the Canadian Legion, the other by Mr. Williamson, dominion secretary of the Canadian Corps Association, and I wish to quote very briefly from them. In Mr. Bristol's letter he states:
In addition to unfair discrimination against officers, there are other unsatisfactory features in the new regulations. For example, only those who qualify for the increased hospital allowances whose treatment is "continued without interruption from the date of discharge from the armed forces."
This may mean that if an officer or man discharged from hospital as fit or on pension has a relapse within a few weeks and has to go back for prolonged further treatment, he will get only hospital allowances instead of and lower than his service pay.
Further, the new hospital allowances may be continued only for a period equalling that of the man's service or for twelve months following discharge from the forces, whichever is lesser. What has length of service to do with a disability incurred on service? A man may get badly injured early in his training and require months of hospitalization. Surely he is not to be discriminated against unless there has been misconduct on his part.
I quote from the letter by Mr. Williamson:
In its opinion, no officer or man should be discharged from the service until he has been released from hospital to return to civilian life. Less than this is unworthy of this country and detrimental in the extreme to morale in all the services. Any person disabled by reason of military service should be retained on the strength until his period of treatment is concluded. If, as will be the case with a small minority, men are confined to a hospital bed for the balance of their lives, these men should be encouraged to feel that Canada is mindful of their welfare as long as they shall live. The cheese-paring implication that, after one year, they are to be forgotten will not do.
The minister will be the first one to admit that these provisions, while they correct and
IMr. White.]
improve many of the conditions, are still far from what they should be, and I think he will agree that any soldier suffering any injury is entitled to hospital treatment until he is fully restored to health.
When the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) speaks I should like him to explain to the house the present and future role of the reserve army in Canada. There is no doubt the reserve army has played a very important part in obtaining recruits for the armed forces. The cost of the reserve army must run into many hundreds of thousands a year and the minister should explain how this very large expenditure is justified. He should explain also the present and future role of the home defence army in Canada. This army, whose numbers are between 80,000 and 100,000, is maintained solely for the defence of Canada, and I think everyone is most anxious to know whether or not these men are to be made available for service anywhere in the world. Other hon. members have raised the same point, and the time is long past when the people of Canada are entitled to a public declaration by the government as to the future role of the home defence army; for if these men are to remain in Canada, what is the advantage of continuing to call men for service? To-day men are being called from the farms; schoolboys are being called, as well as men from industry and from the small businesses. Why put these young men into the army if they are to serve only in Canada? The cost of the home defence army must run into hundreds of millions a year, and I hope that the minister will justify this large expenditure if it is the intention of the government to keep these men in Canada. If they are to remain in this country, what was the object of the plebiscite vote? Is the government still afraid of the "no" majority given in the province of Quebec? What about the matter of reinforcements for troops in England? The Minister of National Defence should give the house a very frank and complete statement on the question of reinforcements for the troops in England. To-day, with the invasion hour drawing nigh, there will be great need of many reinforcements, and if the minister feels that the matter cannot be discussed in public, let him tell the members in 3ecret session. What an opportunity to have General McNaughton present-the man who knows more about the matter of reinforcements than anyone else! All members of the house, as well as the citizens of Canada, are entitled to this information.
Let me mention briefly the two tables that appear in "Canada at War," January, 1944, and January, 1943. These tables set out the per-

The Address-Mr. White
centage of enlistments in the three branches of the armed services and also show the number called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act. It is the same old story of eight provinces making more than a fair and equal contribution of men to the armed forces and the ninth province lagging behind. An examination of the tables will show the truth of this statement. I would ask the government if this is what it considers equality of service. In fact, I think there is grave doubt about the matter, if the figures in this table are correct, as pointed out by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he spoke on Friday last.
I would ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), with reference to military district No. 5, whether young men are not called until they reach the age of nineteen. If this is not correct, then I think the Minister of Labour should explain to the house how the difference in figures is accounted for, because in January, 1943, the male population was shown as 214,300 between the ages of nineteen and forty-five, and yet one year later, when the eighteen year olds are included, it is shown as 214,000. If they are called when they are eighteen the minister should so inform us-or are they not called until they are nineteen? Would the Minister of Labour also amplify the statement he read to the house this afternoon in which he said that some 3,500 men from the province of Quebec had been given permits to cross the border and work in the New England states. This is the first time, to my knowledge, that we have had such a great surplus of manpower in Canada that 3,500 men from one province could cross the line to work in the New England states. It might be interesting to know how many of the 3,500 are of military age and also how many work permits have been granted to men in the other provinces permitting them to cross the line in order to work in the United States.
I concur in what has been said by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson), the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) and the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) with regard to the new wage order, P.C. 9384, which has given rise to so much controversy. This new wage order was well analysed by the hon. member for York West, who indicated the grave injustices that are being done to labour in particular from the point of view of appeals and the onus of proof. I am amazed that the cabinet should pass such an order. Where is their sense of fair play or British justice when an order- is passed which takes away rights which have existed for every British citizen from the time that magna charts was signed at Runnymede?
Surely it is well established in British jurisprudence that every citizen has the right of appeal to the highest court in the land. When has the new doctrine come into being in this country that a man must prove himself innocent? Why is it necessary to write into any statute or any order in Canada that the benefit of the doubt is not to be given to the accused? I think every hon. member has a duty to rise and protest against this infringement of rights which has existed for so many years. I, for one, should like the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) to explain to hon. members why it was necessary in the fifth year of the war to insert any such clause in any order in Canada. Surely the day is never going to come in this country when the right to appeal to the court or the right of a citizen to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is to be taken away. The inclusion of any such restrictive regulation as that smacks of the gestapo of Germany.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize the following points for the attention of the government:
1.	A long furlough for all soldiers on discharge with full pay and allowances.
2.	No member of the armed forces to be discharged without being provided with a suitable job.
3.	A speeding up in the handling of pension applications.
4.	Clothing allowance to be increased from S65 on a sliding scale and made retroactive.
5.	The insurance principle to be reinserted in the Pension Act.
6.	The provisions of the Pension Act to apply to all soldiers injured on leave in Canada, and a review made of all such cases.
7.	Soldiers to have all necessary hospital treatment irrespective of the length of service.
8.	Rehabilitation grant to be increased and made retroactive to cover all soldiers discharged to date.
9.	That the widow of a soldier who had a pension disability of less than fifty per cent be granted a pension after the death of her husband.
10.	Dependent's allowance to a mother to be on the same scale as now payable to a wife.
11.	That a review be made by the pension commission of all soldiers suffering from shell shock, mental or nervous cases where no pension has been granted.
12.	That the onus of proving that the disability was incurred or due to war service be on the pension commission.

The Address-Mr. Shaw

13.	That a committee of this house be appointed to review scale of pensions to members of the armed forces, pensions to widows, dependents' allowances, clothing allowances, mustering-out pay and all other matters affecting the welfare of the soldier or his dependents.
14.	That the Minister of National Defence tell this house whether or not the members of the home defence army are to be made available for service anywhere in the world.
15.	The introduction of a system of calling men for military service whereby all parts of Canada will make an equal and fair contribution.
16.	That no policy of immigration be undertaken until such time as proper provision has been made for full-time jobs and the complete reestablishment and rehabilitation of all members of the armed forces and all other Canadian workers.


Mr. F. D. SHAW (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, prior to the commencement of the present session of parliament and upon several occasions during the debate which is now taking place reference has been made to the fact that the members are engaging too extensively in debate. It would appear to me that there is a definite tendency, or probably I should say a definite effort from some quarters, further to deprive the private members of this house of the opportunity of giving full expression to their thoughts relative to the many matters that come before the house. How could it be otherwise when the members of this house find it so necessary to occupy so much of their time in debate? Why is it that members of the house should be accused of devoting too much time to matters of little consequence? I have given a good deal of thought to this matter and I find that it is wrapped up largely in the following facts. First, we find throughout this country boards actually legislating, such legislation having the effect of law. These boards deal with the most important matters, matters which, in -my opinion, should be dealt with by parliament. In the second place, the government have perfected a scheme of mass production of orders in council. These orders in council are being passed not only between sessions of parliament but also during the actual time that parliament is in session. I find therefore that we have to devote so much time to dealing with matters regarded by some as of little consequence because the major issues are decided outside this House of Commons.
I am becoming extremely suspicious of any attempt to curtail the rights of the private members of the House of Commons, whether
	,

in connection with debate or in connection with any other matter which may in effect deprive the individual of performing his duties as an elected member of this House of Commons. We find that, this dissatisfaction with respect to the actions of the government is not confined to any small group in this house, nor is it confined to any particular cross-section of opinion in this house, because this afternoon an hon. member asserted that two members of the Liberal party during the past two days expressed what I would call almost absolute disgust regarding the attitude of the government in failing -to consult members of the house with respect to major matters affecting the country.
In referring to the speech from the throne, I find that emphasis is laid upon the fact that the winning of the war clearly remains the first of all our objectives. With that statement there is no possibility of disagreement. We are as one, I am sure, in that objective. Canadians who still have their feet, on the ground and their heads out of the clouds will recognize that we must continue to exert our utmost energy toward an early and successful termination of hostilities. During the past year much has taken place to give us renewed hope and renewed confidence; yet we are certain as we gaze about into the various theatres of war that the road ahead is bound to be long and bound to be rutted. However, we have confidence in the calibre of the men of our fighting forces. That is reflected from the heroic achievements in the various theatres of war, in Italy, over Europe and elsewhere where they are engaged in conflict. If one reflects upon the decorations that have been awarded during the war he will find that every province in Canada has been represented; he will find that those of the various racial origins within the country are represented, as are also the various creeds. The army on the home front and the civilian population have acquitted themselves most magnificently. I refer to the farmers and to the industrial workers, in fact, to all of those engaged in work associated with the prosecution of the war.
The future, though, will depend largely upon the policies instituted by this government and the -action the government may or may not take in connection with the prosecution of the war and the preparation now for the post-war period. As to both of these matters I shall have something more to say shortly, but at this point I should like to make reference to a'matter which is of extreme concern to me. When fascist Italy was presumed to have capitulated demonstrations took place in many parts of Canada, par-

The Address-Mr. Shaw
ticularly in that part in which I happen to reside. I do not know under whose direction this was done; I do not know who were responsible for making the people in certain quarters think that in effect the war was over, but that was the feeling. Shortly after, however, when our forces were engaged in such mortal conflict on the soil of Italy, the reaction set in. It was a feeling of distress and discouragement. If I recall correctly some of the demonstrations were called off, but others were carried through. Those responsible for causing the people to believe that in effect the war was over should guard against a recurrence of any such error.
The speech from the throne refers to the various social security measures which the government propose to introduce during this session of parliament. It mentions "a national minimum of social security and human welfare," and later, "such a programme contemplates social insurance against privation resulting from old age." Presumably this refers to contributory old age pensions. One encounters extreme difficulty in restraining himself when speaking on this matter of old age pensions, in dealing with the consideration or la>ck of it which is given to thousands of our older people, the pioneer citizens of Canada. As all hon. members are aware, within the boundaries of the dominion we have thousands of worthy citizens in the lower income brackets, many of whom are in receipt of meagre incomes insufficient to provide the necessities of life. They are utterly unable to secure employment, and thus must depend upon one of two things: the hopelessly inadequate pension which they may obtain to-day, provided they can prove themselves paupers or provided they have the ability to conceal the truth; or the charity of friends, relatives or others who may take pity upon them. In my view the present Old Age Pensions Act, which was passed by this parliament, and the regulations related thereto, have stained the statute books of this land long enough. I contend that if we are sincere in our promise with respect to social security measures we can prove our good faith by setting out to-day to erase from our statute books the act which now exists, replacing it with one which might be regarded as a Christian act, or by so amending it as to make adequate provision for those people who, all hon. members of this house will agree, at least in private, are deserving of more consideration than they are receiving at the present time. The rates of pension established in 1928 bore no relation at all to the cost-of-living index of that day, nor have they borne such relation at any time since. As I indicated a moment ago, 100-161
a person who has reached seventy years of age and is able to prove himself a pauper or who' has the ability to conceal the truth, may qualify for the pittance we now offer. It is then charged against property owned at five per cent compound interest.
Personally, Mr. Speaker, I can have no faith in the intentions of any government until such time as the conditions now prevailing are rectified. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is very well aware of these conditions. On one occasion he said that the war had not banished suffering from this land. On another occasion he said that we could not put forth our utmost strength if we neglected the elementary human needs of the unfortunate and the suffering in our midst. On another occasion he said that the people of this country were committed to the utmost of our strength to the cause of humanity in its hour of greatest peril, and then he declared that we could not afford to forget claims equally pressing upon our generosity and upon our social and individual consciousness. In the light of that; in the light of what we all know is absolutely true, I say we should immediately take the steps necessary in connection with this matter.
Then the speech from the throne says:
While giving to the needs of the war precedence over all else, my ministers are resolved .that, so far as the future can be foreseen, Canada will be in a position to meet the difficult situations which will have to be faced when victory is won.
I assume this refers specifically to our postwar relationships with both allied and nonallied nations of to-day. In my humble judgment Canada stands destined to play a most important role in shaping. post-war world relationships. Moreover, I think our success or failure in the role that we shall be certainly called upon to play will depend entirely upon the calibre and motives of the men who speak and act for Canada. The task will not be an easy one; we all know that. But the experiences of the past few decades do cast a most ominous shadow over the future; one need not be a pessimist to realize this. We have fought wars in the past, and each has been more costly and more devastating than the one which preceded it. Between major military wars, minor military wars have been fought; and while those military wars were being fought, and in between them, economic warfare was carried on. I charge that the effects of the economic warfare have been just as devastating as those of military warfare, and in no small way responsible for such warfare. These boys of ours who are fighting on the blood-soaked soil of Italy or who are facing danger over
The Address-Mr. Shaw

Europe to-day and every day are fighting, it is said, to preserve our democratic institutions and the integrity of the British commonwealth. Others say they are fighting in the hope that after the war will come an opportunity for reestablishment in a land free from war. Third, it is said that they are fighting in the expectation that their sons will not have to pay the supreme sacrifice twenty years hence. I am inclined to believe that we should bear all three of these in mind when considering post-war matters. In referring to the returned soldiers, the speech from the throne states:
A broad programme has already been developed for the reestablishment of veterans of the present war, and for the care of disabled veterans and the dependents of our fighting .men and merchant seamen.
Then it goes on to state that gratuities will ibe paid to these men of the service. I think .all the people of Canada are of one mind as to the men of our fighting forces and the *debt of gratitude, transcending any other debt claim which may arise from this war, that we owe to them. We know that the men of our fighting forces are looking to *the people at home to see that we make this country worthy of their magnificent courage and unstinting sacrifice and of the ideals for which they are fighting. The carrying out of this obligation rests squarely upon and is the responsibility of all the people of Canada. It is a vital aspect of Canada's war effort, and therefore I find it utterly impossible to agree with those who assert that during the actual prosecution of the war we should be devoting no time to the consideration of and preparation for the post-wax period.
In referring to the treatment that we are now according the soldiers who have returned from overseas, may I say that I have been filled with alarm over the fact that many of those soldiers who have come home from the theatres of war have not been given their just desserts. I know that as far as my home district is concerned, too many of these men are having to go to their member of parliament in order to secure what most of them refer to as simple justice. Hon. members who have preceded me have referred to the matter of physical examinations. The speaker who iust preceded me indicated that the examinations preceding enlistment are thorough. I am not going to challenge his statement; I am simply going to say that many of the cases which have come to my attention in western Canada have proven the contrary to be the case.	'
For instance, a lad proceeds to a recruiting depot and is directed to those whose duty it is to give him a physical examination. In a

number of cases that have come to my attention the lads have referred to disabilities which were incurred as youngsters, and yet they were categorized as "Al". Later on, following discharge, a lad would be told that his disability is not attributable to or aggravated by war service, that his trouble was due to the disability he had had before. Therefore he cannot secure pension. I contend in all sincerity that if a man is examined as thoroughly as it is indicated he is and is placed in "Al" category and comes out an "E" category man, it is only fair to conclude that his disability was attributable to or aggravated by his war service.
I wonder too about the examinations given to men who are moved from one depot to another, one examination being given before they leave the one place and the other after they arrive at their destination. Being from the west, I find it difficult to use language that would convey to the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) what the boys in uniform call that type of examination. Some time I hope to be able to give a description of it to him in person.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: We have the same language in the east.


Frederick Davis Shaw: It is not parliamentary.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It is not parliamentary, but it is nice language.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I should like to refer to some of the cases where men have been injured, let us say while in the performance of duty in the British isles. I will refer to one case which I believe illustrates the point I am trying to make. A man was injured during commando practice. His injuries to his lower abdomen were so severe that it was necessary for his comrades to carry him back from where they were carrying on manoeuvres. He was hospitalized for a lengthy period of time; he was shifted from one hospital to another and was examined by one medical board after another. His disability was diagnosed as being three or four different things. In one instance they called it ulcers of the stomach, but they neglected to add that his stomach had fallen because his disability was low in the abdomen. They had him ready for operation, but shortly before the operation was to be performed they moved him out of the hospital in anticipation of Dieppe casualties arriving, it being just at that time. After he had been moved about for approximately three months he was sent home to Canada to be discharged. Before discharge they confined him in the neurological ward of a certain hospital in Quebec and then discharged him with depressive psychosis, not

The Address-Mr. Shaw
pensionable. I have no doubt that if any hon. member of this house received treatment of that kind following an injury he would have a disability far more serious than depressive psychosis. .If this man has that, the government is responsible.


An hon. MEMBER:: Maybe the government has it.


Frederick Davis Shaw: My hon. friend says, "Maybe the government has it." That's possible. There are too many such cases. I refer to one other case. This man went through the Dieppe raid and received a bullet in his spine. He was decorated because even with that bullet in his spine he carried an officer out of the field of battle. He was sent back to Canada to be discharged. He was kept in military district 13, Calgary, for almost a month, until they could find out what they were going to do with him. One day he was paraded before the medical officer who was seated behind a desk. The medical officer asked him how he felt. Most of us in the west say that we feel fine whether we do or not. After a few moments of conversation he was handed a paper. When he walked out of the office and looked at it he found that he was recategorized as "A 1" to be sent back overseas. He got as far as Debert before a friend of his, a captain in the medical corp, discovered him and asked what he was doing there. He told him he was on his way back to England. That young captain prevented his being moved on. He was held there a month, discharged on the spot and told to discover some method by which he could get home.
I am not blaming the minister for these things, but I sometimes wonder what check there is upon some of these individuals who are responsible for cases like these. Why is it that the bulk of the cases I take to the Minister of Pensions and National health are reopened and either higher pensions granted or a pension granted where none was given before? Does that not indicate to the minister that there must be something wrong with the whole system?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You must have some pull with the minister.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I would hardly say that. I must say in all fairness that he has been very fair as far as I am concerned. It should not be necessary to bring up such matters as these in this house, but as far as I am concerned these cases are coming much too frequently. Out of those who have come home to my community, too many have had to come to me to have their cases taken up. I presume
there are others who did not come to me but endeavoured to secure justice from other-quarters.
I wish now to refer to the Progressive Conservative amendment. The first clause (a) refers to the failure of the government "to make adequate - provision and to implement promises already made for the immediate needs and employment of the men and women of the armed forces on demobilization." I find myself in a position where I must agree with that. I feel that the government has not done more than enact a measure here and a measure there; it has not laid down any concrete over-all policy to meet the over-all problem which will confront the country upon demobilization. Many existing measures are inadequate. The amendment goes on in paragraph (b) to say:
(b)	Failed to provide adequate measures-whereby agriculture can make its maximum war and peace-time contribution through a stable and effective long-term programme.
There can be absolutely no disagreement with that. I wonder why it has not been possible for this government to do more than adopt a very short-range policy in connection! with agriculture. For instance, in my part of Alberta last fall a serious situation, developed with respect to hogs. Due to hail and frost feed shortages existed. It was extremely difficult for them to purchase feed at the prices prevailing. Hog prices fell. Farmers immediately set about to dispose of their breeding stocks. Liquidation took place which has impaired the potential hog production, and I contend that it will be years before the hog producers of areas in the Red Deer constituency will be able to recover the loss which was sustained when they found it essential to dispose of their sows.
Then paragraph (c) of the Progressive Conservative amendment states:
(c)	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 wages control order;
I doubt if there is a private member of the house who will disagree with the sentiment there expressed. That wage order has been, discussed in this house by many hon. members-since the debate began, and I agree with what the amendment states. I vehemently disagree with the order that was passed'.
Then (d):
(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.
The Address-Mr. Shaw

I wonder if Mr. John Bracken has changed his ideas with respect to the Sirois recommendations. Nothing within my memory has been presented in Canada that so seriously threatened the autonomy of the provinces of Canada as did the recommendations of the Sirois report.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I answer my Progressive Conservative friend by again expressing wonder: Has Mr. John Bracken changed his attitude with respect to the Sirois recommendations?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Not at all.


Frederick Davis Shaw: If he has not, you may as well strike out that clause of your amendment. If Mr. Bracken still holds the same views he did in that regard, this is the strangest proposal ever presented in any Progressive Conservative amendment.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No, you do not understand it.


John Horne Blackmore: Neither do you.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I now come to the amendment to the amendment. I would hardly care to try to convey the impression that by moving to *strike out the whole Progressive Conservative amendment the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party are in disagreement with it all, and I am not going so to charge. The C.C.F. party say in their amendment:
We respectfully submit to Your Exeelleney that in the opinion of this house Your Excellency's advisers have failed to propose the fundamental social changes and economic planning which alone can hasten the winning of the war and make possible the establishment of a post-War Canada capable of providing full employment and complete social security.
I am confounded by that wording; I wonder what it means. The expression "fundamental social changes" may mean anything. It refers to .planning. What type of planning? I wonder that the C.C.F. party did not strike out 'both those expressions and put in "socialism". Why did they not do so? The issue would then have been clear. I have reason to believe that there may have been a good reason for not doing so. When it comes to determining the value of that amendment I must make a decision in the light of what has gone before and in the light of the interpretations that may be put upon a vote one way or the other after the subamendment has been voted on. During the past three months I have become more suspicious, particularly in view of the assertions made by the leader' of the C.C.F. party during the byelection in Red Deer, in Alberta.


Mr. DUPUIS:: What did he say?


Frederick Davis Shaw: I was so incensed, Mr. Speaker, by what he said that I might have to refer to two or three of his statements. In fact, my people would consider it strange if I did not do so, because, after all, here was the leader of a national party who came into a provincial by-election in Alberta and made the most startling assertions, so startling that I could hardly credit them to him. One of them was that the C.C.F. party was the only party in the House of Commons which had protested against the shipment of scrap iron to Japan. He also said that his was the only party which had opposed the present financial monopoly. His was the only party, he also said, which had consistently opposed fascism. He also said that his was the only party which had a programme which comes out of the people. Then, to cap the whole thing, he asserted that the government of Alberta had given away the resources of the province to private monopoly and corporations; but when he was asked to name one he said, "I am not in a position to know what the government of Alberta has or has not done." I would not accept those statements, if they were merely hearsay, but I drove into the city of Red Deer one night during the campaign and parked my car across from the Crescent theatre and heard the hon. gentleman's voice coming over the loud speaker. As I sat there I took notes. I heard these statements. Others sat with me in the car and heard. So it is not hearsay; it is facts. I say to the members of the C.C.F. party that I deplore that sort of thing. I have always tried to be perfectly fair, and I have not made assertions unless I am reasonably certain that they are correct and that I can support them.


Mr. HANSELL:: Well, who won the
election?


Frederick Davis Shaw: Of course their candidate was crushed in the election. The Social Credit candidate won.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: There will be a lot more of them squashed before this thing is over.


Frederick Davis Shaw: My point is this, that had the people of Red Deer constituency not been informed, it is quite possible that they would have accepted these statements as true. I repeat that I deplore the fact that the statements were made, especially by the leader of a national party; one who, I believe, knew better. I might have expected it from certain lesser satellites of the party.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: There are no satellites. They are just duller stars.
{Mr. Shaw.]

The Address-Mr. Purdy


Frederick Davis Shaw: It all depends on the interpretation you put on the word "satellites".


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: They are not always lit up either. [DOT]


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Some of them can stand a lot of it.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order.


Frederick Davis Shaw: In supporting the C.C.F.
amendment I am not supporting socialism, that is bureaucratic planning.
In the speech from the throne reference is made to the question of foreign trade. That is, to exports and imports. I have given considerable thought to this particular aspect of our national life because, after all, foreign trade has occupied in the past a dominant position in the life of this country. Exports, tariffs and exchanges have caused governments headaches or have been the major worry of governments for decades. Thus far, difficulties have developed with respect to foreign trade because governments have endeavoured to carry on a foreign trade policy by stimulating production within the country, increasing exports from the country, and at the same time erecting tariff barriers to keep the produce of other countries out of Canada. All the while the vain hope existed that unemployment would in some miraculous way cease to exist. Most nations were engaged in an almost identical policy, that of endeavouring to stimulate production by exporting and at the same time erecting tariff barriers to keep out the produce of other countries. We all know that the result has been the most bitter type of economic warfare which the world has ever witnessed, and one which has played no small part in the developments of military warfare, in one of which wars we are at present engaged. While these governments were so endeavouring to export and refuse to import, we witnessed the international discount houses rendering the situation far more difficult by the manipulation of exchanges. We must pray that when this war is over, and even before it is over, as the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) has so often suggested, our first major concern will be the creating of an effective demand against our own production, exporting surplus production in exchange 'or the goods of other countries, goods which we may require and can buy and the elimination of the policy which we have been following in the past will do much toward preventing a recurrence of the conditions of war which confront us at the present time.
I had hoped to expand this topic, but I understand that my time has elapsed.


Mr. G. T. PURDY (Colchester-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I should like my first word to be one of congratulation to the mover (Mr. Tremblay) and the seconder (Mr. Tucker) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Of the hon. member who moved the address, I can say that he lived up to the high traditions of his race; of the hon. member who seconded it, that he upheld the splendid reputation which he has built up for himself during the past few years.
I know that the last speaker will pardon me if in my few remarks I do not follow his arguments. He seemed to pick out a few individual cases in an attempt to build up a case against the government, without giving the government credit for the many good works it has done. But probably he was on sounder ground even there than he would have been had he attempted to expound the theories of his group. Hon. members in that section of the house are very sincere types, preachers and teachers, rather critical, but lacking practical experience, and for that reason we from the maritimes cannot follow their strange philosophies.
The speech from the throne, as is right and proper, puts first things first. It refers first to the war, which after all is our main concern, because if we do not win the war there is little good in our planning for the future.
Taking an over-all picture of the war effort of this government, I cannot but feel that each and every Canadian, no matter what his race, creed or political affiliations, must recognize that it has in every possible way done credit to Canada. It is true that some of our people are not taking too kindly to many of the regulations which are of necessity imposed on them. However, as I say, taking a broad view of the matter, I believe that to-day, for the most part, these things are necessary.
In the part of the country from which I come one problem which is staring us in the face is the man-power situation. This situation is such, on account of voluntary enlistments, and of men leaving our province to work in other provinces, or joining the merchant navy, that our pool from which we can draw men for practically any work is now at a very low ebb. I propose to quote one paragraph from a letter from a person who is very close to the national resources mobilization board in our province. He says:
There is no new reservoir to call from now
in this province except as they come of age. This is going to mean that from now on to quite a considerable extent men taken into the forces have got to be culled who previously have had postponements.
The Address-Mr. Purdy

You have only to be engaged in industry in our province to realize how true that statement is. Men are being called up every day and we have no one to take their places. I cannot quite understand why, in our little province, which has been in the lead in voluntary enlistments, we are still called upon to furnish the same percentage of men under the National Resources Mobilization Act as those provinces which have not furnished the same percentage of volunteers. This is a matter that should be given very careful study by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of National Defence, and I respectfully suggest that the time must have arrived when there should be put into force a system that uses the same yardstick across Canada to bring men into the services. In other words, I feel that after more than three years of applying the provisions of the National Resources Mobilization Act there should be a more general levelling off in the number of men in the services as between one province and another.
I now come to my own constituency. In that constituency we have a population of roughly 52,000; and while I may be a little generous in my calculations, yet, on the basis of several yardsticks which I will mention later on, it seems to me that roughly ten per cent of our total population have joined the forces in one way or another. This is only an estimate, not based on any information from the various departments, since they do not keep records in this manner, but I take three yardsticks from which I shapp attempt to prove my point to some extent. First, in the county of Hants, with a population of 22,000 one of the newspapers, the Hants Journal, has kept a record of the men and women in the service. That list is in excess of 2,000, and it does not take into account the men in the merchant navy. Let me take another method of measurement. A few Sundays ago, in the church which it is my privilege to attend, St. Andrews United church, Truro, an honour roll was un-vieled disclosing 120 names out of 600 adherents. Let me take still another point. The coloured population in Truro numbers 503, and out of that population more than fifty young men have joined the forces. I feel we can find the same situation in any community in the constituency. My point is that our young men and women, irrespective of colour, creed or race, have joined the services in very large numbers, and I am glad to say that practically all are ready and willing to serve anywhere. These young men and women are serving wherever Canadians are in action, and casualties are mounting. Their graves are found in many lands, and there they will rest 
until the great day when they will be joined by their loved ones and their fellow-warriors, whose last resting place is known only to our Creator. Our duty to the loved ones of those who die is clear, as it is to those who are wounded and to their dependents.
The present government has gone a long way in this direction, and I feel that under the wise guidance of our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) it will continue the good work and improve .our pensions and veterans' allowance legislation.
To those who return in health we also owe a deep debt of gratitude and we must see that the Canada to which they return is a Canada worthy of the high ideals for which they are fighting. They do not want charity. They do not want to be wards of the state. They do not want to be regimented pawns in a socialistic state. They want an opportunity to work and live in a country of free enterprise where initiative will bring its rewards. We must see that they have this opportunity, and as long as I am a member I pledge my efforts along these lines and trust that the government will lose no time in bringing in the necessary legislation.
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that in the days of ancient Rome when Horatius kept the bridge he was rewarded, together with his fellow-warriors, and Macaulay has commemorated it in the following lines:
They gave him of the corn-land,
That was of public right,
As much as two strong oxen ,
Could plow from morn till night;
And they made a molten image,
And set it up on high,
And there it stands unto this day To witness if I lie.
In this enlightened age we cannot do less; indeed, we must do more for our enlisted forces.
I will now deal for a few minutes with the peace-time programme outlined in the speech. Coming from the maritime provinces, I shall no doubt be expected to raise the cry of maritime rights. You have not heard much of this in the last few years, but I will say that while that cry has been allowed to rest during the war it is not dead. Perhaps you will expect me, coming as I do from the little province of Nova Scotia, to speak of ships and sailormen, of the present-day equivalent of the wooden ships and iron men of confederation days, or of fish and fishermen. The land of which I am now speaking is referred to by another poet, Bliss Carman, in these lines:	'

The Address-Mr. Purdy
The tides go out, the tides come in,
With the breath of the living sea.
And what will they take in trade again From the ports of Acadie?
The freshening wind and the saving salt They bring from the outer vast,
To mould and quicken the men they need To serve their Lord at last.
Then get you down to the sea, my lads,
And go you forth, my dears,
You have reaped the tide, you must sow the tide,
As it was these thousand years.
Certainly in this crisis our young men have gone down to the sea wherever the opportunity has presented itself. However, I will not speak of these activities of our province. I will leave it to members who are better qualified to speak on ships and shipping. I do wish, however, to take as my text this evening-perhaps you think I am going into the poets-a few lines from Longfellow's "Evangeline":
Giving the village its name, and pasture to flocks without number.
Dikes, that the hands of the farmers had raised with labour incessant,
Shut out the turbulent tides; but at stated seasons the flood-gates
Opened, and welcomed the sea to wander at will o'er the meadows.
West and south there were fields of flax, and orchards and cornfields
Spreading afar and unfenced o'er the plain; and away to the northward
Blomidon rose, and the forests old, and aloft on the mountains-
And then along a little further:
Late, with the rising moon, returned the wains from the marshes,
Laden with briny hay that filled the air'with its odour.
I quoted that, Mr. Speaker, because I wish to refer to the marsh-lands of Nova Scotia, and this is my introduction. My constituency has over a hundred and fifty miles of shore along the Cobequid bay and Minas basin. This country was settled by the Acadians and is very close to the village of Grand Pre made famous by Longfellow's poem. We have splendid farming lands in the valleys of the rivers running into this bay and into Minas basin and also into Northumberland strait. I make this explanation because it is often thought we have in Nova Scotia very poor agricultural land. However, we must remember that the lands I have referred to were settled back in 1655 and have been producing crops for more than three hundred years. Where the dykes have been kept up and the ground properly looked after there is no sign of the crops lessening. I give that explanation because we often hear of areas in the west subject to soil drifting where there have been
crop failures following a few years of cultivation.
What I should like to propose to-night is a five-year plan for the rehabilitation of agriculture in Nova Scotia. It is true it is an ambitious programme ; however, I think it is a programme that would produce excellent results. I break this programme into six parts. Much has been said in this house with respect to our marsh-lands. My proposal would be to expend $200,000 a year for five years to bring our marsh-lands back into a productive state. I would propose a further expenditure of $150,000 a year for five years to build up a system of small abattoirs and cold storage plants situated at various points throughout the province. At the present time we have no abattoir and very few cold storage plants. Any slaughterings that are to be marketed under government inspection must be done outside the province.
I come now to another item of $100,000 for five years to control flood conditions on our streams. The rush of waters in the past years, brought about to some extent by heavy timber cuttings on our mountains, has destroyed hundreds and hundreds of acres of splendid land. I would propose the expenditure of $50,000 a year for five years to eneour age the raising of sheep in our little province. Textile experts in the town of Truro tell me that Nova Scotia wool is the best they can get anywhere for the work they have to carry on. They tell me that the fleece is heavier than the fleeces of sheep produced in other sections, and that the wool is stronger. Nova Scotia lamb requires no words of mine to advertise it because it has a market in the United States, in Ontario and in Quebec; in fact there is a great demand for it. I would propose $50,000 a year for five years be spent to bring our people into the growing of flax. I was talking to two experts from the federal Department of Agriculture and they say they have in their possession wonderful linen made from flax grown in Nova Scotia. May I refer again to experts from the textile mills in my constituency. They tell me that the soil and the climate of Nova Scotia are excellent for this class of agriculture. I have one more suggestion to offer and it is in regard to our farm woodlots. Many of our farmers have wood-lots adjoining their farms. In the old days they would sell their timber en bloc; an operator would come in; he would cut what was on the woodlot, and it was fifty or sixty years before the farmers got another crop. My idea is that we should spend $50,000 a year for five years to teach our farmers how to crop their woodlots. That would give them
The Address-Mr. Purdy

a steady income each year instead of a few thousand dollars one year and nothing in the next fifty years.
This programme is, as I, said, rather ambitious. I suggest the expenditure of $3,000,000 in Nova Scotia extending over a period of five, years. However, that is very, verj small when we compare it with the expenditure made on agriculture in western Canada. We have no objections to that in Nova Scotia, but we think our farmers should be given the same treatment. Under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act there has been over $16,000,000 spent in the past eight years, an average of something over $2,000,000 a year. If that was the only claim I had in asking for this $3,000,000 for my province, perhaps I would not feel satisfied that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley), who comes from down our way and keeps of course very close watch upon the purse-strings, would give it to us; but I propose to try to show to the minister that under our present system of taxation we would only be getting back what we are paying in. Under the dominion-provincial agreements, income tax and certain corporation taxes have been taken away from the provinces in an effort to level out the tax structure in the various provinces.
I will attempt to show that under our present system we in Nova Scotia are contributing a greater proportion of the taxes than are some of the other provinces. In other words, if we could obtain $600,000 a year for five years we would, under the present differential in taxafion, be getting back only what we are paying into the federal treasury in excess of some of the other provinces. That seems like a big statement. To prove my point I shall mention first the sales tax on electrical enegry. That tax is only eight per cent, it is true, but it is based on the dollar amount of the bill; and with electrical energy in Nova Scotia costing twice as much as it does in most Ontario towns it means that the ordinary individual in my province pays some twenty cents a month or $2.40 a year more than he would pay for the same amount of electrical energy in Ontario. Assuming that we have sixty or seventy thousand outlets, that would mean somehting like $150,000 a year to begin with. Then I have something else to add. Under the dominion-provincial agreements the gasoline tax was guaranteed to the various provinces at a fixed rate. In Nova Scotia w;e imposed a very high gasoline tax as well as a very high licence fee for motor vehicles in lieu of income tax. Our good friends in Ontario and the other provinces were very fortunate. It is true that they had

a personal income tax, but they did not have as high a gasoline tax, nor did they have to pay as much for their automobile licences. Here are just two examples. In Nova Scotia the annual licence fee for a Chevrolet coupe is $20.09. In Ontario I could licence that car for $7. For a two-ton truck, licensed for 16,000 pounds, the fee in Nova Scotia is $152, and in Ontario, $17.50. In Nova Scotia the gasoline tax is ten cents a gallon; in Ontario it is eight cents. That differential may be all right in the case of companies which are allowed to deduct these taxes before they file their income tax return, but think of the position-of an ordinary person like a member of parliament or a salaried individual. He must pay a greater tax on electrical energy; he must pay a greater licence fee for his car and more for his gasoline. At a rough estimate I would say that in filing our income tax returns we are probably at a disadvantage of some $40 or $50 a year in non-deductible items, as compared with Ontario.
There is another item in connection with w'hich I believe the federal government has guaranteed provincial revenues; that is, in revenue from liquor sales. In Nova Scotia, again in order to avoid personal income tax, we had a higher rate of provincial profit on liquor sales. To-day I am told that for a twenty-six ounce bottle of a fair brand of Scotch an individual in Nova Scotia must pay eighty-five cents more than he would in Ontario. If he buys two bottles a month he would be worse off to the extent of $1.70 a month or approximately $20 a year than his opposite number in Ontario; and again that is an item which is not deductible from the income tax. So I say that if we should figure out these various items we would find that the little province of Nova Scotia, under these differentials as compared with the big province of Ontario, is contributing enough to the federal treasury to permit the Minister of Finance to refund that $600,000 a year for five years, and I hope he will take that suggestion under advisement.
I am only a very ordinary individual, Mr. Speaker. I do not claim to represent the people of Canada as a whole, but from time to time I try to present the views and rights of my constituents to the house and the various members of the cabinet. If in so doing I sometimes run contrary to the ideas of the government, that is my misfortune. Nevertheless I act on conviction, which in my opinion is the only basis upon which a true democracy can exist.


Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate

The Address-Mr. Wright
I should like first to compliment the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I hope that in their caucuses and their councils they will endeavour to see that the government bring down measures which are adequate with respect to the matters mentioned in that speech. Too often the speech from the throne has been like the advance billing for the circus which used to come to my town every year when I was a boy. That billing promised great things, but the performance seldom lived up to the advance notices. I hope the legislation brought down by the government to implement the speech from the throne will be adequate. If it is, the government may Test assured that they will receive the support not only of their own party but of all parties in this house. However, if it brings in only palliatives or half-way measures, then it will receive the criticism which it deserves.
In the speech from the throne the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) indicated that this might be the most serious year of the war as far as our effort is concerned, that we might expect more casualties this year than in the preceding four years of this conflict. I believe that to be so; I think the fighting in Italy would indicate that this is a probability. I do not propose to-night to deal with our war effort; I believe that can be dealt with better after we have heard the ministers of the various war departments and have their programme before us. However, I should like to deg.1 with one matter mentioned in the speech from the throne; that is, the setting up of a department of veterans' affairs. I believe this is a measure which will receive support from all sides of the house. Up to the present time there appears to have been a great deal of confusion among the men discharged from the army. Unless they were sent direct to the Department of Pensions and National Health apparently they had no idea of the various measures which had been provided for their rehabilitation, and as a consequence we as members of this house had them coming to us for information which they should have been given before discharge. When this new department is set up I would hope that the files of all men discharged will be transferred to it, and that the department will see that this information *is available to the men in order that proper use may be made of it.
One matter to which I believe the department should give attention is the setting up of convalescent homes for our soldiers whose injuries are not such that they require hospitalization, Our hospitals are going to be crowded, and many cases could be dealt with
in convalescent homes. Just recently I had a case brought to my attention. This man served three years in the last war, enlisted during the first months of this war and served two years, one of which was overseas. While over there he had a hemorrhage as a result of stomach ulcers and was sent back to Canada. He was sent to the pension board and his disability was indicated as thirty per cent, six per cent due to war service, and he was given a pension of S3.70 a month. He returned home and began working in the local creamery, but after two months work he had another hemorrhage. The local doctor told him it would be necessary to have six months complete rest on a special diet before he would be fit to work again. This man has a wife and two children and he is expected to take six months rest with no worry on $3.70 a month.
There should be convalescent homes to take care of cases like this where men could be sent on full pay and allowance until they were ready to again take their places in civilian life. There will be a number of nervous cases from this war. The strain on men in the air force and in the other mechanized units of our army is much greater than it was during the last war, and there should be some place where these men could be sent to have a real rest among congenial surroundings until they are able to take their place in civilian life. I suggest that the department of veterans' affairs make an effort to establish convalescent homes in Canada immediately.
Another matter with respect to our army to which I should like to refer is that of the home defence army. Many hon. members have referred to this and I must say that I agree with them. We have some 80,000 men in this army who are not available for overseas service, and this at a time when the war has changed from a defensive to an offensive war. This condition does not make common sense. These men should either be available for overseas service or be given their discharge and made available for useful service in civilian life. I suggest that if they are given their discharge they should automatically go into the reserve army so that they would continue to receive part-time training and the authorities would know exactly where they are should they be needed again. There are several industries in Canada where man-power is needed. Agriculture certainly needs more men, so does lumbering and our pulpwood industry. Unless these men are to be available for overseas service I contend they could contribute more to our war effort in civilian life than they are doing to-day.
The Address-Mr. Wright

To-night I propose to deal mainly with agricultural subjects. There is very little with respect to agriculture contained in the speech from the throne, the Qnly mention being the intention to establish floor prices for agricultural products. I think most of us will agree with that; I only hope that the floor is not so full of trap-doors that most farmers in this country will find themselves in the cellar before two or three years have passed. That is the kind of policy this government has had in connection with agriculture ever since the beginning of the war. It has been a minimum policy.
The only advance there has been in prices of agricultural products has occurred after organized agriculture has made a definite fight. That is what happened with respect to butter prices. It was only after the organized agriculturists of this country had put up a tremendous fight that we got any advance in butter prices. The same with beef prices and again with grain prices. Hon. members from all sides of the house have endeavoured to direct the attention of the government to the prices being paid for grain in western Canada and to the fact that they were entirely inadequate. Large delegations came here from western Canada to place these matters before the government, but no action was taken until this fall. Apparently two by-elections in western Canada had more influence on the government than all the rest of the members. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) and the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Burton) upon having done more for the farmers of western Canada than we had been able to do in the four years previous.
I do not like the phrase "floor prices"; I would rather call them "basic prices". Any price that is established for agricultural products must take certain essential things into consideration. First, such price must be sufficient to enable the farmer to pay a fair wage to his help and to his wife and family if they have to be used to produce the products which we need during this war. For ten years before the war and for the first three years of this war agricultural prices were at such a level that the farmer in all parts of Canada was able to produce only because he was using the unpaid labour of his wife and family or paying wages to his help which were a disgrace. I hope that in establishing a basic price for agricultural products this matter will be taken into consideration.
Any basic price for agricultural products should be sufficient to enable the farmer to have a decent home and home surroundings.
I have seen sections in many of our cities

where better homes were needed, but I have seen nothing quite as poor as some of the homes in some of our agricultural districts, especially in northern New Brunswick, northern Ontario and northern Saskatchewan. If a thousand of those homes could be placed adjacent to one of our cities there would be such a howl of public opinion raised against them that something would have to be done. However, because they are scattered and very few people see them we have allowed them to exist as a disgrace to this country for the last twenty years. This basic price should be sufficient to permit the farmer to have the necessary electrical equipment and other amenities of life now available to many of his brothers in the city.
This basic price for agricultural products should be sufficient to permit the farmer to have decent educational facilities. Here again I know that if I could bring a thousand of the schools I have seen in agricultural districts and place them adjacent to one of our cities there would be such a howl of public opinion *that something would have to be done. But again, simply because they are scattered throughout the country and few people see them we allow them to exist.
Any basic price established for agricultural products should be such as would provide decent medical attention for the farmer and his family. For the past number of years there has been only a very poor type of medical attention available to the farmer. While it may be partly due to the war, the fact is that there are many districts in Canada where proper medical attention is mot available. Many of' our medical men are now serving in the navy, army and air force. Our country doctors have been the most abused group of people in our dominion. They have travelled for miles over bad roads in all kinds of weather, giving what service they could to our people and very often receiving only from forty to fifty per cent of the worth of their services because of the prices being received for agricultural products. Again I say that in the establishment of a basic price for agricultural products the matter of medical attention should be taken into consideration.
I feel that basic price for agricultural products should be a price that will fluctuate with the cost of production. If it is established as a floor that cannot be variedl, then if the cost of production rises it is no longer a floor but a cellar. So I say that the price should fluctuate with the cost of production.
I feel certain of this, that if we are to have anything like full employment in Canada after the war, we must give to the people of this country the ability to purchase the goods they

The Address-Mr. Wright
need, and I know of no greater market for goods than our agricultural areas. We talk about export markets. Export markets are very fine, and we need them. But our home market, after all, is our greatest market." With twenty-five per cent of our people engaged in agriculture, there you have a tremendous market in satisfying their needs for goods. We need better homes; we need electrification. What would it mean to Canada if instead of ten per cent of our farms having electricity, ninety per cent of them had that boon? What a demand there would be for electrical equipment in Canada 1 It would put thousands of people to work in our factories producing the goods we need on the farm.
Our farm equipment in Canada has also become depleted during the war. To-day it is not modern by any means. If we receive a basic price for agricultural, products we shall be able to modernize our farm equipment, and that will mean employment for thousands more of our people in Canada.
Another matter with which I wish to deal is referred to in the speech from the throne, which states that it is the intention of the government to establish an industrial bank. Apparently the government is going into the banking business. We in this group have stated that we believe in the nationalization of the banking system. But we do not believe in doing it piecemeal as the government proposes to do it. The government proposes in the speech from the throne to establish an industrial bank. If it is going to establish an industrial bank, why not an agricultural bank too? Agriculture needs credit even more than industry does. Agriculture has always paid more for its credit than industry has, from 50 to 100 per cent more, and it will continue to pay more for its credit unless something is done about it. We in this group believe that credit should be made available to agriculture at approximately 24 per cent. This government is borrowing millions for war purposes at 14 per cent, and surely one per cent would be a sufficient charge for the distribution and collection of agricultural credit. So I say that if we are to have an industrial bank, we should also have an agricultural bank, and see that credit is made available to agriculture at a price that agriculture can afford to pay. That bank would extend long-term loans. We in this group believe that, so far as short-term credit is concerned, probably the encouragement of the credit union movement in this country would serve the purpose. Credit unions are growing by leaps and bounds, and
we believe that with proper encouragement they might be able to take care of a large part of the short-term credit needed by agriculture.
If we fail to establish a basic price for agricultural products and to provide credit for our farm industry I am afraid that the ownership of our farms and homes in Canada will pass out of the hands of those who own them and are farming to-day. Very few people realize just how quickly ownership has been passing from the people, in Canada during the last forty years.
I have some statistics here taken from the 1941 census and from the Economic Annalist for October, 1937, with regard to farm tenancy in Canada. They indicate that in Manitoba the drop in farm ownership has been about 25 per cent; in Saskatchewan 45 per cent, in Alberta 34 per cent, in Ontario the percentage is now almost 48 per cent lower than in 1901.
In the matter of urban home ownership we find that over 48 per cent of the homes in Canada are rented; ownership has passed out of the hands of the occupants of these homes. These statistics also indicate that for the rural areas, farm and non-farm, the percentage occupied by tenants in 1941, when the last census was taken, was 24'4; for farm homes alone, 18'8 per cent; and for rural non-farm homes 33 per cent. In urban centres, which includes even villages with less than 1,000 people, 58-8 per cent of the homes were occupied by tenants. In cities of 30,000 and over, two-thirds of the homes were in this category; in cities of 15,000 to 30,000, and smaller centres of 5,000 to 15,000, about 53 per cent. Taking all urban centres of 15,000 and over combined, almost 65 per cent of the homes were occupied by tenants.
I shall not take time to read the figures for all the provinces but I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that with the consent of the house I might be allowed to place these two tables on Hansard because they give a complete picture of home and farm ownership in the Dominion of Canada.


Thomas Vien: Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. gentleman shall have leave to place these tables on Hansard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Percy Ellis Wright: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The tables follow:
The Address-Mr. Wright

Table 1
Percentage of Fully Owned Farms, 1901-1941
Can.	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.1901	
87-0	94-1	96-3	94-2	89-8	79-8	88-9	96-1	95-8	80-21911	
88-5	95-5	95-3	94-6	92-2	82-1	83-4	90-6	92-0	85-61921	
86-5	95-6	9GT	96-1	94-9	85-2	82-0	77-6	90-3	86-41931	
80-4	94-0	94-2	93-9	93-0	81-9	09-9	66-3	72-9	81-91941	
75-1	92-2	92-3	92-4	92-7	78-6	66-1	53-0	62-8	79-6
(Sources: Census of 1941; S. C. Hudson, in The Economic Annalist, dominion Department of Agriculture, October, 1937.)
Table 2
Percentage of Tenant Farms, 1901-1941
Can.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.1901	14-3	5-0	1-6	2-21911	
7-9	13-7	10-4	3-7	3-81921	
7-9	10-2	11-3	10-8	9-71931	11-2	18-3	15-3	12-11941	11-9	18-8	24-3	16-9
(Sources: Census of 1941; S. C. Hudson, in The Economic Annalist, dominion Department of Agriculture, October, 1937.)
Percentage of Owned and Rented Homes, 1931 and 1941
Owned	Rented	Owned	RentedCanada 	1931 60-5	1941 56-7	1931 39-5	1941 43-3	Ontario	1931 61-4	1941 56-6	1931 38-6	1941 43*4Rural	78-8	75-6	21-2	24-4	Rural	75-6	71-0	24-4	29-0Farm	81-1	18-9	Farm	79-6	20*4Non-farm..	67-0	33-0	Non-farm... .	62-3	37-7Urban	45-5	41-2	54-5	58-8	Urban	52-6	47-4	47-4	52*6P.E.I	84-7	81-0	15-3	19-0	Manitoba 	63-9	62-2	36-1	37-8Rural	93-1	90-9	6-9	9-1	Rural	75-7	73-2	24-3	26-8Farm	91-9	8-1	Farm	76-1	23-9Non-farm..	82-0	18-0	Non-farm....	68-4	31-6Urban	56-3	50-6	43-7	49-4	Urban	'	50-6	48-3	49-4	51;6Nova Scotia...	09-2	69-3	30-8	30-7	Saskatchewan .. .	71-9	65-0	28-1	35-0Rural	86-5	83-9	13-5	16-1	Rural	80-6	73-8	19-4	26-2Farm	87-2	12-8	Farm	74-4	25-6Non-farm..	81-2	18-8	Non-farm... .	67-7	32-3Urban	48 -i	51-0	51-9	49-0	Urban	54-7	48-3	45-3	51-7New Brunswick	67-4	66-8	32-6	33-2	Alberta 	70-0	65-8	30-0	34-2Rural	82-2	81-5	17-8	18-5	Rural	80-8	76-8	19-2	23-2Farm	88-0	12-0	Farm	79-5	20-5Non-farm..	75-8	24-2	Non-farm.. . .	64-3	35-7Urban	39 0	38-0	61-0	62-0	Urban	53-2	49-2	46-8	50-8Maritimes ....	69-9	69-3	30-1	30-7	Prairies 	69-0	64-4	31-0	35-6Rural	85-2	83-6	14-8	16-4	Rural	79-4	74-6	20-6	25-4Farm	88-4	11-6	Farm	76-5	23-5Non-farm..	78-8	21-2	Non-farm... .	67-0	33-0Urban	45-4	46-6	54-6	53-4	Urban	52-8	48-6	47-2	51-4Quebec 	47-9	44-6	52-1	55-4	British Columbia	58-5	58-9	41-5	41-1Rural	84-4	83-4	15-6	16-6	Rural	66-4	66-8	33-6	33-2I arm	88-8	11-2	Farm	74-7	25-3Non-farm..	29-7	70-3	29-7	Non-farm... .	64-2	35-8Urban	25-5	70-3	74-5	Urban	52-1	52-0	47-9	48-0
We in this group have been accused of intending to take home ownership away from the people and of intending to take away the owmership of farms from the present occupants of farms. Some people have gone so far as to say that while we may not do it now, immediately the present owner of the farm dies the farm will not be allowed to [Mr. Wriffht.l
pass on to his son or to whomever else he wills it. That has never been the policy of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party, nor is it to-day. The policy of the C.C.F. party is one which is designed to give home ownership back to the people, homes which have been stolen from them through the capitalistic and monopolistic system during the

The Address-Mr. Wright
past fifty years. As indicated by the tables which I have just placed on Hansard, that ownership has been gradually declining, and if we allow the present trend to continue for another twenty-five or thirty years we shall find that from seventy-five to eighty per cent of our people will become tenants, and as a result we would have drifters in our agricultural areas.


Gordon Graydon: Do the tables which the hon. gentleman has just placed on Hansard show the number of tenants as compared with the number of home owners in eastern Canada?


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes, the figures are given by provinces. As a matter of fact it will be found from the tables that there are only two provinces in Canada in which ownership is as great as it was in the year 1901, and those two provinces, if I remember aright, are British Columbia and Prince Edward Island.


Gordon Graydon: Since these tables are being put on Hansard I think we ought at least to be told what is the proportion of tenants to owners in Ontario.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is shown in the table. I would not give it off-hand, not having the table in front of me just now, but it is indicated in the return which has just been tabled. I may say that the increase in tenantry in Ontario, if I remember correctly, in the last ten years has been eight per cent.


Mr. WEIR:: As a matter of information-if the hon. member will excuse me-in the figures he has placed on record is there any weighted consideration given to the trend to living in large apartment blocks and moving into central places in cities and towns?


Percy Ellis Wright: There are figures given with regard to the various cities. I do not think they are broken down to the extent that the hon. member is inquiring about, but only with respect to the size of the various cities. But they are comprehensive, and well worth studying as an indication of a trend which is going on in Canada to-day, a trend which we in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation believe should be stopped, and which, if our programme is put into effect, definitely will be stopped.
There is one other matter with which I wish to deal, namely the cooperative movement in Canada. We of the C.C.F. believe not only in private ownership of your home, your farm, and your small business, but we believe that another type of ownership which is to be commended in this country is cooperative ownership.


Gordon Graydon: You fellows must be
capitalists.


Percy Ellis Wright: No, we are not. I will explain to my hon. friend in a moment the difference between capitalism and cooperation.


James Arthur Ross: What about the viewpoint of your colleague in the Ontario house?


Percy Ellis Wright: If the hon. gentlemen will wait to make their speeches until I am through, I shall be delighted.
As I have stated, we believe in the cooperative movement. In Canada that movement has grown by leaps and bounds during the last number of years. I have here statistics which show that In the year 1942 the reported membership of the cooperatives in Canada exceeded half a million., and the aggregate business was over $250,000,000. Reserves and surpluses reached the high point of $46,000,000 and the working capital position showed general improvement. This is according to A. E. Richards, who is head of the extension department. The cooperative movement is, I believe, the only thing we have in Canada to-day which is a real block to the growth of monopoly capitalism, and as such it should be encouraged by any government in this country. The people who are opposed to the cooperative movement to-day are joining forces to try to stop the growth of that movement. I have in my hand a copy of the Maritime Co-operator for February 1 of this year. In it, Professor MacDonald, speaking before the Nova Scotia Credit Union league on January 12 and 13, makes this statement:
In the United States big business had already formed an anti-cooperative league, pooling thousands of dollars in an attempt to smash cooperative enterprise. Similar efforts, he declared, were already gathering strength in Canada advocating a return to unregulated free enterprise, which he called "a system of free exploitation, favouring the ousting of government control."
It is beyond me how any person can in the same breath say that he believes in competition and capitalism and that be believes in cooperation and cooperatives. Such people are either ignorant of the true meaning of cooperation or they are deliberately trying to mislead.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) wished to know the difference between cooperation and capitalism. The cooperative way of doing business is the direct opposite to the competitive way. Cooperation emphasizes service and equality; competition emphasizes profits and special privileges. We need in Canada to-day a dominion cooperative act which will coordinate the cooperative
The Address-Mr. Wright

movements throughout the dominion. We have in many of our provinces fairly good cooperative acts; and I hope that this government will see fit to bring down a cooperative act which will clarify the position of the cooperatives in Canada in many respects, especially in the matter of taxation. At the present time the pools in western Canada are in a position where they do not know whether they are to be taxed on their earnings during the past number of years, and it places them in a serious position, and one which should be clarified at the earliest possible moment. We have in western Canada also the first cooperative oil refinery established anywhere in the world. It has been doing a fine piece of work as far as western Canada is concerned. It was established some eight years ago with a capital of approximately $32,000; and to-day, after eight years of operation, it has assets of a million and a half dollars, and last year did a business worth two and one-quarter million dollars. Not only has that cooperative been able to build up that capital *during this past eight years, but it has reduced the price of petroleum products to the farmer in western Canada to the extent that the savings in one year on one section of land farmed with mechanized equipment are over three hundred dollars, that is compared with what it would have cost the farmer had that refinery not been established. That is a remarkable showing, and our cooperatives should be encouraged in every way possible.
The fourth point which I wish to bring to the attention of the house is the matter of establishing marketing boards in Canada. I believe we should have a dominion marketing act under which we can establish boards for the marketing of various farm products in the dominion, and the act should make it possible that, where sixty to sixty-five per cent of the growers engaged in the production of any particular farm product agree that they should have orderly marketing through the marketing board, it wTould be compulsory for all that product to be marketed through that board. I believe that is the only way in which we shall be able to obtain orderly marketing in the dominion. As long as small groups of people are left free to disturb the orderly marketing of a particular product because they do not agree to go into that marketing board, I do not think we can have orderly marketing. The greatest factor which is operating against the orderly marketing of farm products in Canada to-day is the surpluses which we may have from year to year on account of weather conditions. We often find that, with very small surpluses existing,
fMr. Wright.]
products are dumped on the market by a few people and the market for those products destroyed. I believe that there should be marketing boards controlled by the growers themselves, in conjunction with an export marketing board which would take care of the surpluses which may occur from year to year, and which, after all, we need. We should not draw the line too close in Canada so as not to have a surplus, because we do not know what the weather man has in store for us. This surplus should be taken off the market by the government board and processed and kept as a reserve against years of crop failure, or it should be made available for export to countries where there are deficiencies. In Hot Springs, Virginia, about two months ago, there was a conference with regard to the supply of food to countries in which there are deficiencies, and the surpluses which We may have in Canada from year to year, now that we have dehydrating plans and we know more about quick-freezing, could be processed and made available to these other countries instead of becoming a drug on the market in our own country, thus destroying the price system which may obtain at the time.
I believe also that we should have in Canada a programme whereby we might have a reserve of non-perishable products such as grains against any year of drought or a series of years of drought, and the best place in which such products can be stored is right on the farms where they are grown. Under the present system we are taking these grains and storing them in large terminals hundreds of miles away from where they are grown, and if we should have a drought in Western Canada again, or two or three years of drought, wc might find ourselves in a position where we would be hauling grain again for seed and feed for the farmers. In the United States they have established such a system as I have suggested. They store grain right on the farm. There is no reason why the same thing cannot be done in Canada. If it were done it would be the best insurance we could have against crop failure and it would give a sense of security to the people living on our farms.
We have a modified form of crop insurance in Canada under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. That act has served a very useful purpose ; but unfortunately, like practically everything else the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has had anything to do with, we find that the operation of this scheme has become riddled with political patronage, thereby destroying in part at least its usefulness. I believe that not only should we have crop insurance for western Canada but that this

The Address-Mr. Wright
crop insurance should be made available to any group of growers of any particular agricultural product who want their crops insured. It might very well be made available to our tobacco growers, or our potato or apple growers, and the cost of that insurance should be taken into consideration in the establishing of basic prices for agricultural products in Canada. There is no other line of industry where the cost of insurance is not written into the price of the goods it produces, and that should apply to the insurance of agricultural products. Any basic price established for agricultural products should be a price which has taken into consideration the cost of insurance of that crop. If we had that type - of scheme in Canada it would give more permanency to agriculture.
Another scheme which has been developed by this government and which has been a very good one is the prairie farm rehabilitation scheme in the west. This has been the first attempt by any government on any large scale to rehabilitate land in Canada. No one who has followed the course of land settlement in Canada during the past one hundred years can fail to be saddened by what has taken place.


James Garfield Gardiner: Any politics in that?


Percy Ellis Wright: I am afraid there is considerable politics in prairie farm assistance.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a pretty good outfit.


Percy Ellis Wright: I will say this, however. They have done good work, and the scheme inaugurated is something that should be encouraged and extended not only to the area in which it is operating in western Canada but to the whole of the west.


James Garfield Gardiner: What is wrong with politics anyhow?


Percy Ellis Wright: Politics as some people play it is not so hot. That scheme should be extended to cover all the western provinces, and there should be set up-in conjunction with it another scheme in the east to cover Ontario and Quebec, and one for the maritime provinces, because there is absolute need of the rehabilitation of farm lands in this country. One hundred years ago our people came to this country and settled in the maritime provinces and Ontario. No direction whatsoever was given them. They took up land wherever the land companies could secure it and sell it to them. Land was cleared that should never have been used for agricultural purposes. The result was that those people were able to live for a few years on those
farms where they established homes, but because the land should never have been used for agricultural purposes they had to abandon those homes.
Travel throughout Ontario and the mari-times and see these places. Every one represents not only an abandoned farm but lost hopes and ambitions on the part of those who settled on them. We allowed people to go to western Canada and there the same process was gone through They settled on land and after a few years found it was worthless as far as agriculture was concerned, and people left the south of the province and came to the north. This is my criticism of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, that people were allowed to come from the south and settle on the same kind of land in the north. I know of thousands of people who have been brought from the south of the province and established in the north and in twenty years from now they will find themselves in exactly the same position as they were in before. The land is not fit for agricultural purposes. We have had land surveys in Saskatchewan and they have served a useful purpose, but the information has not been disseminated with regard to the land and we have allowed lands to be settled which should never have been settled.


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


Percy Ellis Wright: I do not wish to trespass any longer on the time of the house and therefore I will leave for another occasion what I intended to say now. At that time I may be able to deal more fully with the matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Percy Ellis Wright: No. What I have to discuss will 'tako a good deal of time.


Mr. L. P. LIZOTTE (Kamouraska) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of this session the view seems to prevail that speeches could very well be shortened as much as possible so that contemplated measures might all the sooner be put into execution. I am heartily in accord with that idea, and, as usual, I shall be quite brief in the remarks I wish to make.
At this stage of the proceedings, we must ask ourselves whether it is convenient, in the interest of the Canadian people as a whole and of our constituents, to support generally the policy outlined by the government in the speech from the throne, which we are now considering. For the present, we must confine ourselves to the principles set forth, reserving
The Address-Mr. Lizotte

the right to discuss each measure and to consider each proposition on its merits as soon as the details are communicated to us.
Ever since I have the honour to be a member of this parliament, I have endeavoured to consider in a spirit of honesty and independence all problems in, their true light, andl to approve or disapprove of them conscientiously, outside of all personal or party considerations.
Of course, that is not the best method for avoiding difficulties, but it is the safest way of being at peace with oneself and keeping the confidence of those who have entrusted their interests to us.
Without any further preliminaries, I do not hesitate to state that we should be unfair if we did not congratulate the government, as warmly as we have sometimes opposed certain measures, for the splendid programme they have outlined for the present session of parliament. The proposals -which are being laid before us are so timely that they can seemingly gain the almost- unanimous support of this house. As was to be expected, the government's opponents, wTho are here for the furtherance of opposite political interests, have referred to that programme as an election manifesto, made out on the eve of an, election. Although my experience in politics is by no means lengthy, I quite understand their embarrassment, but I think it is an indication that the ,programme is good, and such as to meet the wishes of the people. If there is no election before the session ends or before those measures are implemented, no one will be able to claim that, this manifesto is nothing but an election promise.
I believe I may say, therefore, that the fate of the government is in its hands and that its future will depend upon the fairness with which it will carry out the proposed measures.
I do not wish, for the time being, to discuss the war programme of the government. I have had numerous occasions of expressing my views in this connection and I still hold to the same views. We are all agreed that it is absolutely necessary to win the war and to hasten victory, but the fact must be borne in mind that after all Canada is a young nation and that she must act in her own interests and according to her own means, leaving older and wealthier nations more directly concerned to follow the same policy.
I shall therefore confine myself to the plans respecting the period of transition and of peace, outlined in the speech from the throne. How shall we assess these plans?
How could we, on, principle, object to the government's plan of increasing our exports by facilitating the exchange of our products

with those of other nations after the war? We have forests, mines, water-power and other natural resources of untold value, which may be used in international trade. The interests of our people demand that we should be prepared to take advantage of these resources in order to anticipate prosperity.
How could we, on principle, object to our country's individual participation in an international organization which will strive to avert future wars, further catastrophes, and promote universal security? Would not such a policy tend to give recognition to the sovereigifty of Canada, a dream which we have so long Cherished?
How could we denounce the putting into effect of certain plans to establish, during the post-war period, a minimum standard of welfare-better food and shelter, social insurance against the hazards of life, setting-up of a national contributory old age pensions scheme on a more generous basis? If we did, it would be tantamount to opposing the new order which has been held out before our eyes and which can only be attained by properly directed social measures.
Who would say that they oppose the setting up of a body intended to supply the credit necessary for the launching of new industrial enterprises, small and medium in size, and to help those already in existence? That will be our greatest need, both in rural and urban centres, if we are to put all our manpower to work after the war.
I should be amazed beyond words if even one member in the house opposed the principle behind a measure which would carry out family allowances. The idea has been under Consideration for the past fifty years in this country, and the time has come for a government to have the courage to identify itself with such a plan and implement it. It must be well understood, however, that these allowances shall be apportioned so as to reward and encourage a high birth-rate and help particularly the many Canadian mothers who did not shrink from filling the cradle over and over again, in accordance with the precept laid down by the Creator: "Be fruitful and multiply". A government which would apply this one measure of family allowances with Christian fairness would find that it has done enough to secure the support of the people and their forgiveness of its past mistakes in the management of public affairs.
I am pleased to see that the government has expressed its intention of setting a minimum price on farm products. For too long has the farmer, king of the universe, been treated as a poor relation. I have never understood why, if the workingman is unde-

The Address-Mr. Lizotte
niably entitled to a fair salary, the farmer should not also have the right to be paid prices just as fair and reasonable for his products. Because the farmer, who is a peaceful and orderly man, has never cared to resort to force in order to press his claims, he has had to muddle through as best he could until now, and it seemed as if he would remain in a class where the income could not budge. If the government carries out its purpose in this respect, it will be entitled to the gratitude of the most interesting class of people.-
For all these reasons, I shall support the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
If the contents of the speech from the throne are reassuring and give us good reason to hope for the future, we cannot, however, overlook die dark clouds which still threaten on the horizon. Too often do we hear birds of ill-'omen croaking every type of propaganda intended to fray our nerves and fill us with anxiety for the future of our country and the social security of our people.	.
I wish to denounce the proponents of extreme imperialism and of a policy of immigration on a vast scale. There are also the proponents of state controls whom I intend to denounce when opportunity offers. It is certain that, once the war is over, our people will balk at all the vexatious restrictions imposed by a new bureaucracy, which must be done away with as soon as possible.
The Canadian people believe that they are at home in Canada. They are ceaselessly reminded that they are a sovereign state and that the Westminster statute is a step in the road to independence. If so, be they allowed to keep their delusions and let there be a stop to the procession of salesmen of imperialism who come with statements hurtful to Canadian sentiments.
I congratulate the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for having disapproved of the terms of Lord Halifax's last proposal. Let the latter attend to his mission in the United States and abstain from offering us suggestions of an imperial federation. If the former leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) and the present leader (Mr. Graydon) have refused to take a positive stand on these matters, it is probably because his views expressed follow very closely those of the Tory party, as foriherly expressed by Lord Bennett, of whom we have such an unpleasant recollection. One may be convinced that this policy of imperialization is not accepted any more by the proud people of Canada.
While still shouting that nothing matters except the winning of the war, an attempt is made, in certain quarters, to take advantage
of the willingness of our country to go the limit on the road to sacrifice to ask that further sacrifices be made to promote the interests of foreign nations, when peace has been won. An incidious propaganda is spreading the idea that Canada, with its 3,500,000 square miles of territory, should accommodate all the refugees from other countries who wish to take their chances in our midst. In my humble view, this proposition is for the least premature. In spite of their traditionally charitable dispositions, our people will oppose the entry of outsiders, from whatever country they may come, until our returned men and our unemployed have secured jobs bringing them enough money to ensure their welfare and the stabilization of our commerce and industry. Personally, I would resent it if strangers were to take the places, on this hemisphere, that rightly belong to .Canadians.
A lot is said about devastation and ruin in countries that have fallen victims to aggression. Our help and sympathy have so far gone to those countries, but do you not believe, Mr. Speaker, that their reconstruction will call for the efforts of all their sons? Should Canada send her people abroad for reconstruction work, while refugees who should logically be at work in their own countries, would take the place of our people in Canada and enjoy here a more comfortable life? That would be absurd.
The complaint is heard that some European countries have a too low birth-rate. Would not their problem become more acute if they were deprived of the elements necessary for the restoration of their population? After the war, each country wall have to set its own house in order.
I have received many protest petitions from my constituency and I fully intend to support them. May I suggest that all those advocates of mass immigration should be strongly advised to stop their agitation and wait until our country's economic and industrial structure recovers from the injuries it has sustained before they put forward any immigration plan. We must show forbearance, but I still believe in the old motto, which the British have taught us by word and deed: Charity begins at home. To sacrifice the interests of our people to those of outsiders, would be ill directed charity while being detrimental, at the same time, to the countries of those who would benefit by our excessive generosity.
I have made these few remarks in the house in order to call the attention of the hon. members to the serious disturbance that might be engendered in our country by the implementation of a policy advocated by Utopians prompted by momentary enthusiasm, without a thought for the real interests of our people.
Wextern Stock Feeders

These thoughts have been inspired by one single hope, that of seeing Canada, after the war, once again a unified, happy and prosperous country.
On motion of Mr. Tustin the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Tuesday, February 8, 1944