1944-02-09

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. McGarry be substituted for that of Mr. Isnor on the special committee appointed to revise the standing orders of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I desire to direct two questions to the government through the Minister of Agriculture. Has the government carefully considered the seriousness of the possibility that undesirable prices and marketing conditions at present facing beef producers in western Canada may so discourage them as to cause an embarrassing beef shortage next year? Inasmuch as the present lack of markets confronting western Canadian producers might indicate that Canada does not need their beef, would the government consider permitting producers to sell their beef for a time in the United States market?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: The question which has been raised by the hon. member for Lethbridge, on each of the last three sittings, I think, of the house, is answered in the following words:
During the first month of the present year, hog slaughterings have been at unprecedented levels and slaughterings of other classes of
Western Stock Feeders

live stock have been substantially greater than during the same period a year ago. Cattle slaughtered in Canada during the first four weeks of 1944 totalled 86,991 as compared with 52,279 during the same period of 1943, an increase of 34,712 head, or 66 per cent. Sheep and lamb slaughterings totalled 65,169 as compared with 44,318 in 1943, an increase of 20,851, or 47 per cent. Calf slaughterings were 24,795 as compared with 19,066, an increase of 5,629, or 30 per cent. Hog slaughterings totalled 901,767 as compared with 501,334 a year ago, an increase of 400,435, or 80 per cent.
I give these figures in order to call attention to the suggestion which is made in the question of the hon. member, namely that unless we do something now we are going to have a shortage a year hence, and to remind the house that I have heard that same story every year since the war began; and now this year, when we are entering upon the session, we are reporting an eighty per cent increase -in deliveries of, let us say, hogs, and comparable increases of other live stock coming in from the farms in different parts of Canada. The figures which I have given are only for the month of January, but comparable figures exist with regard to the three * months preceding the month of January, all of which should suggest to the house that there has' been very little in all this talk with regard to any possibility of there heir/; a decrease in meat supplies in Canada, at least in the immediate future. That, I would say, possibly would have some bearing even on the suggestion that there will be a decrease a year hence. Handling and movement of this record volume of live stock has taxed the capacity of the packing plants, storage warehouses and shipping facilities.
Purchases of bacon for the United Kingdom account have averaged over 20,000,000 pounds for several weeks, and an, average of 20,000,000 pounds for fifty weeks out of the year would be 1,000,000,000. I give these figures to emphasize the great quantities of live stock which are coming on the market at the present time.
All available storage space was used for storage, but all product over and above what could be stored was placed in cure for current shipment, and the record volume that had to be moved placed a great strain on- the shipping space available. I may say, with regard to this matter too, that recently three boats which were intended to be made available for the shipment of meat have met with mishaps, and that has made it impossible for them to take meat out until repairs are made. That too is a difficulty that governments cannot avoid during a war period,
[Mr. Gardiner.J
The following statement shows the storage stocks at January 1, 1944 as compared with January 1, 1943, the figures being in thousands of pounds:
	1943	1944
	Thousand pounds	
Frozen beef (bone in) ..	, 15,498	13,065Frozen beef (boneless)..	. 4,498	8,735Veal 	. 2,308	5,445Mutton and lamb	. 5,038	9,345Fresh frozen pork	22,142	27,582This last figure includes approximately 18,-	
000,000 pounds of export bacon stored for later shipment.
While at the moment, owing to heavy slaughterings of all classes of live stock during recent weeks, there is what might be considered a surplus of meat, the fact is that the United Kingdom desires all the surplus meat that Canada can provide. What happens to be a surplus at the moment is due to lack of shipping facilities to move the surplus product immediately. The reasons, in part, for that I have already given.
Steps are being taken to divert additional shipping space to Canadian ports not only for the purpose of handling additional 'bacon but also to lift surplus quantities of beef and mutton. That is a diversion of ships from some ports further south, to Canadian ports, in order to take out Canadian meat. That would emphasize the fact that there is just as great a difficulty in handling meat on the American side of the boundary line as there is on this side. As a matter of fact, there have been controls even more stringent with regard to getting hogs into packing plants on the American side of the boundary line than there have been on this side. All one needs to do at present is to examine the price levels in the two countries to realize that difficulties are as great on the other side as they are on this side.
Our pork to-day, in the markets in Canada, is bringing a higher price, with the premiums that are being paid, than the prices quoted on the American side of the line at the present time. This is particularly true of the Buffalo market as compared with the Toronto market. I have before me the figures on most live stock products. One would find it difficult to ship many live stock products into the United States under present conditions, pay the freight and any duty which there might be upon these meat products, and land the products in the markets there at higher prices than can be obtained here, or at prices as high as can be obtained in Canada, or at any rate as high returns as are here obtainable, including subsidies in some cases.
The immediate problem is (a) to secure additional shipping space and (b) to relieve the

Western Stock Feeders
congestion in cold storages by exporting products now in storage so as to permit the packing plants to handle and store the surplus live stock that is offered. The meat board stands prepared to purchase and export to the United Kingdom all surplus quantities of pork and beef, and arrangements are being made to export some quantities of mutton as soon as shipping space is available. Notwithstanding the heavy volume of live stock being offered- and this is important as an answer to a part of the question-prices for hogs and finished cattle have not been depressed, and all good butcher cattle has remained well above floor prices. With ample meat supplies available, the packers have found it difficult to move lower quality cattle and cows in the domestic market. The meat board found it difficult to handle the quantities being offered owing to the shortage of storage and shipping space, and in that connection I think I should say that there is no diffierence in the present conditions, so far as the marketing of live stock is concerned, as compared with conditions that always prevail. A man who is bound that he will ship live stock just when he thinks it ought to be shipped is always in the position, whether the government has control or has no control, of having to accept a price lower than the market would have provided for him had he waited another week or two to deliver. In the present situation, under more or less government control, he can move his live stock, more particularly cows, and have those cows processed in packing plants, frozen if necessary in the form of beef, and shipped to Britain. That is the market which is available under the arrangements now made, and when the government says to people with cows, "You had better hold them off for another two or three weeks, or another month, if you want to get a fair price for them," I submit the hardship is no greater in doing that than it was when on other occasions one was obliged to do it in order to meet the laws of supply and demand. That is the situation which does exist at present and it is creating some difficulty.
There is one other thing I hesitate to say, but I ought to say it in view of some of the representations that have been made in the resolutions which are coming to us from the section most affected, and that is that cows that run on the range have to be marketed somewhat earlier in the season than many cows that do not run on the range. The reason for that is obvious to men who are accustomed to handling cattle in the range country. It is that the cattle have to be got to the butcher before calving time comes. I am not so sure that getting them to the bqtcher before that
time will affect the quantity of meat in the manner suggested a few moments ago. It might even increase the quantity to have the cattle kept off the market. That may not meet the wishes of those desirious of selling cattle at present, though it does affect somewhat the price that can be secured for the quality of beef obtainable from a cow that is heavily in calf. While an ample meat supply is available, the packers have found it difficult to handle the lower quality cattle and cows in the domestic market. The meat board found it difficult to handle the quantities offered owing to the shortage of storage and shipping space. During the past few days, however, the board has been able to accept immediate shipment of some seven million pounds of beef, and this movement has had an immediate effect on cow prices, which moved sharply upwards in all markets. There is every reason to believe that in future all surplus beef available will be handled and lifted as offered for export. There has been a decline in sheep and lamb prices as a result of the temporary over-all meat position. While there is no floor price established for mutton and lamb, steps have been taken to export some of the surplus accumulation now in storage with a view to creating a better market for this class of live stock.
That, I think, covers the position pretty well with regard to the matter of beef, particularly the lower qualities which are not required on our home market. There does not appear to be any difficulty in connection with the quality of beef which is required on the home market.


Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: In view of the statement of the minister with regard to the surplus of meats throughout Canada, will the government consider the discontinuance of the meatless Tuesday and of the rationing of meats in Canada?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Consideration can be given to that.


Mr. GRAYDON:: The minister says "consideration can be given." Consideration can be given to anything. Is consideration being given to it?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Perhaps I should have said "will be given".



CONDEMNATION OP 500.000 POUNDS IN GOVERNMENT WAREHOUSES IN QUEBEC CITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to give an answer to the question asked yesterday by the hon.
Wheat Exports

member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) with regard to the beef which had been found spoiling in Quebec. I may say this beef was in the storage of the national harbours board at Quebec. As I understand it, the inspector, Mr. C. A. Rose, assistant chief veterinary inspector, was called in to make a report, and has made a report, which I now table,

INQUIRY AS TO EXPORTS TO THE UNITED STATES On the orders of the day:


Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce based on a report appearing in the western papers to this effect, that the United States are after all the wheat they can get from Canada. The report goes on to say that the United States government have purchased forty million bushels of wheat from Canada and have sent twenty-seven hundred cars to Canada to transport it. It also says that this is necessary to prevent the rationing of flour and bread in the United States. When similar sales have been made by the Canadian Wheat Board the minister has always made a statement to the house. Would he care to make a statement as to the conditions under which this wheat is being sold, the price and the conditions in respect of duties, freight, et cetera, and what Canadian export agencies are handling the transr-action?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I think, Mr. Speaker, that I can give the house at a very early date a statement on the point raised by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.



CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Labour, or in his absence to his parliamentary assistant. It has come to my attention that in many cases the wives and children of conscientious objectors who are being sent to work camps in Ontario are being left without any means of support. Is it the policy of the government merely to pay these men fifty cents a flay and to make no additional provision for their dependents?


Mr. PAUL MARTIN (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: The question that the hon. member has just asked came 
to my attention a few moments before I came into the house. If he will allow the question to stand I shall be able to give a complete answer to-morrow.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT AS TO COAL, OH, AND NATURAL GAS SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South): May I ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply if he will give the house a statement some time soon with respect to coal, oil and natural gas, and what the situation is likely to be in the future?
['Doctor Collins, who\npractised in Hudson Bay Junction at that \ntime. By and by we did have a change of government. Under that Liberal administration we did get much better treatment.- We were without a doctor for some considerable time, as no doctor could provide medical service for this large area under such conditions. There was not a doctor within seventy miles when he left for another location. His going was a great loss to our community.\nHow would hon. members like to live in a community where there was no doctor within seventy miles to look after people who became sick. But when the Liberal government did decide to do something about those people, they madte provision for $50 a month to pay the doctor. The doctor had to agree that every person who was on relief could come to him and receive treatment. He was not prevented from making additional collections. But people who were getting $10 a month for relief, and were selling cordwood at a dollar a cord were not likely to be able to pay much to a medical doctor. However, the doctor was concerned about the health of the people, and he did accept $50 a month from the provincial government, and did give medical service to the people in a very large area.\nI submit that $50 a month to give comprehensive service to such a large number of people in an area where the nearest hospital and doctor is seventy miles away is not sufficient. Many of the people in that area were men who had fought for their king and country at the time of the last war. That was one of the areas which was available for settlement when they came back from overseas. They settled on these bush homesteads, up in the north country.\nAfter criticizing ourselves for our failure to care for people in times of sickness, we might ask ourselves if people in other countries have done better. If we examine the evidence placed before us in this large volume by the advisory committee I think we shall find that there are two countries which have outstanding records, as far as providing health for their citizens is concerned. I refer to New Zealand and Russia. And, in passing, I urge hon. members to take advantage of the opportunity to hear Doctor Sigerist this evening in the Glebe collegiate, or to-morrow before he leaves the city. Hear what this outstanding professor of the history of medicine has to say about what has been done in Russia.\nIn his book, which I have before me, I find\nsome significant statements. He says this:\nIt seems to me that the following four points represent the mdst characteristic features of the soviet health system:\n1.\tMedical service is free and therefore available to all;\n\nThe Address-Mr. Nicholson\n2.\tThe prevention of disease is in the foreground of all health activities;\n3.\tAll health activities are directed by central bodies, the people\'s commissariats of health, with the result that-\n4.\tHealth can be planned on a large scale.\nThen he says:\nThere can be no doubt that the soviet system of social insurance is infinitely superior to any insurance system in capitalist countries. The costs are what they should be, part of the cost of production. The benefits are infinitely greater than under any other insurance scheme. The worker is guaranteed complete medical service, he is given social security. He is entitled to it, because after all, he is creating the values that make such a scheme possible.\nMost people are agreed that changes will have to be made in our health programme in Canada. Some doubts exist as to what type of changes should be made. I have here a copy of "You Knew What You Were Voting For", written by William S. Gibson, President of National Cellulose of Canada, Limited.\nOn page eight he says:\nAll the planners start with the premise- "We must not have another depression." I could bring many arguments to show that nations and individuals profit more in adversity than in good times. I know that I would rather start a new enterprise during a depression than in good times.\nOf course Mr. Gibson would rather start an enterprise in poor times. In January I talked to a man working in one of the sawmills in my riding. He is receiving forty cents an hour and his board, but he told me that the first time he met me, in 1932 or 1933, he was working for four cents an hour for a ten-hour day. They could not even make it five cents an hour. Naturally Mr. Gibson would rather start an industry when he could have his materials produced by men working in the bush for four cents an hour, when there are fifty men looking for every job available.\nI think this war has proven one thing conclusively. It has proven that if we want it we can have a high standard of living in Canada in the world of to-morrow. We should understand that a nation can plan its production and consumption on a low plane, with mass unemployment and low standards, or on a high plane with full employment and high standards for its people. I should like to point out that it was stated by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), when he was Minister of Finance, that whatever is physically possible must be made financially possible. His successor, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), has emphasized that. We must always keep that in mind. If that is true in war time, then it is equally true in peace time. Whatever is physically possible in peace time must be financially possible.\nI have not the time to go into all the details that must be considered, but finance is not now and should not be a limiting factor in our effort in any direction. The only limiting factors should be: first, raw materials; second, labour; third, the machinery of pn>\nduction and, fourth, our power to coordinate these things. I submit that if the war should end to-morrow-we know that victory will be achieved some day-Canada would be a richer nation than ever before. By that I mean that we would have more new factories, more trained workers and more new resources to develop.\nIn order to plan a health programme for the post-war period there are certain physical necessities which must be kept in mind. We must have: first, nutritious food; second, adequate supplies of heat, light, potable water, sewage disposal facilities and fresh air; third, preventive and restrictive health services; fourth, adequate clothing and proper housing for all our citizens. I shall have something to say about most of these at some future time.\nMention was made a few days ago by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) of an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Journal and which had been prompted by the report of a speech by Mr. Jolliffe, leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in Ontario. During a discussion before a group of eminent medical men Mr. Jolliffe outlined in some detail the plans of the C.C.F. for improved medical services. This was during a meeting of the London academy of medicine on September 23, 1943. In his remarks Mr. Jolliffe made it quite clear that on the whole the doctors of this country had done a good job. We do not want to place the doctors of Canada in a position where they are not going to have a great deal of freedom. The president of the Canadian medical association made some reference to the fact that the C.CE. would limit the salaries of general practitioners to $3,000, and of specialists to $8,000. I have made a careful survey and I can find no record anywhere where any C.C.F. speaker made any statement of that kind.\nI would remind the house that in Russia they have provided the highest standard of living available for their doctors. The C.C.F. in any province in Canada would recognize that our doctors are highly trained and must be given as high a standard of living as we can provide collectively.\nThen the hon. member for Peterborough West asked if the C.C.F. could arrange for babies to be delivered between eight a.m. and five p.m., but no answer was given. Both the editorial in the Journal and the hon. member for Peterborough West assume that', 'Post-War Reconstruction\nno answer could be given. Again I would remind the house that arrangements have been made to look after the medical and dental needs of our troops without any one doctor having to work for twenty-four hours a day.\nSome of my best friends are of the medical profession and I have the greatest respect for them, but there is one thing I must say about them. While they are ready to look after their friends, most of them seem to be unable to look after themselves. Many of them are burnt out by the time they reach fifty or fifty-five years. We must provide machinery so that the medical services of this country can be carried on without any one doctor having to work for sixteen or twenty hours a day.\nOn motion of Mr. Marshall the debate was adjourned.']
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of J/Tunitions and Supply):: I shall be glad to discuss that subject when I speak on the war appropriation bill.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. L. D. Tremblay for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Graydon, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Roy.
Mr. MAURICE LALONDE (Labelle):: 
Mr. SPEAKER:: Does any other hon.
member wish to speak to the point of order?
The hon. gentleman has quoted May, at page 173, and that dictum of May has been adopted by Doctor Beauchesne in his latest book, of which all hon. members have copies; it appears in citation 336 at page 135. I would draw to the attention of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken citation 335 on the same page:
A motion may be amended: (a) by leaving out certain words; (b) by leaving out certain words in order to insert other words; (c) by inserting or adding other words.
The subamendment now before the house seeks to add other words to the original amendment. Then citation 338, at page 136 of Beauchesne, reads:
The object of an amendment may be to effect such an alteration in a question as will obtain the support of those who, without such 100-20
alteration, must either vote against it or abstain from voting thereon, or to present to the house an alternative proposition either wholly or partially opposed to the original question. This may be effected by moving to omit all the words of the question after the first word "that", and to substitute in their place other words of a different import. In that case the debate that follows is not restricted to the amendment, but includes the motives of the amendment and of the motion, both matters being under the consideration of the house as alternative propositions.
As the hon. member has pointed out, under citation 367 at page 142, great latitude is allowed in the debate on the address, and exceptions taken of a highly technical nature as a rule are not considered when amendments are made in that debate. The effect of the amendments is as follows. The motion is made; the amendment is moved, and the subamendment follows. In our practice the procedure is to deal first with the subamendment; then .having disposed of that either by adoption or rejection, we deal with the amendment. If the subamendment is approved, then the amendment is put before the house as amended by the subamendment; and in like form when dealing with the motion, if the amendment has been adopted, then the motion is placed before the house as amended by the amendment or the subamendment as the case may be. The consequence is that in the debate which is taking place hon. members are addressing themselves to the motives contained in the original motion, the amendment and the subamendment, and additions to an amendment, when adopted, are really additions to the main motion.
For the reasons I have stated I think this subamendment is in order. The hon. member who raised the point of order referred to the question of relevancy. If one is dealing with all the motives contained in either the motion, the amendment or the subamendment, then the question of relevancy has some bearing, not as directly affecting the amendment or subamendment but as affecting the subject matters of the three motions before the house. In this case we are dealing with the speech from the throne, which embodies many principles; and the principles which have been set forth in the subamendment of the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) are I think relevant to the subject under discussion. For that reason I am of opinion that the subamendment moved by the hon. member is in order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, with one statement that was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the course of his remarks the other day I am in complete accord; that was when he said, as reported at page 34 of Hansard:

298	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)
... I am opposed to parliaments extending their own terms of office. I think one of the greatest mistakes made in this country was the extension by one parliament of its own term of office.
With this point of view I am in complete agreement, as I ' think most people will be who are desirous of retaining our free institutions and maintaining our democratic form of government. It is a great pity, however, that the Prime Minister was not able to impress his point of view upon the Liberal government of Saskatchewan, which last April supported a bill to extend its own term of office. This was done in spite of the protests of the official opposition. What has amazed most people has been the complete acquiescence of the federal government in this very apparent violation of established constitutional procedure. I have made a careful search of the records, and I cannot find a single case in the history of the parliament at Westminster, or of any of the self-governing dominions, or of any of the legislatures of the Dominion of Canada, in which a parliament or a legislature extended its own term of office without the consent of the official opposition.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is my hon. friend suggesting that the federal government should have interfered in any way in a matter which was the exclusive concern of the provincial government?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the Prime Minister will have patience with me I shall some to that very point, as to what I think the government ought to have done. In 1916 Sir Robert Borden introduced a humble petition asking the parliament of Westminster to amend the British North America Act to extend the life of the Canadian parliament. On February 8 of that year, as reported at page 622 of Hansard, he said:
It is hardly necessary to say that it is a motion which we should not press if hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house should oppose it as a party. In that case 1 should feel it to be my duty to withdraw the motion, and then it would naturally be for the government to consider its course.
He was followed in that debate by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who at page 634 of Hansard is reported as having said:
If this resolution was not adopted unanimously, even though carried by a majority of this house, and even if my right hon. friend himself were to carry it to the foot of the throne, I have no doubt whatever that in the face of such a minority as would be arrayed against it, the British parliament would never grant the power sought.
A similar petition was introduced in the following year by Sir Robert Borden, but when some of the official opposition expressed

their disapproval the Prime Minister immediately withdrew the resolution on the ground that unless the opposition gave virtually unanimous consent the British parliament would be unwilling to permit the Canadian parliament to extend its own life. It has remained for a Liberal government in Saskatchewan to defy the parliamentary traditions of several centuries and use its majority in the legislature in order to cling to office without giving the electorate an opportunity to express their wish in the matter.
The Prime Minister asks what we think the federal government should have done about it. May I point out that the federal government, and particularly the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), have a responsibility to discharge to the people of Canada, and especially to the people of Saskatchewan. Under the British North America Act the power of disallowance was given to the federal government not merely to prevent the passage of legislation which might be considered ultra vires; as a matter of fact legislation of that kind can be taken care of very well in the courts. The power of disallowance was granted to the governor in council, in order that, as George Brown put it very succinctly:
... no injustice shall be done without appeal in local legislation.
The Minister of Justice is charged with the responsibility of seeing that provincial legislatures cannot pass legislation which deprives Canadian citizens of their democratic rights. The Minister of Justice and the government have been quick to use this power of disallowance when property rights were at stake, or when Canadian bankers felt that they were being discriminated against. But when the people of Saskatchewan were being denied the right to decide who would constitute the government of that province the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister failed to take any action. It is not enough for the Prime Minister to say that he is opposed to parliaments extending their own terms of office. He must do more than that. He must act. He is the custodian of the rights and privileges of the Canadian people, and in failing to disallow legislation by which the Saskatchewan government extended its own life the Prime Minister and his government, it seems to me, were derelict and negligent in the discharge of their duty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the hon. member a question? I think he was in the house when the Ontario government, on perhaps more than one occasion, extended its tenure of office by extending the term of the legislature. Did the hon. member or any-

The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
one else raise the question he is now raising as to the dominion's interfering with the province in that matter?


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: May I reply to the Prime Minister by saying that in respect of the action of the Ontario legislature, that government had the consent of the official opposition. It is true there were eight votes cast against it by Liberal members, but the official opposition in the Ontario legislature voted in support of the resolution to extend the term of office.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My point goes beyond the opposition and the government; it goes to the rights of the people themselves as they are protected by the constitution. It is not for members of parliament, through agreement among themselves, to extend the term of parliament and the time for which they were elected.


James Lester Douglas: Why did the Prime Minister of Canada not recommend to the governor in council that some action should have been taken in that regard?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I feel very
strongly that it is not for the federal government to interfere with provinces in matters which by the constitution have been assigned to them. *


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Prime Minister certainly believed in interfering where Alberta was concerned, when he thought the bankers and some of the property owners of this country were being discriminated against.
In my view the government still has until April of this year to take some steps in the matter. I think the Prime Minister has a responsibility to inform the premier of Saskatchewan that any further attempt to extend the life of his government, without a mandate from the people, will compel the federal government to use the power of disallowance, in order to protect the democratic rights of the people of that province. If the Saskatchewan government should once more attempt to extend its own life, let me tell this government here and now that we in this group will take appropriate measures to bring the matter before parliament and the country, in order to ask the federal government to use its power of disallowance to preserve that democracy for which brave men daily are laying down their lives.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would my hon. friend, when he suggests that we should tell the Saskatchewan government what they 100-20i
should do, also say that I should raise at the same time a question about absentee leadership, and if they approve absentee leadership, whether it be in the leadership of the opposition in the provincial or in the federal field?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I say
to the Prime Minister that the only reason why I am at the present time an absentee leader in Saskatchewan is that the Liberal government of Saskatchewan has not dared to call any of the four by-elections that are due, or a general election in that province.
May I now turn to the speech from the throne-and I hope I shall be given some extra time, because of the interruptions made during my speech. This is the ninth debate on speeches from the throne I have witnessed in the house, and I must say it is the most astounding of them all. A speech from the throne debate is not generally considered something to be got rid of. It has generally been considered a debate during which several ministers of the crown would give an account of their stewardship, and during which they could outline the legislation they intend to present to the house. It has been considered that during the debate on the speech from the throne ministers would enunciate the principles and directives underlying that legislation. This debate would probably have closed last night, had it not been for the subamendment, and yet not a single minister on the treasury benches has taken part in it, with the exception of the Prime Minister-and he did not discuss the speech from the throne, but rather discussed Mr. John Bracken, and the speeches made by Lord Halifax and General Smuts.
Why this veil of silence? The ministers of the government make me think that the government programme is something like a little boy who has been given a lovely Christmas box wrapped in silver paper and bound with red ribbon, and that they are now standing aside in apprehensive timidity lest the little boy should ask permission to open it in order to see what is inside. I do not think they care to discuss this very promising programme they have placed before the Canadian people. After all, it is not sufficient to say that the war appropriation resolution will serve as a substitute. The people of Canada would like to know what plans the government have to deal with that period of transition from a war-time to a peace-time economy. That will not be covered by the war appropriation measure. Has the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) no plans concerning the period of transition to place before the house? Has the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) nothing to say about the tremendous problems
300	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
which will face agriculture when some of these subsidies are withdrawn, and when agriculture is faced with peace-time problems? Yet none of these ministers has had a word to say in the course of the debate.
In some quarters, this speech from the throne has been held out as an epic-making document, while in others, the people are suspicious of it, and it is not hard to understand why they are suspicious. I hold in my hand two documents, the first of which is a copy of a paper dated August 13,	1919, containing the
programme passed at a Liberal convention at which the present Prime Minister was elected as leader of the Liberal party. It certainly is a promising document. I see here that the principal articles of food are to be placed on the free list. Farm implements, farm machinery, flour mill and saw mill machinery and repair parts are to be placed on the free list, and wearing apparel and footwear are to have a reduction of at least fifty per cent in duty. I see further that there is to be an increase in the British preference to fifty per cent. I see further a resolution moved by W. L. Mackenzie King and seconded by Arthur Roebuck-a most interesting resolution. I cannot read it all, but I notice that they were to give us the federal incorporation of cooperative associations. I notice further tha,t there was to be an acceptance of the principle of proportional representation. Then I find here a long resolution moved, I believe, by Colonel Ralston, who is now Minister of National Defence; and it is just as rosy as some of the promises which now, twenty-five years later, appear in the speech from the throne. Soldiers were to have cash grants, such grants to be in addition to the present gratuity and pay for disability resulting from service. It states:
That such pensions or allowances be granted as shall enable soldiers or their dependents, as the ease may be, to maintain a liberal standard of living sufficient to guarantee health, education and all the necessities, comforts and amenities which go to make up a standard of living worthy of Canadian citizenship.
After twenty-five years each of those promises has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance. I have another document here which helps to make me more sceptical about the speech from the throne. This is a reprint of the statement handed to the press by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) the night of the general election, October 14, 1905. It is an interesting document. It states:
The election is an endorsation of the Liberal view that credit is a public matter, not of interest to bankers only, but of direct concern to every citizen.

*Audi again:
The electorate has declared that a responsible ministry, not organized finance and international money power, is to control in all matters of state.
It says:
It is a verdict for the democratization of industry, in the rights of labour and consumers to have their voice heard and influence felt in the control of industrial policy. It is a warning and rebuke to arrogant employers of labour who have sought to intimidate their employees to prevent them from enjoying the free exercise of the franchise which is the birthright of every Canadian citizen.
I ask hon. members to put that statement alongside P.C. 9384 and see how they compare. Further on in the same statement:
It is a verdict in favour of personal liberty, electoral reform, and of measures which will, among other things, prevent the national radio being surreptitiously used by any political party for the defamation of character.
And again:
It is a verdict in favour of a more equitable distribution of wealth, with increasing regard to human need, to the furtherance of social justice, and to the promotion of the common good.
Then one more statement:
In the new era which dawns to-day. the struggle for the rights of the people will, in the realm of economic liberty and security, be carried on as never before. Poverty and adversity, want and misery, are the enemies w-hich Liberalism will seek to banish from the land.
Andl again:
We take up at once, as our supreme task, the endeavour to end poverty in the midst of plenty, starvation and unnecessary suffering in a land of abundance, discontent and distress in a country more blessed by Providence than any other on the face of the globe.
This effusion of eloquence was followed by four years of young men riding the rods, with 400,000 unemployed and in the neighbourhood of a million people on relief. Is it any wonder that we are rather sceptical of the speech from the throne and the fine promises that are now held out to the Canadian people? As a matter of fact, when one comes to examine the promises they are not so specific. After a cursory mention of the fact that the first objective must be the winning of the war, the speech from the throne proceeds to say that there are three main tasks which must be accomplished after the war: first, demobilization; second, conversion of our machinery of production from a war-time to a peace-time economy, and, third, social security measures.
With regard to demobilization it says that a broad programme has already been developed. Are we to take from this that the

The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
machinery now set up for the demobilization, and care of our discharged men is the ultimate? Has the government nothing new to add except establishing a veterans' welfare department? Is there no new machinery to be added? If there is not, then heaven help the thousands of young men who will be coming back after this war. Heaven help them if something more adequate is not provided by the government. ,
With regard to the transfer from war-time to peace-time economy the speech from the throne states that the maintenance of full employment will "require" certain things. There is no statement as to how it is proposed to accomplish them. Two things are mentioned, an industrial bank and a sop which is thrown out to industrialists in the form of certain tax modifications.
Then we come to number three, social security. Some newspapers have set out fourteen points covering what the government is going to do, but the speech from the throne does not say what the government is going to do. The social security measures that have been set up already are very meagre, and the speech states-that the working out of a comprehensive national scheme will require further consultation. Then follows the only promise:
My ministers will welcome opportunities for such consultation.
That can mean very little, "will welcome opportunities for further consultation." It states further that they are prepared to provide for federal assistance in a nation-wide system of health insurance. There is no guarantee there that they are going to set up a nation-wide system of insurance. It states only that they are prepared to provide assistance. Anyone who has examined the findings of the Sirois report knows perfectly well that the provincial governments with their present limited sources of revenue will require more than assistance; they will require that the federal government either accept almost full responsibility or give to the provincial governments much larger sources of revenue than are now available to them.
In the light of what has happened in the past; in the light of these very vague statements, we in this group are not greatly encouraged by the speech from the throne. We shall welcome any social security measures which the government may bring down during this session, but we have no confidence as yet that these measures will be adequate or that the government is prepared to deal with the fundamental economic base which must be set up in order to provide full employment and make possible adequate social security.
May I deal now with what the speech from the throne says about agriculture? In all of the long speech-this is one of the longest for many years-only three lines are devoted to agriculture. It states:
To ensure economic stability for agriculture, you will be asked to make provision for a price floor for staple farm products.
That will all depend upon what the floor is. If it is a basement floor it will be of no value. If it is to be the floor we now have it will be of little worth the moment subsidies now paid under the War Measures Act are taken away.
I may say to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that the farmers of this country are concerned as to what will happen when the subsidies now being paid-subsidies which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has suggested are being paid for the benefit of the consumer and not for the benefit of the producer-are removed. The floors which are now set will be totally inadequate.
It is true that the farmer has been receiving better prices for some of his products durmg the past few months. This may be partly due to the fact that two by-elections in western Canada did not deal very kindly with the Liberal candidates and it may be due partly to the fact that we are coming close to a federal election. As a matter of fact, I have always suspected that if you X-rayed a Canadian farmer you would find that he was pretty well streaked. There would be four streaks of lean for the four hard years and then one streak of fat for the election year. Every four or five years something has to be done for the farmer, and then he goes back to the lean years again after the election year.
The case of wheat is a good example. For years, hon. members on this side of the house have asked the government to suspend trading on the Winnipeg grain exchange and to establish a parity price for wheat. A delegation of four hundred farmers came here from Saskatchewan nearly two years ago and placed their case before the cabinet. No action was taken. The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) and I both moved motions last year in this house calling upon the government to take steps along the lines I have already mentioned. No action was taken. But this past year, when the world surplus of wheat was shrinking visibly and the demand for wheat was causing the price on the open market to rise, on the 28th of September the government stepped1 fn, suspended trading in wheat, and fixed the price at 81.25; and fourteen days later, on the 12th October, passed an order in council giving them authority to do what they had done fourteen days before. Why? Because as a matter of fact the government, which had
302	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)
pinned its faith up until then on an open market, found that if the open market were to continue the farmer would probably be getting $1.50 a bushel for wheat. Therefore they stepped in, at long last, not to help the farmer, but because they realized that the open market was now going to work to the advantage of the farmer, whereas before it had worked to his disadvantage.
I want to remind the Minister of Trade and Commerce that about fifty-four per cent of the 1942 crop was sold by the farmers on the open market, and that they will get no benefit out of the participation certificates, or any increased price, for that wheat.
What is true of wheat was equally true of hogs. During the last two sessions hon. members on this side of the house tried to impress upon the Minister of Agriculture that, unless we got a price for hogs which was commensurate with the price of other commodities, and unless the farmers could have some help retained on their farms, they would be forced out of hog production. What happened? To bring the situation to a head, this fall a subsidy of ten cents a bushel on oats and fifteen cents a bushel on barley was paid. The farmers, short of help, now realized it was better to sell coarse grains than to use them for feed. Last fall the farmers began to go out of hogs; and what was most alarming to me, watching the figures, was that twenty to twenty-three per cent of the hogs being shipped were breeding hogs.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member did
not follow the figures.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I did, and I
followed them very closely.


James Garfield Gardiner: Those are not the
figures.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, the minister can give the figures when we reach the war appropriation debate. That will give him plenty of time to get the figures.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member will
get them as soon as he is through.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am glad if I have succeeded in getting the minister on his feet. If I have got him. to break the veil of eilence I shall be more than satisfied.
When the farmers began to put their live stock on the market in such quantities that it was glutted1, the minister had to find a scapegoat, and the scapegoat he found was the C.I.O. workers in the packing plants whom he blamed for holding up the slaughtering of the farmers' hogs. I do not mind a man making a mistake,

and I do not mind, indeed I rather admire him if he accepts responsibility for it; but when he tries to lay the blame on a group of workers in the packing plants who are working long hours, often with inexperienced help, I think he is taking advantage of people who cannot answer back.
The objection which we have to the programme outlined by the government is that, while they may mention a social security measure here or a social security measure there, without any definite commitments, there is nothing to indicate that they propose to deal with the fundamental changes which must take place in our economy if we are to maintain full employment, provide a maximum market here in Canada, and provide for the exchange of our surplus commodities with other countries.
In the time allotted to me I cannot discuss the changes which must take place in other fields of our economy. I should like to say a few words about the changes which must take place in agriculture in order to enable it to pass from war-time economy into our peacetime economy with the minimum of dislocation for the country and. for the farmers. After all, we are on the threshold of a new era' as far as agriculture is concerned. As regards the decisions of the conference at Hot Springs, the united nations agreed to set up certain minimum nutritional standards whereby we shall guarantee to every man, woman and child in the united nations all the food they require, and guarantee to the farmers who produce that food an adequate living for doing so. If that policy is followed, then, as the vice-president of the United States has said, "the breath of the future is upon us," and we are now coming into a new era as far as agriculture is concerned.
I should like to outline here, briefly, twelve points, some of which we of this group have brought to the attention of the house before, and will continue to bring to the attention of the house throughout the session in asking the government to give these matters consideration. I enumerate them because I have no time to discuss them at length.
1.	The establishment of basic parity prices for all farm products; this price to bear a direct relationship to the cost of production. That is not a floor price, but a price which will vary with changing costs of production.
2.	The establishment of marketing boards for the purpose of carrying on orderly marketing of farm products.
We believe that, wherever two-thirds of the producers of any farm commodity agree, there should be set up a marketing board on which

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
there shall be adequate producer representation for the purpose of taking delivery of that particular product.
3.	A comprehensive system of crop insurance to apply to all Canadian farmers producing crops in which there is an element of risk.
The premiums for such crop insurance to be included when computing the basic parity price.
4.	The setting up of a board of live stock commissioners with power to license, regulate and control the facilities for assembling, transporting, yarding, slaughtering, processing and packing, together with the facilities for grading and selling all live stock and carcass products designed for human consumption, and in addition all live and dressed poultry and eggs should be subject to the jurisdiction of this board.
5.	The establishment of an agricultural bank for the refinancing of farm mortgages at a maximum rate of two and one-half per cent interest.
6.	The passing of a dominion cooperative act to enable farmers to establish cooperatives and to permit the coordination of present provincial cooperatives under a national charter.
7.	The setting up of a farm implement board for the purpose of working with the cooperatives in order to manufacture and distribute farm implements at the lowest possible cost.
8.	Federal and provincial legislation to provide that every farmer who is honestly endeavouring to pay his way Shall be able to retain his farm and to pass it on unencumbered to his children or to make such other disposition of it as he may see fit.
9.	The establishment of an ever-normal granary to store surpluses of non-perishable goods, and the building of storage facilities in order to carry a reserve of prepared and processed goods which are of a perishable nature.
10.	The setting up of export and import boards in order to dispose of surplus products in conformity with the principle laid down by the united nations conference on food and agriculture held at Hot Springs, Virginia, last May, at which it was agreed that freedom from want of food suitable and adequate for the health and strength of our people can be achieved and that in supplying this food the producers can and should be adequately rewarded.
11.	The provision of large sums for soil and water conservation and for irrigation projects in order to preserve Canada's farm lands and to provide employment in the post-war period.
12.	Immediate research into the field of chemurgy. The erection of factories in western Canada after the war for the purpose of utilizing agricultural products for industrial purposes.
We believe, Mr. Speaker, that this would constitute a bold and imaginative programme for agriculture. We believe that unless we are prepared to adopt such a programme we shall not lay the economic base without which it is impossible to have in this country either full employment or adequate social security.


James Garfield Gardiner: I had not intended 'to speak
in this debate, but in view of the challenge which the last speaker (Mr. Douglas, Wey-burn) has given I shall say a few things with reference to what he has stated to the house.
In the first place he has suggested that no minister during this debate, excepting the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), has spoken up to the present time, and he has been more or less critical of that fact. Well, at the beginning of the debate I had understood that it was the consensus of the house generally that we should do everything possible to shorten the debate. Members of the government have a number of opportunities upon which to deal with the questions with which their departments are particularly concerned. When estimates are brought before the house it is our opportunity to place upon Hansard a record of all the activities of the different departments, and we have the opportunities which are presented when we are bringing down legislation. We have also the opportunities which are presented when members from different parts of the house ask questions on the orders of the day, and I took advantage to-day of one such question in order to place certain information before *the house.
The debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne has never been regarded as the special opportunity for ministers of the crown. Rather it has been looked upon as the special opportunity of private members to voice their views, a time when they have the privilege of speaking on any question concerning matters of government. I think therefore that ministers are to be commended rather than condemned if, on an occasion of this kind when it has been considered essential by all that the debate should be shortened as much as possible, they allow private members to take up the greater part if not the whole of the time devoted to debate.
Wrhen the hon. member for Weyburn rose he said he would agree with a statement made by
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

the leader of the house, the Prime Minister, and on this occasion I would like to agree with the statement made by his leader the other night, when, as I noticed, the hon. member for Weyburn was not as much in agreement with what that hon. gentleman said as I was, judging from the expression on his face. When the Prime Minister was discussing these matters the other day he referred to a number of things, one of which was the advisability of appealing to the people at the end of a term of office; and that has been referred to by the hon. member for Weyburn. Another matter touched upon was the advisability of leaders of parties, who intend to represent the people, finding a seat in the house where it is meant that they should attend to lead their group. I was surprised to hear my hon. friend, referring to that matter a few moments ago, say that the present government in Saskatchewan has not called an election, in constituencies which have been vacated within the last few months, in order to make it possible for him to enter the house in that province.
It has been, I believe, the almost invariable custom for members of a party who already have seats in the house to resign a seat and challenge the government to put up a candidate against their leader when he has been chosen to lead them in the house. But in the province of Saskatchewan, where by the way the real leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party is serving his country overseas with the armies of the empire, a convention was called during that gentleman's absence and a new leader was chosen. That new leader holds a seat in this house, and I am not surprised that no follower of the real leader of the C.C.F. party, who is at present serving overseas, has seen fit to resign his seat in the house in Saskatchewan in order to make it possible for the hon. member to contest that constituency.
What gave me considerable pleasure, when listening to the hon. member for Weyburn say that he agreed with statements made by my leader, was the privilege which I have of agreeing with statements made by his leader,-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I agree too.


James Garfield Gardiner: -when he said the other night that he agreed with the leader of this party and of this house that it was essential that a leader of opposition should find a seat in the house in which he aspires to leadership. Well, my friend claims that he is leader of the C.C.F. in Saskatchewan, and he uses this house as a sounding board and as a platform to make a speech which to all intents and purposes would be a campaign speech in an election in the province of Saskatchewan. I agree again with the leader of his own group,

that the proper thing for my hon. friend to do, if he desires to discuss provincial questions in the manner in which he has discussed them this afternoon, is to seek a seat in the Saskatchewan legislature and discuss those questions there where they can be properly debated and answered.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: One cannot enter the house unless the government calls an election.


James Garfield Gardiner: The next point that occurs to me is one that was brought up by his leader the other day. It seems to be a favorite topic of discussion when C.C.F. speakers make speeches, either in this house or outside, to refer to the Liberal platform of 1919. He brings into the house a copy of an old paper and recites that platform. He reads it to the house and makes no explanations with regard to it and then he proceeds to be critical. I had the privilege of being on the resolutions committee of the convention of 1919 as representative of the Liberal group who were sitting in the legislature of Saskatchewan at that time, and I would like to tell members of this house, including the leader of the C.C.F. party and his chief supporter, the leader of the C.C.F. party in the province of Saskatchewan, that that convention was made up of representation from the Liberal parties from every province in the dominion and from the different sections of the different provinces which had more than one Liberal organization represented. The information submitted to the resolutions committee and to the convention as a whole was a document about three-quarters of an inch thick and it contained the plaftorms of all the Liberal parties in all the provinces of Canada. Those platforms were studied, and out of them, with the assistance of men representing every provincial Liberal group in Canada, there was worked the platform from which my hon. friend was reading.
What has happened since that time? The Liberals went back to the provinces. They did not do what my hon. friend has done here to-day-suggest that the government of Canada should start to direct the activities of the provinces. They went back to the provinces and in their own legislatures they placed upon the statute books of those provinces the legislation that was embodied in the principles of Liberalism as drawn by the 1919 convention in so far as they related to provincial affairs. My hon. friend comes here this afternoon and instead of reciting these facts he starts to read twelve points drafted in Regina a short time ago-at a meeting behind closed doors, by the way-that ought

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
to be applied to agriculture in Canada. In doing that he recites that his party is in favour of cooperation. If he will go back to the province from which he comes and examine the statutes of that province he will find that it has the most advanced legislation with regard to cooperation that can be found anywhere in Canada, and just as advanced as can be found anywhere in the world. As a matter of fact, much of that legislation has been copied by others. Then he relates the same kind of argument to the importance of public health and social security. I would call his attention to the fact that there is not a single thing in all the recommendations of the Beveridge report that is not already covered in principle in legislation of the province from which he comes, with the one exception of family allowances, and this government has taken care of that in this session. That being so-


James Lester Douglas: In principle,
not in legislation.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has been announced that it is going to be done.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is always announced; that has been the cry for years.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then my hon. friend says we are going to ask the provinces to consider with us some of the suggested social legislation. Why, of course we are. The province of Saskatchewan has municipal doctors paid for out of the tax rates of the municipalities in which they serve. It has municipal hospitals. It has free treatment of tuberculosis. It has clinics which have been operating for many years. It has maternity grants, mothers' allowances, et cetera. I could go on and recite one social service after another. Does anyone suggest we are going to bring legislation into this house without consulting the provinces that have these services established, in order to determine what the relationship is to be in the future between the set-up of this government to administer such legislation and the set-up that already exists in the provinces? Of course the thing is unthinkable. But the point I wish to make is this, that the platform of 1919 recommended that all these things enunciated as policies of the Liberal party be brought into effect by any institution of government that we might have in the dominion, from the municipalities up to the parliament-which meets in Ottawa, and much of it has been brought into effect.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Much has not.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend took occasion to speak of farming, and in speaking of farming he demonstrates about the same amount of information as he does with regard to political platforms drafted by other political parties. Apparently he does not know that every farm product grown in Canada is being sold to-day at prices which are at parity or above parity, and I do not exclude the recent sales of wheat.


Mr. WRIGHT:: What parity are you
taking?


James Garfield Gardiner: The prices asked by the farm federation based on 1926 and 1929, which the farm federation takes as parity, and I would much rather take their figures than those of my friends on the other side of the house.


Percy Ellis Wright: They did not take those.


James Garfield Gardiner: The parity prices asked for by the farm federation are the parity prices I refer to when I make that statement. In dealing with that matter my hon. friend takes his usual course. He states it in such a manner as not to give all the facts-therefore, to give a wrong impression. He left the impression in this house, Mr. Speaker, that when wheat was rising in price the government stepped in and said: We are not going to let it go any higher. Of course he knows the government did not do any such thing. He knows as well as I do that during the period between the time when our American friends and others came on the Canadian market to buy wheat and September 28 there was no way of hedging the purchases which had been made, and thus securing anyone who purchased the grain against possible losses, with the result that the farmers in western Canada during that period of time were being asked to take a spread as high as seventeen cents a bushel between Fort William and street prices; whereas the usual spread would be somewhere around six or seven cents a bushel, and if we had continued with the market open at Winnipeg over any considerable length of time there would have been no possibility of farmers being able to regain that amount of money which had been denied to them in order to carry any risks which there were. Therefore the government undertook to carry the risks, and in undertaking to carry the risks we took over all the wheat that had been marketed. That wheat was purchased at SI.231 a bushel. After we had purchased that wheat we said to the world and to the farmers of Canada: That wheat belongs to the government. It is going to be used to make up any gifts which we

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
make to any country in the world by way of relief, and it is going to be utilized in connection with mutual aid.
Those wheat purchases by the government made possible participation payments on 1940 wheat, 1941 wheat and 1942 wheat. Again my hon. friend does not give all the facts when he comes to deal with participation certificates. He picks his own year. He picks 1942, and he says that in that year fifty-four per cent of the wheat was delivered to the open market. That would leave only forty-six per cent of it to be delivered to the board. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that in the year 1940 nearly all the wheat was delivered to the board. In the year 1941 nearly all the wheat was delivered to the board.


James Lester Douglas: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, a very large percentage of it. Why was it not delivered to the board in 1942?


James Lester Douglas: The market price was above the board price.


James Garfield Gardiner: The market price was above the board price; that is exactly right.
Then my hon. friend says the farmers of western Canada came down here in the spring of 1942 and asked for a number of things, none of which was done. Well, if he will come to my office I will show him quite a number of communications from farm organizations in western Canada thanking us for what was done as a result of that mission of farmers to Ottawa. And even in connection with this very question some things which were very material were done. In the time at my disposal I cannot go into details with regard to the matter, other than to say that the advance on wheat-not the price-was set at ninety cents a bushel, and finally, late in the season, as has been said, the price of wheat was higher and wheat went to the trade in considerable quantities. What I wish to say about that is this. Every member of this government that I have heard discussing the question-and certainly I as Minister of Agriculture-went through the length and breadth of western Canada and warned the farmers not to pay any attention to my hon. friends across the way who were saying that because there had been no participation on wheat in the past there would be no participation in the future.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise to a point of order. The minister cannot make a ' statement like that unless he is prepared to corroborate it. No member of this group to my knowledge ever made such a statement.

We told them to sell to the wheat board, not on the open market. The minister ought to know that.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend admits this, that I at least advised them to deliver to the wheat board irrespective of the price. He will admit, too, that men who are supporters of his group and opponents of the party to which I belong went around the province of Saskatchewan making exactly the statement I have just made.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Not to my knowledge.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, to my knowledge, and I could quote extracts from newspapers and other publications. What is the present position in regard to this matter? My hon. friend leaves the impression that a price of $1.25 a bushel has been established for wheat, and that this price cannot go up. No such thing has been done. What this government did last September was to place a floor under the price of wheat for two years, until July 31, 1945, on wheat taken in after September 28, 1943. We guaranteed that for every bushel of wheat delivered to the elevators we would pay on the basis of $1.25, No. 1 northern Fort William; and then what do we say with regard to that wheat? We say that this wheat, differing from the wheat which is to go under mutual aid or to countries to which we are giving relief, is to be sold for what it will bring. I am not in a position at the moment to state what the price is, but I submit that this wheat is being sold at considerably more than the floor price which has been referred to, so that the statement I made a few moments ago with regard to parity is correct as far as recent sales are concerned.
That being the case, why does an hon. member of this house rise in his place and say that this government fixed a price of $1.25 a bushel for wheat, and thus stopped wheat from going to $1.50 a bushel? Wheat is being taken in by the government on a guaranteed floor of $1.25 a bushel and is being sold in the markets of the world for prices up toward $1.50. Every farmer who delivers a bushel of wheat under that programme is given a participation certificate which entitles him to the earnings of the wheat which is being delivered to the markets of the world at the present time or which will be delivered in future. My hon. friend says he did not go around the province of Saskatchewan advising farmers against the plan which was in effect prior to last year, but as I listened to him this afternoon he gave me the impres-

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
sion that we were having wheat delivered at $1.25 a bushel and that the farmer would have no further interest in that wheat, that he would not obtain the benefit of any increase in the selling price. That is exactly what his group said previously with regard to wheat delivered to the board or to the trade.
In the few moments he was on his feet my hon. friend also dealt with another matter, in connection with the delivery of hogs, and at the time I said I w-ould place the figures on record as soon as he was through. I have these figures before me, by the way; the reason for having them is that I have had them on my desk ready to hand in the first time questions are called. The question, in reply to which these figures were prepared, was asked a few days ago by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), and I have been awaiting an opportunity to lay them on the table. His first question was:
How many sows -were marketed in Canada each month, (a) from July 1 to December 31, 1942; (b) from July 1 to December 31, 1943?
Now listen to the answer:
(a) 1942	(b) 1943
July	
45,384	69,465August	
34,533	69.484September	
27,050	71,320October	
19,034	61,381November	
24,768	39,868December	
25,421	24,489


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has the minister those figures by provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: I can get them by provinces, but they are not so given in this return.
Grade A
1942-	(a)
July	 123,170
August	 92,029
September	 138,490
October	 147,450
November	 172,495
December	 201,537
July	 146,573
August	 104,701
September	 151,432
October	 172,890
November	 227,709
December	 291,139


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If he takes the western provinces he will find that the percentage of sows delivered was much higher.


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall deal with those figures in a moment. As I have stated-, this information was obtained in response to a question placed upon the order paper, and it will appear in Hansard within a few days. What do they show? We made an announcement of policy on October 22, as my hon. friend said a few moments ago. The heaviest deliveries of sows in 1943 were in July, August, September and October. Then we made our announcement. The next month deliveries amounted to 39,868, and the next month to 24,489. There is no indication in these figures that any announcement made by this government on October 22 had anything whatever to do with the marketing of sows in great numbers in western or eastern Canada or anywhere else.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker-


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend will
just contain himself, I have the rest of the information here and he will not need to ask the question. The next part of the question asked by the hon. member for Souris reads:
How many barrows and gilts were marketed each month between the above dates under (a) selects; (b) Bl's; (c) heavies; (d) all other grades?
If I have permission I should like to place this table on Hansard and not take time to read all the figures.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


James Garfield Gardiner: The table is as follows:
Grade B1	Heavies	All other	(b)	(c)	grades (d)	Total201,220	14,223	122,958	461,571144,691	8,001	86,529	331,250211,762	11,895	98,688	460,835221,979	20.185	103.565	493,179273,404	29,032	139.846	614,777325,592	36,234	158,960	722,323204,956	18,171	180,662	550,362143,570	14,019	137,963	400,253210,855	18,313	162,300	542,900246,338	24,504	170,260	613,992352,054	32,038	203,574	815.375476,859	35,961	239,441	1,043,400
Let us look at the figures for July. In 1942 there were 123,170 grade A's delivered and in 1943 there were 146,573, or an increase of 23,403. In the Bl's, 201,220 were delivered in 1942 and 204,956 in 1943. In the heavies, 14,223 were delivered in 1942 and 18,171 in 1943. Of all other classes or grades, 122,958 were
delivered in 1942 and 180,662 in 1943. The totals show that in July, 1942, there were 461,571 deliveries while in July, 1943, there were 550,362 and there is a constant rise in deliveries from July to December, which is the last month given. Let us look at the figures for that month. In 1942 there were 201,537
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

grade A's delivered, while in December, 1943, there were 291,139. Ia December, 1942 there were 325,592 Bl's and in 1943 there were 176,859. In December, 1942 there were 36,234 heavies delivered, and in 1943 there were 35,961, or fewer heavies in December, 1943, than in December, 1942. Of all other grades, in December, 1942 deliveries amounted to 158,960, and in 1943 to 239,441. What do the total figures show? In December, 1942 there were 722,323 hogs of all kinds marketed, while in December, 1943, there were 1,043,400 hogs marketed, or an increase of more than 33 1/3 per cent. My hon. friend gets up this afternoon, waves his arms, spreads them out to take in all Canada, and goes on to say that it is evident to everybody, that what they have been saying, that some day calamity was going to overtake agriculture, has materialized, and that we are down in the production of hogs in 1943.


Percy Ellis Wright: Would1 the minister give the date at which the embargo against the delivery of sows was put on in western Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Also why did you reduce the amount of bacon to be delivered to Great Britain?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am coming to that, too, in a moment. My hon. friend (Mr. Wright) has asked about sows, and because he is a farmer, and differs in that respect from the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), he will understand what I am going to say. My hon, friend knows that when you are marketing 33 1/3 per cent more hogs on the market you are going to market more sows on the market, too.
When did these farmers decide to market their sows? It was not after changes were made in the Canadian prices of feed grain in September. It was not after an announcement of policy on October 22. They had started to do it away back in June, and, so far as these figures are concerned, they carried it right through July, August and September, into October, and right down to the time we put the embargo on, about which the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) has been talking. And then the marketing of sows went down, naturally.
Why were they up before? The hon. jnember for Melfort knows that many other farmers did what I did. Those of us in western Canada who raise hogs know this, that unless you have a superior kind of equipment you cannot raise successfully and market more than one litter of hogs, especially in
[Mr. Gardiner.)
Saskatchewan, from any one sow in any one year. What we do when we undertake to increase our production is this, if we are doing the thing we ought to do: We take a gilt that was littered, let us say in April or March, and we breed that sow in December of that year or January of the following year. Thus we have pigs from her when she is a year old. We wean the pigs in May or June. Then we sell the sow. Naturally anyone who is carrying on business on his farm economically in the western provinces marketed his sows as early as he could. And those of us who did not get them marketed before the embargo was put on found ourselves with sows on our hands. Yes, we found ourselves with those sows on our hands. That is no indication there was or was not to be a reduction in hog production. It is an indication that we just missed. We should have sold our sows, and would have been better off if we had done it. These high sales of sows in Canada during that period were natural to greatly increased production. It was good business for the farmers to sell their sows during that time.
My hon. friend says we have come to the time when the production of hogs in Canada is down. I gave figures earlier this afternoon indicating that if we market the number of pigs that we have been marketing for the last three months we shall have close to a billion pounds of bacon to send to Great Britain this year, even with increased marketings of hogs in Canada at the present time. I notice my hon. friend shakes his head. Well, he shook his head a year ago when I said that. He shook his head two years ago when I said it. They have been shaking their heads for four years. In other words, I agree with the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) when he says that the people of Canada are not going to believe in people who make mistakes so often. The production of hogs has been going up every year, and it is still going up. Our problem to-day is not the problem of getting greater production in order to supply the market that we have. Our problem is to get shipping in order to take the hogs from where they have been produced, to the British market, or from where they are to some other part of the Canadian market. That is our problem to-day. And that is so with nearly all the farm products we have been discussing in the house.
May I say that no member of the British government since this war started has ever suggested to the government of Canada that we are not measuring up to our obligations in connection with the production of hogs. As a matter of fact, my colleague who sits in front of me went to Great Britain in the fall of

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
1939; and with the best efforts and support he could get from the officials of my department he was able to make a contract in Great Britain for only 291,000,000 pounds of bacon and ham. It was not until well on in that season that they consented to take 330,000,000 pounds, the amount we had for sale.
I myself went to Great Britain in October of 1940, and I worked on a contract. I tried to persuade the British that they needed the 425,000,000 pounds of bacon we had in sight at that time. After I had been there a month I came back to this house. What was the criticism I heard? The criticism was that I had been dickering with the British government and refusing to accept the price they were able to pay, in spite of the fact that we had these great quantities of bacon products to sell. But inside of two or three months, when my friends got out into the country, what did we hear? The story then was that we had not foreseen what did happen, and that we should have taken proper action to serve a greater market. When the time came we had the quantity available. Then my friends said, "You will not have enough." In 1942 we had 600,000,000 pounds; in 1943 we had 675,000,000, -and this year they are coming in faster than they have ever come in in any preceding years. Our concern to-day is this: What are we going to do with them? That concern requires us to make some changes, and to evolve policies to take care of the matter. In working out these policies we must of necessity. communicate with our friends to the south. Why? Before our American friends came into the war we stopped Shipment of our food from this country, to the extent that was required, in order that we might send more to Great Britain. Since the Americans came into the war they have been lease-lending food to Great Britain, and much of that food is the same kind of food we produce in Canada. Through an understanding which we have with them we attempt to lend-lease our own food to Great Britain, and they lend-lease theirs. Producing all the food we possibly can for our own consumption and for British consumption, we have found the desire to produce to the limit on both sides of the line to have resulted in our packing plants being filled to capacity with hogs, with cattle, and with meat products of all kinds. The shipping from both countries is not sufficient to take care of our meat supplies, for all concerned. Some adjustments have to be made. But these adjustments are made by the shipping board, which has a very strong representation on it from the British government. As they require these greater quantities of food, from time to time,
they will see to it that the ships get here to take it away, and in that way we will find a market for it.
But in the meantime there are certain things which have to be considered in connection with that matter. We shall have to be a little bit patient about some matters, and not simply say that because yesterday we did not have the market open into the United States and something 'has happened here that creates difficulty for us, at a time when there are just as great difficulties on the other side of the line, we should take off our restrictions and throw the food to them so that they will have trouble with it. That cannot be done in war time, when we have problems which concern us both.
Our intention is to get as much as possible of this meat over to the British front, where it is required, and to the fronts where our soldiers are fighting in different parts of the world. But what I wish to emphasize is the fact that our friends are still doing what they have been doing ever since this war started:	They
are praying for a calamity to come, and it has never come in so far as agricultural production is concerned. They are not quite big enough-
I am not a big man myself-to stand up in their places and say that in spite of their prophecies last year, in spite of their prophecies of the year before, and in spite of their prophecies of the year before that, agriculture in Canada has gone on to greater and greater heights in production, and has done that in spite of the fact-this is their next statement on most occasions-that our opponents claim we have had a muddling of man-power in this country. When my hon. friend gets up and says, "You have not enough labour in agriculture, you have not enough labour in industry, you have not enough labour in shipping, you have not enough labour in our transportation organizations, you have not enough labour in our schools to teach our children, you have not enough labour in our armed forces," what does that mean? That means that all the available man-power of this country is engaged in prosecuting this war. That is all it means.
With reduced man-power upon the farm we have produced forty^eight per cent more farm products than we produced in the last year before the war. That does not indicate any muddling in man-power; it indicates that the man-power of this country is working more effectively and to better purpose than ever before. Why? An hon. member, I think it was the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), said last night that I said something the other day about the necessity of having markets for our products. He made light of that statement. He lost the point entirely of
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

what I saidi. In the speech from which he was quoting I stated that in spite of the fact that we have reduced the man-power and woman-power on our farms by almost half a million we were producing over forty per cent more tonnage of food than we produced in the last year before the war. I went on to say that in spite of the fact that we have purchasing power in Canada greater in proportion to our population than we have ever had before, we are able to eat only six per cent more food in tonnage than we ate before the war. When those two facts are considered, I am afraid that those who criticize the statement that we must export some of it from this country, in other words find a market elsewhere for it, are advocates of the policy they sometimes accuse us of advocating, namely, a policy of scarcity, producing less so that you can sell each unit at a higher price. That would be the only policy which would be an alternative to the one I suggested in the remarks I have just made. That would be applicable to all primary production as well as other products produced from the natural resources of this country with the labour of Canadian people.
If my hon. friend really wants to know what the Liberal policy is, let me tell him that the whole intent of Liberal policy has been the same since it was first laid down in principle by economists and political leaders in the British isles. I said the same thing before the war; I said it again during the war, and I think it ought to be taken as proof that I should say it again after the war is over. If a man is right once, he ought to repeat the thing; if he is right the second time, he ought to say it again and not dio as my hon. friends do, express one statement in the fall of 1939 with regard to the war and possible production, and then change that statement in 1942, make a new guess, and then change it in 1943 and make another guess. Then when we are in the fifth year of the war we find that they are still going right on guessing.
We on this side of the house are convinced that there is only one thing for the people of Canada to do in order to provide the amount of employment we talk about, and that is to produce everything that we are constituted to produce in the greatest possible quantity and then look about the world for places which produce the things we would like to have and without which we cannot live at the standard at which we desire to live, and endeavour to trade our surpluses with them. Someone said the other day that we had been twenty-five years in bringing that policy into effect. May I say to the hon. member who said that that in 1932 we got down to the lowest level of trade in relation to production in this country.

There was a slight come-back down to 1934. What did we say to the people in 1935? We said that if we were put in power we would go out through the world where people are disunited and discontented and endeavour to make trade agreements. We made something over twenty and in spite of the threat of war we increased our trade with the outside world by fifty per cent. While increasing that trade by fifty per cent we decreased unemployment by fifty per cent. That is an indication of what the policy will do under the most difficult possible conditions in peace time.
What do my hon. friends say? They say, "No; give us socialism." Where did they go to find it, They went to the only countries where there was national socialism.


An hon. MEMBER:: England?


An hon. MEMBER:: New Zealand?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, they did not go to New Zealand.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sweden?


James Garfield Gardiner: They went to central Europe. All one needs to do in order to be convinced of that is to read the recent books tney have had published on the subject. They went to those countries which they said had learned the value of control in the last war- there were three of them-and they contended that we should apply it in this country. They are trying now to get away from the label of national socialism that was placed on them after they had-


Mr. COLDWELL:: I rise to a point of order.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no point of order.


Mr COLDWELL:: We are at war with the national socialist states, and to call any group in this house "national socialist" is in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of this house, something that is unwarranted, particularly when we in this group derive our hopes, our aims and our aspirations from the democratic socialism which is carried on under the labour party in Great Britain and throughout the British empire.


James Garfield Gardiner: I may not understand the English language, but when my hon. friends talk about the national socialization of everything in this country I should like to know what their right name is. Last, night my hon. friends opposite were saying that we ought to call them Progressive Conservatives. Any one who reads history knows that no political party necessarily bears the name it has given itself. Political parties in the countries of the empire, the Tories, the Whigs,

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
the Grits, and so on, have been so named by their opponents. Names given by political opponents usually stick, and there is no name that describes them as well as national socialism. That being so, may I say to them that in the very books they have had written in order to convince the people of this country that they ought to vote for them, they talk about our young boys riding the rods before the war.


Major James William Coldwell: To which you condemned them.


James Garfield Gardiner: We did not condemn them; we were not in power. I shall deal with that in a minute. Why were they riding the rods?


An hon. MEMBER:: Because of Liberal policy.


James Garfield Gardiner: We will deal with that. They were riding the rods because we could not market the products of Canada in other countries. We were denied the right to market them in Germany; we were denied the right to market them in Italy; w'e were denied the right at certain stages to market them even in France. Apparently my hon. friend cannot solve a plain mathematical problem, one so simple that it would not be given to a grade eight class. The statement is that if you increase your production by forty-eight per cent and increase your consumption by only six per cent, if you were exporting a large percentage of your products before the increase, then you must trade your surplus to someone else.


Major James William Coldwell: And people were starving in this country.


James Garfield Gardiner: This was exactly the condition-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Three cents a meal for those on relief in Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: The reason your wheat was twenty-six cents a bushel when my hon. friends opposite w7ere in power was that Germany and France would not take it. There was no other legitimate reason. The reason why it was only seventy cents at the beginning of this war, or shortly before, was that we could not find people to take it. The reason why we are getting over $1.25 for it to-day is that we have demands for it, all over the world, and shipping is our shortage. There is not any other solution of this problem. My hon. friends have sent their emissaries over to these countries to examine into their institutions, and they came back here and said, "Apply them here".


Major James William Coldwell: Who said that?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is in your book. I have a copy up in my room and I can bring it down to-morrow and read it to you.


Major James William Coldwell: Name one of the emissaries.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Name one.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will get down to it in a moment.


Major James William Coldwell: Name one.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Name one. We are not in Saskatchewan now.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I will name one. That will end it.


Thomas Vien: The minister's time has expired.


James Garfield Gardiner: Wait until I answer this question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend asked me to name one. I will name him, the most prominent one I know of, the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party in Saskatchewan, who is over in Europe to-day fighting for us, Mr. George H. Williams.


Major James William Coldwell: Is he a national socialist? Mr. GARDINER: He went to Russia.


Major James William Coldwell: I say, is he a national socialist?


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, well, now, you asked the question. He belongs to the C.C.F.


Major James William Coldwell: Certainly.


James Garfield Gardiner: He went over to Russia and to other European countries, and came back and wrote a book. That book is stil^ in print, and anybody can buy it and read it.


Percy Ellis Wright: Did he advocate national socialism?


James Garfield Gardiner: And some of the people who write books whose principles are still being followed by my hon. friends also went over and examined these institutions, and came back and stated, "There are not any young men riding the rods over there." On the very next page they told us the reason. What was it? They said that the only three countries in the world which have taken a lesson from the last war and have adopted controls as against our free way of living are the only countries where young men are not riding the rods; and therefore, they said, we ought to adopt something similar over here.
The Address-Mr. Gardiner


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the
minister give the source, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. In. the first place the minister has exceeded his time; and in the second place, he cannot make quotations in this house without stating what he is quoting from. I do not know what he is using, unless it is his fictitious imagination; is he quoting from that?	,


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I will not sit down, and nobody over there can make me.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Thomas Vien: If there is no objection to the minister speaking over his time, and I do not hear any, he may continue.


Major James William Coldwell: There were no objections as long as the minister was sticking to facts. But he has departed wholly from the facts and is drawing on his imagination, and I object to his time being extended further.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I speak to this point of order? I am not.sure that any hon. member has the right to restrict me to forty minutes. My hon. friend said a few moments ago that no minister has spoken in this house on this amendment; it was moved only last night; I am the first minister to speak on it; and I am not so sure that anybody can stop me if I wish to go on.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Mr. REID:: I told you the minister had an answer.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend says. ".Quote the book". I will quote that book exceedingly often before the session is over, and satisfy everybody. I have it upstairs. I did not know I was going to speak or I should have had it with me.


An hon. MEMBER:: You should carry it around.	.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will carry it around. Mr. GRAYDON: Which one?


James Garfield Gardiner: The reason why they have no young men riding the rods over there-


Major James William Coldwell: May we have the point of order settled?


James Garfield Gardiner: We shall have it in a few minutes.


Major James William Coldwell: No. I rose to a point of order, and Mr. Speaker is on his feet to give a ruling.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister cannot run the show as he could in Saskatchewan.


Thomas Vien: Standing order 37 reads:
No member, except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, or a minister moving a government order and the member speaking in reply immediately after such minister, or a member making a motion of "no confidence" in the government and a minister replying thereto, shall speak for more than forty minutes at a time in any debate.
I take it that the subamendment, taken in conjunction with the motion and amendment, comes under the category of a motion of "no confidence" in the government. The minister may therefore continue his reply.


Major James William Coldwell: May I just get a clarification? Do I understand you-, Mr. Speaker, to say that the moving of a subamendment is a want of confidence motion? If so, I want to point out that last year I was prevented from speaking for more than forty minutes.


Mr. DUPUIS:: The hon. member is not a minister of the crown.


Thomas Vien: As the house knows, an address of humble thanks to His Excellency the Governor General having been moved, an amendment was moved by Mr. Graydon, seconded by Mr. Diefenbaker, regretting that His Majesty's advisers have failed in certain respects, to which Mr. Roy moved a further amendment, that the government has further failed in other respects. Amendments of this kind from any quarter of the house, if approved, would mean a vote of "no confidence" in the government. The government has not yet replied to the subamendment. Therefore hon. members making such amendments and a minister replying thereto have the right to speak without being limited in time, under the provisions of standing order 37.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, what I was stating when I was interrupted was that there was a reason why young men in those countries were not riding the rods. Those of us who belong to the Liberal party, and perhaps some others, gave that as a reason at the time. One of the reasons why I myself gave it in the years following 1936 was that I had the privilege of sitting in the gallery of the House of Commons in London in 1936, and I listened to the man who was sitting on the right-hand corner, as I faced him, in the front bench just across from the government. He

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
was asking the government of Great Britain of that time, which I have heard my friends condemn on quite a number of occasions, for the privilege of forming a small committee, a committee of four or five members of the house, and of meeting the government in council in order to discuss the conditions existing over on the continent of Europe which made unemployment not a possibility there at that time. After he had stated his case, a member of the government rose and denied him that right, and said that no member of the house knew better than he did that any hon. member could go to the government at any time and discuss any subject as important as that with the government, but they did not consider that any small group in the house knew so much more than the government itself knew with regard to that situation to lend sufficient importance to it to have a meeting of that kind. Well, now, that was during a debate on defence, and what he was trying to point out was that they were building on -the continent of Europe at that time the greatest war machine the world has ever seen. At that time the man who was giving that warning got a very indifferent hearing, both in the house and outside. War came, and during the period before the war there was unemployment for reasons I have been indicating, namely, that we could not sell our products in the countries that were preparing for war against us. The war came in 1939, and it had been in progress only a few months when that same man was called to the premiership of Great Britain, and he has led us through the war. And what have we found out during that period? We have found that we could end unemployment by building a war machine. The United States has found the same thing; Britain has found the same thing; every country in the world has found the same thing; and in building a war machine at least as great as -that of our opponents we have for the time being brought about lack of unemployment in -the country. But, like my hon. friend who spoke last night, I am not going to follow the socialists into the next election or into the future and maintain that, in order to end unemployment, we must have the same kind of regimentation and control throughout peace time as was required in those various countries for war whether in preparation for or during war.
What is needed in the world is the new spirit spoken of by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and ridiculed a few moments ago by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas). My hon. friend apparently does not understand what the brotherhood of man
leads to. The brotherhood of man does not lead to nationalism, with consumption in your own country of everything you are going to produce, and only^the production of those things which you can consume in your own country. The spirit of the brotherhood of man leads to the production of all -that can be produced in this country of those things which -are needed in other parts of the world, and the distribution -of them to all parts of the world. That is the ideal of Liberalism and it has been the ideal of Liberalism ever since the Liberal party has been known in Canada.
One thing that pleases me is that most other parties in this country are coming to think the same thing, and when they do come to think the same and meet behind closed doors in Winnipeg or Regina to draft a new platform, what do they do? A new platform in these days toward the end or in the middle of the war, days during which we are fighting for the freedoms that Liberalism has established in different countries throughout the world, under whatever name the principle may have operated, means simply this, that these people take up all the things done by the Liberal party, provincially and federally, and recite them as their own.
My hon. friends opposite say that floor prices came from John Bracken. They forget that we had a floor price under butter in 1938. They forget that we had a floor price under hogs and cheese in 1939-40. They forget that we had a floor price-their own party put a floor price, if you like to go back-of 87i cents under wheat when Mr. Bennett was in power, but they have dropped the name of his party. We have put floor prices all the way from 70 cents to $1.25 under wheat at different times, and if anyone cares to search the records he will find that the week before Mr. Bracken made the announcement of his policies in Lethbridge I announced this particular policy, in connection with floor prices, in London on October 15 last, and the Prime Minister himself read it over the radio- into the platform of this party very shortly after. The Prime Minister tells me that it was in the platform of the Federation before Mr. Bracken spoke.
In any event, a floor under farm products has been the policy of this government ever since the war started1, and all we have said in any policy announced lately is that we shall bring down legislation to make it possible for us to apply that policy when the war ends to those products to which at present we can apply it, under the War Measures Act. The War Measures Act, as it now stands, applies only for six months after the war. We are to bring down legislation which will make it
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

possible for us to have floors under farm prices put into effect by this government and maintained beyond the war.
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) raised the constitutional question the other night, and someone else said that floors may be in the basement, while still another person said something else about it. Well, I should say this. My hon. friends opposite ask, where will you find markets? I have been saying something about that in the last few moments; but the market that has always been supplied, where floor prices have been involved, is the market supplied by the government of this country when it says that when products reach a certain price we shall take control of them and then try to find a market for them, after having taken them over at that price. There is nothing constitutionally wrong with that. There may be some other things that are difficult about it, but constitutionally there is nothing wrong with it.
And so finally, with regard to the attack made this afternoon, I say that we have in Canada an agricultural policy of which we are proud. We have the satisfaction of being able to stand anywhere in the dominion and say that the returns from agricultural products are better than they ever were previously in the whole history of the country, war time or any other time. We have the further satisfaction of being able to say that men are getting out of the debts they incurred during times when some others were administering the affairs of this country, that men are paying their debts and getting into the position where they can go on at the end of the war and operate more successfully than ever before.
My hon. friend makes an appeal to us to help those who are coming back from overseas. I agree with the hon. member who spoke from over in the corner the other day, after returning from overseas, that to be able to say that you are doing more than any other country has done is not enough. I do say, however, that we are doing so much and attempting to do so much more that I am quite sure that what another returned man said the other night over the radio is true, namely, that if the young men over there knew all the things he knows, after listening to certain things he has heard since coming here, they would be fairly well satisfied with what the Canadian government is doing to prepare for their home-coming. And those things which we have not done and which probably have not occurred to us, those things which others are suggesting ought to be done, are always given full consideration, and if they are helpful they are adopted from time to time as, I have no doubt, they will be adopted in the future.

This government is in every sense a liberal government and we do not intend to apply state socialism either to agriculture or to any other line of industry in order to bring about prosperity in Canada, because we know that in a free world such as we shall have after the war, where there will not be national socialist states in Europe, where people will be prepared to trade with one another, and to trea't one another as brother men, conditions will be very much better under a spirit of Liberalism than under any other spirit which can be established in this country.


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I must thank hon. members for the very long and loud ovation that I have just received.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Wrong again; try again.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I refrained
from participating in this debate in the hope that a division might be reached last night, but to allow the minister's speech to go unanswered would indicate that he has spoken the truth. He does a great disservice to democracy when he fails to distinguish between the national socialism of Germany and the socialism that is practised in Sweden, in Australia, in New Zealand, or that is advocated in Great Britain where there are members of the cabinet who have called themselves socialists. We have refrained from saying "yes" when people have asked us if we are socialists, because it has been quite clear that many of our questioners have refused to clarify their own ideas as to socialism.
The minister does a great disservice to a former colleague of his in the Saskatchewan legislature, Major George H. Williams, M.L.A., who is the only leader in any legislature in Canada on active service. Major Williams did visit Russia a number of years ago and on his return wrote a book entitled "The Land of the Soviets". I should like to remind this house that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) visited Germany in 1936 and interviewed the fuehrer himself. Is there anyone in this house or in this country who would suggest that the Prime Minister of Canada is a national socialist because he visited Hitler?


Mr. ADAMSON:: And gave him a buffalo.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am informed that he presented some buffalo as a gift. I think the wartime information board should do some educational work on the cabinet ministers of this country so that they might understand more about the fundamental differences that are found in the different countries participat-

The Address-Mr. Nicholson
ing in this war. The Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) had as his guest upstairs to-day Doctor Henry Sigerist, professor of the history of medicine at Johns Hopkins university, who is here in Ottawa as a guest of the health league. I think the minister is to be commended for trying to find out what has been done in Russia, so that we might benefit by some of their achievements.
In connection with some of the concluding remarks of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), I say to him that the country which has done such a remarkable job in the 1940's is the same country that could do so little for its young people, for its unemployed, in the 1930's. The Minister of Agriculture must take responsibility for the conditions which prevailed in different parts of this country from 1935 to 1939 when five dollars a month was offered to many of our young people, when heroes of to-day were riding the boxcars of yesterday.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the hon. member will permit me, what I was referring to in the general statement was references to Germany and Italy, which are referred to in "Social Planning in Canada".


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: At the moment we are referring to Canada. Major Williams' book was written after his visit to Russia. I gathered from what the minister said that he was making some reference to what Major Williams had written on his return.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend asked me to name any member from his party who had been over there, and I named Mr. Williams.


Major James William Coldwell: The reference was to national socialist countries and the Prime Minister is about the only one who has been officially in those countries.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in support of my argument I should like to refer to the January issue of "Canada at War". I find on'examining this booklet that thirty-five per cent of the man-power of Canada between the ages of eighteen and forty-five has joined the armed services. The sixty-five per cent at home includes cripples and many who have tried unsuccessfully to join the services. They, with women, children and the old people, have done a remarkable job for which the government of this country should not take too much credit. This job has been done in spite of the feeling in agriculture that the farmers are the forgotten people, in spite of the feeling amongst labour that the workers of this country are not accorded the consideration that the employers are receiving. Notwithstanding that, I find on page 39 of this publication that the production of miscellaneous military stores in 1943 was nearly six times as much as in 1939 and 1940, mechanical transport four times as much, cargo and naval vessels twenty times as much, aircraft eight times as much, armoured vessels ten times as much, guns and small arms 196 tipies as much, guns and ammunition fourteen times as much, instruments and signalling apparatus sixty-one times as much, chemicals seventy-six times as much, small arms thirty-seven times as much. In the field of agriculture our farmers have a wonderful record. In 1943 we had on the farms only three farmers for every four we had in 1939, but per farmer in Canada as a whole twice as much was produced. In connection with our shipments of pork products to the United Kingdom in 1943, this booklet shows that they were about three hundred per cent of what we sent in 1939. about fifty per cent more of wheat, about two hundred per cent more canned fish, about fifty per cent more cheese and about forty times as many eggs.
I should like to correct the impression that the minister gave that we were consuming only six per cent more food in 1943 than in 1935-39. In this publication I find that we were consuming 18 per cent more dairy products than we consumed in the 1935-39 period, 12 per cent more meats. We were up to 29 per cent in beef; poultry, 2 per cent; eggs, 24 per cent; potatoes, 7 per cent; tomatoes and citrus fruits, 20 per cent; coffee, 11 per cent, and cocoa, 19 per cent. In a few items we were down: tea, refined sugar and butter.


James Garfield Gardiner: These are in dozens and quarts; I was speaking of tons.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: This booklet says
"Consumption in Canada in percentages." We were down in butter and tea. With thirty-five per cent of our man-power in uniform we have established this remarkable record. The point we have been making again and again is that it should not require a war every generation to speed up our production, to give our people more beef, pork, butter and eggs than they had in peace time. The figures I have given show what we have been able to do under the stress of war. We have made these very, very large gifts to Great Britain- and we are all for it-and at home we have had more and better food. Why? Because for the first time in twenty years many of our people are able to go into a store and buy adequate supplies of food.
The Address-Mr. Nicholson

The minister intimated that he is well satisfied with the social security legislation that is in effect in many parts of the dominion and he thinks the Liberal party should deserve a good deal of credit for it. I should like to turn now to what has been done in the field of health in Canada. The reports that have been submitted to the advisory committee on health insurance contain some material that is well worth further study. We should consider how Canada stands in regard to the health of her people as compared with other countries. Look at maternal mortality rates, for example. The figures per thousand live births for 1936 were as follows:
Canada	 5 6
United States	 5-7
New Zealand	 3-7
Australia	 6'0
England and Wales	 3-8
France	 2T
Netherlands	 3-0
Norway	 2-G
Sweden	 3-1
Denmark	 3-9
Infant mortality rates per thousand live births for the same year and the same countries were as follows:
Canada	 66
United States	 57
New Zealand	 31
Australia	 41
England and Wales	 59
France	 67
Netherlands	 39
Norway	 42
Sweden	 43
Denmark	 67
Canada has a very bad record; it is right at the foot of the list in regard to maternal
mortality rates, and our infant mortality rates bring shame to most people who are concerned about the health of our country. Doctor Heagerty, director of public health services for the Department of Pensions and National Health, points out quite correctly that when a mother dies at childbirth a child usually dies also. He informs us that on an average we have been losing a thousand mothers a year, and that during the past ten years we have lost yearly an average of
15,000	children under one year of age. He asks:
Would you tell me why a child should die of measles? Is there any reason for it?
The only reason is poverty on the part of the parents, who just cannot afford to call a doctor or nurse, or who call them when it is too late. Then in connection with the tuberculosis deathrate and our treatment of that disease in Canada, Doctor Heagerty comments:
And now, it is obvious that Ontario and Saskatchewan having succeeded in reducing the tuberculosis deathrate, and that it could be done in other provinces; and we know that given an opportunity we can eliminate tuberculosis altogether in one generation; and it does not take very much money to do it.
What is the story as far as tuberculosis is concerned? The deathrate per 100,000 population, excluding Indians, was 47 for the dominion, which was a reduction of 46 per cent during the last twenty years. Our Indian death-rate from tuberculosis, however, was 631 per hundred thousand. The figures by provinces are as follows:
Tuberculosis Deathrate per 100,000 Population
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia ....
Hon. members will notice that in Saskatchewan tve have a record of which our citizens are proud, the best record in Canada in 1941. The reason, of course, is that many years ago we provided in a socialist manner for people suffering from tuberculosis. I was interested in observing a graph showing the deathrate from tuberculosis in Saskatchewan over a period of years. A decided drop appeared fMr. Nicholson.]
	Percentage	Indian
Deathrate	decrease	deathrate1941 census	1921-1941	1936-3774	48	42972	46	31967	37	53480	34	31926	63	36230	58	1.04021	51	48524	54	1,03646	40	752
when the first sanatorium was built. There was another drop a few years later, when rates were reduced from $2.50 to $1 a day per patient. A few years later there was another break, occasioned by the introduction of free treatment for every tubercular patient in the province. According to the evidence which has been compiled, Ontario and Saskatchewan are the only provinces which have services as

The Address-Mr. Nicholson
complete as should be provided. It is interesting to note the deathrates in two provinces very close together. In Quebec it was eighty per 100,000, while in Ontario it was twenty-six, though climatic and other conditions are very similar in both provinces. If adequate provision could be made for the treatment of those suffering from tuberculosis in Quebec, over a period of time that province could have a similar rate to Ontario.
When we consider the tuberculosis deathrate among our Indians I believe the people of this country who have concerned themselves with the health of people in China, India, Africa and other places should blush with shame. In the province where the minister in charge of Indians lives-1,040 Indians per 100,000 died from tuberculosis, while the deathrate among white people was only thirty.


Gordon Graydon: Would the hon. member repeat those figures?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The tuberculosis death-rate among Indians in Manitoba was 1,040 per
100.000	as compared with thirty among the white people.


Mr. HOWDEN:: We have more Indians in Manitoba, and the climatic conditions are not as good.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Climatic conditions
there are not very much different from those of Saskatchewan, and at that we are ashamed of our record, though in our province the Indian deathrate was only 485 per 100,000.


John Power Howden: But we have more Indians.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: These are figures per 100,000, not the number of deaths.


Gordon Graydon: Are Indians more susceptible to tuberculosis than we are?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes, and the white men must take responsibility for bringing this plague to the first citizens of Canada. Having brought it to them, we must see to it that these fine citizens have the sort of treatment they deserve.
I should like now to discuss the question of health services in connection with those in our mental institutions. The deputy minister of health of Ontario gave evidence before the committee last year to the effect that 17,000 more beds were required to meet the situation in Canada. Doctor Heagerty said we had
47.000	patients in our mental institutions and that we were short about 10,000 beds to accommodate them. He al$o said there were not enough doctors or nurses or orderlies to care for the patients properly; and he pointed out that we have been told by experts that a
great deal of mental illness is preventable. Specialists tell us that if they could get hold of children who have either the hereditary factor or an inclination toward mental illness they could do away with a great deal of it.
Coming to the question of our general health services, I have obtained a great deal of information from the bureau of statistics in regard to our provision for the health of the people of this country. I find that according to the 1941 census we had a doctor for every 1,098 people in the dominion. The figures for 1941 by provinces for doctors and dentists, not including those in the armed forces, are as follows:
	Persons	Persons
	per doctor	per dentist
Canada 	1,098	3,121Prince Edwrard Island	1.419	4,320Nova Scotia 	1,350	3.959New Brunswick 	1,694	4,529Quebec	1,107	3,883Ontario	927	2,318Manitoba 	1,107	3,475Saskatchewan 	1,700	4,766Alberta 	1,320	3.961British Columbia ....	1,010	2.548
These statistics prove clearly that people in all parts of Canada are not given the advantage of adequate medical service. In my own riding we have eleven doctors practising now, each looking after an average of 5,217 people. Our three practising dentists look after an average of 19,131 each. I am informed1 that in the Canadian army we have a doctor to care for every 245 soldiers, a dentist to look after every 535, and a nurse for every 294. In the army, of course, provision must be made to look after the wounded, after they have joined in battle. But I cannot see any reason why it is necessary to have a dentist for every 535 in the Canadian army, and why the people in the Mackenzie riding should have to get along with a dentist for every 19,131 people.
Before the war we were not in quite such a serious situation. We had a dentist for every
11,000	people. I wonder if hon. members realize what it means to people in different parts of the country who have to live year after year without being able to go to a hospital or a doctor? In 1930 I found my abode at Hudson Bay Junction, in the north country. We had left Edinburgh, Scotland, where the very best of medical services were available for every man, woman and child. The Scottish, people are much maligned, but it should be said for them-


Gordon Graydon: Who maligns the Scots?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Too many. In the city of Edinburgh is found one of the finest hospitals in the old country, the Royal infirmary. There
The Address-Mr. Nicholson

one receives the very best of treatment, and a bill is never submitted. The Hudson Bay Junction district was served by one medical doctor who cared for farmers, townsfolk and about 800 men working in the bush. But when the depression came, and the sawmill operators could not sell their lumber, many of the mills closed down.
At the same time, large numbers of people in the drought area came north, and brought with them very little money. I happen to have with me the pictures of three of the heroes of the last war, who came north from the city of Regina. In one case the man is fighting for democracy for the second time. The two others have sons fighting in this war. The arrangement was made whereby they would receive $10 a month for food, for the first year, and that they would have other expenses which would not make a total expenditure of more than $300 for the year. It does not require much imagination to appreciate that the $10 a month to city dwellers going to the north would not allow much for medical services. It would be used for the purchase of foodstuffs.
Accordingly the board of trade and the citizens in the community thought something should be done by the government of the day to provide medical servicq for these settlers. They were being given food, and it was argued that medical service was also important. What I am about to say is for the benefit of my hon. friends to the right, the Progressive Conservatives. While many of them would rather not take responsibility for the administration of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, as he was then known-now Viscount Bennett-and for the Conservative administration in the province, I must remind the house that many of those who are now supporting the Progressive Conservative party were active in the Conservative party at that time.
What did the government of the province say? It said, "This is a matter the people must look after themselves." vNo help was provided. Conservatives said, "Our doctor is a Liberal ; if he were not such an, active Liberal the administration might do something about it." Liberals said, "If we had a Liberal government a different policy would be carried out."


Gordon Graydon: Is my hon. friend referring to specific cases?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes, at the place where I lived for ten years.


Gordon Graydon: What is the name of the doctor?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Doctor Collins, who
practised in Hudson Bay Junction at that 
time. By and by we did have a change of government. Under that Liberal administration we did get much better treatment.- We were without a doctor for some considerable time, as no doctor could provide medical service for this large area under such conditions. There was not a doctor within seventy miles when he left for another location. His going was a great loss to our community.
How would hon. members like to live in a community where there was no doctor within seventy miles to look after people who became sick. But when the Liberal government did decide to do something about those people, they madte provision for $50 a month to pay the doctor. The doctor had to agree that every person who was on relief could come to him and receive treatment. He was not prevented from making additional collections. But people who were getting $10 a month for relief, and were selling cordwood at a dollar a cord were not likely to be able to pay much to a medical doctor. However, the doctor was concerned about the health of the people, and he did accept $50 a month from the provincial government, and did give medical service to the people in a very large area.
I submit that $50 a month to give comprehensive service to such a large number of people in an area where the nearest hospital and doctor is seventy miles away is not sufficient. Many of the people in that area were men who had fought for their king and country at the time of the last war. That was one of the areas which was available for settlement when they came back from overseas. They settled on these bush homesteads, up in the north country.
After criticizing ourselves for our failure to care for people in times of sickness, we might ask ourselves if people in other countries have done better. If we examine the evidence placed before us in this large volume by the advisory committee I think we shall find that there are two countries which have outstanding records, as far as providing health for their citizens is concerned. I refer to New Zealand and Russia. And, in passing, I urge hon. members to take advantage of the opportunity to hear Doctor Sigerist this evening in the Glebe collegiate, or to-morrow before he leaves the city. Hear what this outstanding professor of the history of medicine has to say about what has been done in Russia.
In his book, which I have before me, I find
some significant statements. He says this:
It seems to me that the following four points represent the mdst characteristic features of the soviet health system:
1.	Medical service is free and therefore available to all;

The Address-Mr. Nicholson
2.	The prevention of disease is in the foreground of all health activities;
3.	All health activities are directed by central bodies, the people's commissariats of health, with the result that-
4.	Health can be planned on a large scale.
Then he says:
There can be no doubt that the soviet system of social insurance is infinitely superior to any insurance system in capitalist countries. The costs are what they should be, part of the cost of production. The benefits are infinitely greater than under any other insurance scheme. The worker is guaranteed complete medical service, he is given social security. He is entitled to it, because after all, he is creating the values that make such a scheme possible.
Most people are agreed that changes will have to be made in our health programme in Canada. Some doubts exist as to what type of changes should be made. I have here a copy of "You Knew What You Were Voting For", written by William S. Gibson, President of National Cellulose of Canada, Limited.
On page eight he says:
All the planners start with the premise- "We must not have another depression." I could bring many arguments to show that nations and individuals profit more in adversity than in good times. I know that I would rather start a new enterprise during a depression than in good times.
Of course Mr. Gibson would rather start an enterprise in poor times. In January I talked to a man working in one of the sawmills in my riding. He is receiving forty cents an hour and his board, but he told me that the first time he met me, in 1932 or 1933, he was working for four cents an hour for a ten-hour day. They could not even make it five cents an hour. Naturally Mr. Gibson would rather start an industry when he could have his materials produced by men working in the bush for four cents an hour, when there are fifty men looking for every job available.
I think this war has proven one thing conclusively. It has proven that if we want it we can have a high standard of living in Canada in the world of to-morrow. We should understand that a nation can plan its production and consumption on a low plane, with mass unemployment and low standards, or on a high plane with full employment and high standards for its people. I should like to point out that it was stated by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), when he was Minister of Finance, that whatever is physically possible must be made financially possible. His successor, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), has emphasized that. We must always keep that in mind. If that is true in war time, then it is equally true in peace time. Whatever is physically possible in peace time must be financially possible.
I have not the time to go into all the details that must be considered, but finance is not now and should not be a limiting factor in our effort in any direction. The only limiting factors should be: first, raw materials; second, labour; third, the machinery of pn>
duction and, fourth, our power to coordinate these things. I submit that if the war should end to-morrow-we know that victory will be achieved some day-Canada would be a richer nation than ever before. By that I mean that we would have more new factories, more trained workers and more new resources to develop.
In order to plan a health programme for the post-war period there are certain physical necessities which must be kept in mind. We must have: first, nutritious food; second, adequate supplies of heat, light, potable water, sewage disposal facilities and fresh air; third, preventive and restrictive health services; fourth, adequate clothing and proper housing for all our citizens. I shall have something to say about most of these at some future time.
Mention was made a few days ago by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) of an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Journal and which had been prompted by the report of a speech by Mr. Jolliffe, leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in Ontario. During a discussion before a group of eminent medical men Mr. Jolliffe outlined in some detail the plans of the C.C.F. for improved medical services. This was during a meeting of the London academy of medicine on September 23, 1943. In his remarks Mr. Jolliffe made it quite clear that on the whole the doctors of this country had done a good job. We do not want to place the doctors of Canada in a position where they are not going to have a great deal of freedom. The president of the Canadian medical association made some reference to the fact that the C.CE. would limit the salaries of general practitioners to $3,000, and of specialists to $8,000. I have made a careful survey and I can find no record anywhere where any C.C.F. speaker made any statement of that kind.
I would remind the house that in Russia they have provided the highest standard of living available for their doctors. The C.C.F. in any province in Canada would recognize that our doctors are highly trained and must be given as high a standard of living as we can provide collectively.
Then the hon. member for Peterborough West asked if the C.C.F. could arrange for babies to be delivered between eight a.m. and five p.m., but no answer was given. Both the editorial in the Journal and the hon. member for Peterborough West assume that

Post-War Reconstruction
no answer could be given. Again I would remind the house that arrangements have been made to look after the medical and dental needs of our troops without any one doctor having to work for twenty-four hours a day.
Some of my best friends are of the medical profession and I have the greatest respect for them, but there is one thing I must say about them. While they are ready to look after their friends, most of them seem to be unable to look after themselves. Many of them are burnt out by the time they reach fifty or fifty-five years. We must provide machinery so that the medical services of this country can be carried on without any one doctor having to work for sixteen or twenty hours a day.
On motion of Mr. Marshall the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, February 10, 1944