1944-02-04

RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. R. LaFLECHE (Minister of National War Services): Mr. Speaker, I should like to lay on the table of the house a copy of order in council P.C. 530, dated February 3, 1944, appointing William James Parker, Esquire, of the city of Winnipeg, a governor of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
May I say a word as to who and what this distinguished gentleman is. Mr. Parker is a practical farmer, a graduate of the Manitoba Agricultural college and a member of the board of governors of the university of Manitoba. A comparatively young man, he has won a name for himself throughout the west as an authority on general agricultural problems, and is recognized as one of the foremost scientific agriculturists of the dominion. He farms on an extensive scale in Manitoba. Mr. Parker served in the last war as a member
of the Royal Flying Corps. He is married and has two sons. He is president of the Manitoba Pool Elevators, and a vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
Mr. GRAYDON:: Is the other vacancy to be filled as well?
Mr. LaFLECHE: The matter is under consideration, and I trust to be able to make an announcement before very long.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that we are not likely at this stage to encounter a desire for debate on the constitution of the committee on social insurance. If the house is agreeable to having this committee constituted at once, I shall move:
That a select committee of this house be appointed to examine and report on a national plan of social insurance which will constitute a charter of social security for the whole of Canada, and, to that end,
To examine and study the existing social insurance legislation of the parliament of Canada and of the several provincial legislatures; social insurance policies of other countries; the most practicable measures of social insurance for Canada, including health insurance, and the steps which will be required to effect their inclusion in a national plan; the constitutional and financial adjustments which will be required for the achievement of a nation-wide plan of social security; and other related matters.
That the said committee have power to appoint, from among its members, such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable or necessary to deal with specific phases of the problems aforesaid, wfith power to call for persons, papers, and records, to examine witnesses under oath, to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee for the use of the committee and members of the house; that the said committee shall report to the house from time to time; and that the said committee shall consist of the following members:	Messrs. Adamson,
Blanchette, Bourget, Breithaupt, Bruce, Cassel-man (Mrs.) (Edmonton East), Claxton, Cleaver. Cote, Diefenbaker, Donnelly, Fauteux, Fulford, Gershaw, Gregory, Hatfield, Howden, Hurtubise, Johnston (Bow River), Kinley, Lalonde, Leclerc, Lockhart, Maclnnis, Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre), MacKinnon (Kootenay East), Macmillan, McCann, McGarry, McGregor, McIvgt, Maybank, Mayhew, Mitchell. Picard, Shaw, Slaght, Veniot, Warren, Wood, Wright.
Hon. members will observe that the wording of this resolution follows the wording of a similar resojution under which the committee on social insurance was appointed at the last session. T' e members of the committee are, I understand, for the most part the same; there may be one or two changes.
1S4
Social Security


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne is indefinite with respect to the introduction of a health insurance bill in Canada, and this motion would seem to indicate that the whole matter is receiving further study. I take it that the conference with the provinces to which the Prime Minister referred the other day, will discuss health insurance along with other matters. Can the Prime Minister enlighten the house as to whether or not it is expected that the legislation with respect to health insurance will be brought down this session? It has been awaited1 by the people for a long time now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Everything
depends upon the progress of the work of the session and of the committee. I cannot say more than that.


Gordon Graydon: I take it from that, that the government is anxious to get the measure in as soon as possible.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: One of the purposes of reestablishing the committee at once is to begin as speedily as possible the consideration of the matters referred to.


Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my desire to start a lengthy discussion on the setting up of this committee, of which I was a member last year, but there are one or two remarks I wish to make.
It seems to be the general opinion throughout the country that the social security committee was in favour of the medical health bill which was before it. Some two months ago I was listening to a nation-wide broadcast over a national hook-up of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and I was astonished to hear Doctor Routley, the secretary of the Canadian Medical association, make the statement that this must be a good bill because the only body that had studied it was in favour of it, and that was the social security committee of the House of Commons. That statement was not justified, because the committee did not make any study of the draft bill during the last session. All we did was to hear briefs presented by various people who would either render or receive services under the bill. About eighty-five per cent of the submissions were by those who hoped to render services under the bill. I believe there were only two briefs from those who hoped to receive services, one from the Canadian federation of agriculture and the other from the trades and labour council.
It is not my intention to enter into any discussion of the details of that bill; I believe that can be done better in the committee.

But I do wish to make it clear that so far as this group is concerned we believe there are certain principles which should be incorporated in a medical health bill. First, we believe that such a bill should be all-inclusive, both as to personnel and as to the services rendered. Any medical health bill should cover everybody, rich and poor. It should not be left to the provinces to say whether certain income groups shall be excluded from the provisions of the bill. Next, the services rendered under the bill should be the same in all provinces. These should include preventive medicine, hospitalization, nursing, and the necessary drugs and medicines. No province should have the right to say that it will accept only some of the provisions of the bill; that it will give hospitalization without providing medicine, for instance, or any other combination. The cost should be a charge not against the individual but against the total ability of this country to provide the necessary health services.
Next we contend that the administration of the bill should be left in equal proportion to those who are receiving services and those who are rendering services. The Canadian Medical Association should not be the sole body in charge of the administration of the bill. The government should have the right to decide when there is any division of opinion between these two groups. With these three principles in-porporated in the bill-they are not covered fully in the draft bill as it is at the present time-we will be in favour of complete medical health coverage for the Dominion of Canada.
While I am on my feet I should like to say just a word with respect to the statement made .yesterday by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) along the same lines. Apparently he is suffering from a disease-


Gordon Graydon: May I interrupt at this
time? I do not know how this happens to come into the debate. I do not want the hon. member to drag in some extraneous matter.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman is
referring to a debate on some other matter which is not a matter suitable for discussion at this time.


Mr. HOMUTH:: The hon. member ought
to find out what disease he is suffering from.


Percy Ellis Wright: The hon. member was
referring to medical services, and he mentioned our group in particular.


Thomas Vien: That was a discussion on another matter. The hon. gentleman would not be entitled to discuss another matter which is already under discussion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Post-War Reconstruction

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a select committee of the house be appointed to study and report upon the general problems of reconstruction and reestablishment which may arise at the termination of_ the present war, and all questions pertaining thereto; with power to such select committee to appoint, from among the members of the committee, such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable or necessary; to deal with specific phases of the problems aforementioned, with power to said select committee and to such subcommittees as may be formed therefrom, to call for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath, and for such select committee to report from time to time to the house; and that the said committee shall consist of the following members:	Messrs.
Authier, Bence, Bertrand (Prescott), Black (Cumberland), Brunelle, Castleden, Dupuis, Eudes, Ferron, Fraser (Northumberland), Gillis, Gray Harris (Danforth), Hill, Jean, MacKenzie (Neepawa), Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre), MacNicol, McDonald (Pontiac). McKinnon (Kenora-Rainy River). McNiven, Marshall. Martin. Matthews, Mitchell, Mrs. Nielsen, Poirier. Purdy, Quelch, Ross (Calgary East), Ross (Middlesex East), Sanderson, Turgeon. Tustin, White, and that the provisions of standing order 65 limiting the number of members on special committees, be suspended in relation thereto.
The wording of this resolution is similar to that under which the committees were appointed last year and the year before.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to delay the setting up of this committee. When these committees were set up last year the debates took some considerable time, a good deal of ground being covered. In his remarks the other day the Prime Minister referred to the time which had been taken at the last session in discussing the setting up of these committees. I proffered an explanation, and perhaps I now have the right to give it. The reason why so much time was taken up in discussing the motion to appoint these committees was that the social security committee was being set up for the first time, and some hon. members were anxious to discuss the general problems relating thereto. Another reason, of course, why in the setting up of committees time is consumed in debate is the failure of the government so to arrange the reports of the various committees that they can be debated some time before the session closes. One of the difficulties experienced last session was in connection with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The report of that committee was brought down, not merely in the dying days of the session, but almost on the last day. No motion for concurrence was moved. I doubt whether it would have been of much use to move concurrence, because the session was practically on its way out. So that when a motion to appoint the committee is made, no one can wonder that some time is taken up in discussing matters which normally would have been discussed had concurrence in the report been asked. I wish to make that clear.
In consenting to the setting up of the reconstruction committee I am hopeful that the government and those who are members of the committee will see to it that the report of this very important committee is brought down within a reasonable time before the end of the session, so that the house may be able to have some general debate with respect to its recommendations. I rather regretted that the Prime Minister the other day, speaking of the report of the war expenditures committee, which was brought down on the very last day of the last session, said that it would not be revived for discussion. At least that was my understanding of what he said. I think his words were that the report would die with the session which had just closed. I hope that is not so, because after all there should be an opportunity to discuss it. I think it is within the power of the government and the house to provide an opportunity of debating reports of committees which may deal with contentious matters on which hon. members may desire to express their opinions.
I point that out to the Prime Minister now, so that when committees are being formed he must not expect debate to be avoided when we have not had an opportunity of considering and discussing the previous committee's reports. The present motion of course does not come within that category, because this is a committee which, as I understand, is continuing, and will report some time during the session; and I am hopeful that when the report is brought down there will be full opportunity for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I wish to direct an inquiry to the Prime Minister, notice of which I gave him earlier to-day. In the course of the debate on Monday last I indicated that many rumours were in circulation regarding the resignation of General McNaughton, and that public interest demanded that the Prime Minister should at once give a full and frank explanation of the
General McNaughton

facts in this regard, let the chips fall where they may. In view of the comments reported to have been made to the press by General McNaughton yesterday, I am asking the Prime Minister to-day to make a statement for the purpose of clarifying the whole situation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has referred to the debate on Monday last. It is true that at the conclusion of the debate my hon. friend drew my attention to the fact that I had not, in replying to him, touched on the questions of the home defence army, General McNaughton, and the overseas structure. I replied to my hon. friend by saying that I was leaving some matters to my colleagues and that I thought that such was the proper procedure to follow unless time was to be taken up indefinitely with the debate on the address. My hon. friend then said that he assumed that I was leaving the reply with respect to army matters to my colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), and I indicated to him that in that he was quite correct, and he said that that would be satisfactory to him.


Gordon Graydon: When I said that it would be satisfactory to me I had no idea that we would wait so long for some statement from the Minister of National Defence.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That may be. However, hon. members will I think agree that one has to view the business of the session as a whole and plan accordingly. There is a proper time and an adequate time for taking up different questions, and I have felt that the time at which it would be most appropriate for the Minister of National Defence to make a statement on matters pertaining to the Canadian army and on all other aspects of matters relating to defence would be when the house would be considering either the resolution or the bill on the war appropri-aton. I have intimated to the house that just as soon as the debate on the address is concluded the first item to be called will be the one relating to the resolution on the war appropriation which is now on the order paper. I had hoped that the debate on the address might conclude this evening, but I understand that it is pretty certain to run over until next week. Were it to conclude this evening, we would of course ask the house on Monday to consider the resolution on war appropriation and the Minister of National Defence would then make a very full statement. I hope the debate will not run on far into next week. Just as soon as it is concluded' the Minister of National Defence will deal generally with matters pertaining to the army. Certainly I 
must say to my hon. friend, and I think he will agree, that any statement I might make at the present time would not be regarded as sufficiently comprehensive to avoid further questioning and the opening up of a discussion -one discussion in the middle of another. Under these circumstances it is I think best that the government should adhere to what I have outlined as the procedure, namely, to discuss army matters, not one incident or one particular matter, but matters generally, when all hon. members will have their opportunity to question and the ministry its opportunity of answering in adequate fashion.


Gordon Graydon: Frankly I am amazed at the position just taken by the Prime Minister. It never occurred to me for a moment, in view of the uncertainty and the doubt which seemed to exist throughout the country in connection with this McNaughton matter, that either the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Defence would assume such an attitude. By virtue of General McNaughton's comment yesterday in the papers, the whole question has been thrown into bold relief- . the question of the original statement officially given by the government, and then the statement which was given by General McNaughton yesterday. It is not very often that I take such a positive and emphatic stand on matters of this kind, but I call upon the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence to clear this matter up now. Let us not wait until next week or whenever it may be. That is not good enough. The people of Canada are agitated over this thing. I would not be pressing my case as I am if I did not conscientiously believe that it is in the public interest that the Prime Minister make a statement with respect to the reason why General McNaughton resigned. Everybody knows that in the statement previously made by the government it was declared that he had resigned because of ill health. General McNaughton now comes to this country and says that he is all right. That, in effect, is the situation. How can anyone expect the morale of the Canadian people not to be affected by the silence of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of National Defence this afternoon? I call upon them with all the emphasis at my command to disclose the exact situation with respect to General McNaughton. Let us not be kept waiting another minute. I shall not be satisfied with the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Defence saying that the matter will come up in the ordinary course of events. This is something which has come up outside the ordinary course of events, and for that reason I call upon them to make the statement I have asked for.

General McNaughton


Thomas Vien: Before the minister replies,
I would like to point out that we are on orders of the day and there is nothing before the house. A question has been asked by the leader of the opposition, to which the Prime Minister has replied. If any part of the answer requires elucidation or explanation for clarification, a further question would be in order, but a general debate cannot take place on the orders of the day.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I should like to support the leader of the opposition in asking for an immediate statement from the leader of the government on General McNaughton's resignation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, nothing could better illustrate the wisdom of the course which the government intends to pursue in this matter than the speech just made by the leader of the opposition, and by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggnr, supporting him in his request. In the course of his remarks the leader of the opposition made two or three statements which I do not think are wholly correct. I do not wish at this stage to go into the right or wrong of the statements he has made, but in the short time he has spoken he has made it perfectly clear that in discussing matters which relate to the army and to the relinquishment by General McNaughton of his command of the Canadian army there are many matters of which the house will wish to be informed in order to have a clear view of the entire situation. It is not the custom, so far as I am aware, in this parliament, and certainly it is not the custom at Westminster, to begin a debate on a matter as important as that which pertains to the affairs of the army in a time * of war on a question asked on the orders of the day. I would expect my hon. friends opposite to be the first to wish the government to set apart, if need be, a special time when the whole matter could be discussed. That would be the correct way to proceed, and as far as I am concerned, if the debate on the address continues to run on for any length of time and hon. gentlemen wish to have a day set apart for the discussion of war measures, the government will be prepared to consider such a request. But I do submit that we shall make far better headway with the business of parliament and get on more expeditiously with our war measures and matters pertaining to the war if we conclude the debate on the address speedily and then take up at once the resolution dealing with the war appropriation.


Gordon Graydon: May I say to the Prime Minister that a very heavy responsibility rests upon him in this decision.


Major James William Coldwell: The Prime Minister has said that he will set apart a day. Would he set aside Monday for debating this question and let the Minister of National Defence speak on the address?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot agree at the present time to setting aside Monday.
I said that I would be prepared to consider setting aside a day, but in considering that I shall have to take into account the length of time that it is probable the debate on the address will continue, and what may be most advisable. I do not know why my hon. friend should be so keen about this particular matter.


Gordon Graydon: The public is keen about it; that is why.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just a moment. After all, the great question that is before the country and before the world at the present time is the prosecution of the war, and the prosecution of the war is not being impeded in the least by General McNaughton being at the Seigniory club at the present time or by the government's seeking to conclude this debate before we begin a fresh debate on war measures. I say to my hon. friends that if the matter were urgent in any way the government would be the first to consider the urgency of it, but I am sure that everyone throughout the country who is interested in knowing the whole situation as it exists and as it not only affects hon. members of this house in the course of their discussions here, but affects the whole Canadian army and affects the war, would wish this question to be discussed when there is ample opportunity for a full discussion.



GLYCERINE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: I should like to ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply a question with reference to a press release from his department dated February 1, 1944, stating that all chemical control restrictions on the use of glycerine have been removed. Does that mean that anti-freeze, with glycerine base, will be released to the public without the necessity for a permit from the wartime prices and trade board?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: That is the purpose in removing the restriction, so that glycerine may be sold for any purpose.
1SS
The Address-Mr. Diejenbaker



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. L. D. Tremblay for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Graydon, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to the amendment moved by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon), seconded by myself, first may I, even at this late period, extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Tremblay) and the seconder (Mr. Tucker) of the address. These two hon. and gallant members served during the last war and are in this war contributing their part. May I also, and in this I think I speak for all hon. members of the house, extend a welcome to another hon. member who to-day is in the house for the first time after serving overseas in this war, the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair), who in seconding the address in the dark days of 1940 did more than he can realize to arouse the people of Canada from the complacency of that time.
To-day I intend to follow the course I have endeavoured to follow throughout as a member of this house, and take the attitude that I believe should characterize an opposition in time of war, and that is to commend where I believe commendation is fitting, and yet fearlessly face the issues that are before us and reveal weaknesses which in the opinion of the opposition require to be rectified. I am not going to deal to-day to any extent with the tremendous programme that is outlined in the speech from the throne. Having regard to the serious conditions referred to a moment ago by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), arising from the war, I wish that he had spoken with greater certainty on the question whether or not an election is to be called in the midst of war. In September last he made a statement that might very well be paraphrased in the words he used in connection with the plebiscite-not necessarily an election, but an election if necessary. On Monday last, in view of the serious position in which we now find ourselves in relation to the war, he warned the country of the crucial period which we are approaching, and indicated that an election was not in prospect; and on Wednesday, in answer to questions put by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon), the Prime Minister made the issue more baffling than it had ever been before.

When I look over the speech from the throne, promising, as it does, allowances for all, and when I realize that the only allowances referred to in the Beveridge report which are not covered by the speech are funeral allowances and death payments, and that dead men do not vote, my suspicion of the purposes of this speech from the throne becomes stronger. As I read it over it is the most tantalizing bill of fare ever offered to the Canadian people; but I fear, having regard to the appointment of committees such as those set up to-day on social security and the like, it will be far removed from translation into the feast it promises.
I wish to deal to-day not with social security but with certain matters which for some reason or other are not dealt with at any length in the speech from the throne. First let me say that I find it difficult to understand the attitude of the Prime Minister to-day in refusing to answer statements made by General McNaughton yesterday which indicate that the explanation given last November by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) for General McNaugh-ton's resignation is far removed from the facts as they were revealed yesterday by the general.
Six months have gone by since the last session of parliament, and yet we know nothing of the man-power situation of the dominion. We do not know whether adequate reinforcements have been provided or are being provided for the army overseas, for the army which is now in Great Britain and which will sooner or later take its place in the offensive. General McNaughton is in our midst, the architect of Canadian army efficiency, the man who was held up as the general who meant so much to the Canadian army in its efficient operation, the general' who was going to lead that army as the spearhead of attack, the dagger at the heart of Berlin. While there may be security reasons denying us the privilege of having-him speak frankly, the government owes it to the people of Canada to say to General McNaughton, "King's regulations and orders to the contrary, your lips are not sealed." If things are not right in the Canadian army-overseas, they should be revealed to the people of Canada, and if for reasons of national security they cannot be revealed, I1 for one, who have opposed the secrecy that too often has characterized this government,, suggest that we, the representatives of the people, have the right to have General' McNaughton coue before this house in secret session and let us know the facts.
I suggest that the Prime Minister, in the stand he takes to-day in denying to the*

The Address-Mr. Diejenbaker
membership of this house an. opportunity to know the facts, has taken steps which are not in accordance with the principles of good parliamentary government or in keeping with considerations of the welfare of the army overseas. I ask the Prime Minister, in the interests of the morale of the people-and the people of the nation are aroused-to place before the house, even later on this evening, the full situation, so far as it can be placed before us without danger to the national safety.
I wish to refer to one other matter dealt with by the Prime Minister in his speech and it is one upon which I do not believe there should be any partisan or biased discussion- namely, the attitude to be taken by the Prime Minister when he attends the next conference of prime ministers. He began by indicating that he did not wish the subject discussed, and then he proceeded to discuss it at considerable length. Personally I believe that, bound as we are to the empire by tradition, by history, by interest, in the years to come there must be closer cooperation with the empire, and closer cooperation with the United States of America having regard to our North American situation. Speaking personally and expressing my own views, I have been a con-[DOT] sistent advocate of the setting up of an empire council-not with executive but with consultative powers, continuing from week to week deliberations of the kind that will take place when the Prime Minister goes to Britain some time later this year. In reference to the war effort of the empire and to the constitutional relations between the empire countries, I ask the Prime Minister to consider whether recognition of the principle of continuing participation by a representative of the Canadian ministry in an empire council with deliberative powers only would assure a closer relationship than there is to-day through the instrumentalities he mentioned. This is a subject that does not require nor should it be permitted to enter the realm of, partisan discussion. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, Canada cannot afford the luxury of a fence-sitting policy in reference to her relations with the empire or with other countries of the world. I believe that nothing should be done that would interfere with the free discussion on the part of the Prime Minister at this conference in Great Britain. On the other hand, as a member of this house, I believe each of us has the right, yes, and the duty and the responsibility, to place before the Prime Minister and the government his individual views. It is in this spirit that I place before the Prime Minister my own personal view in regard to the matter.
I now come to the man-power situation. Six months have gone by and not a member of this house has any idea of the man-power
situation in Canada. We hear from time to time statements made by the director of national selective service indicating that there is a shortage of man-power-yes, during the last few months a shortage of man-power on the farms. Farmers are still being called up and enrolled in an army for service in Canada. That to me is not understandable. In the period October 31, 1942 to September 30, 1943, the total number of men who served in the army in Canada under conscription for service in Canada has been increased by 31,491. The total number of men that have been enrolled in this army for service in Canada is 125,640, in spite of the fact that they are required to serve in Canada, except to the extent that the boundaries of Canada were extended by order in council to include Kiska. Yet they are still being called up at an annual cost to the country of from S150,000,000 to $175,000,000. I think that is a fair estimate.
What is the man-power situation? Nothing effective has been done since the last session of parliament directly to guide men into occupations which will enable them to make a maximum contribution to the war effort. Oh, yes; bureaux have been set up. Orders in council have been passed. Immediately after the session ended a tremendous reorganization took place; an administrative board of full-time membqrs was set up in addition to an advisory board, a deputy director of the civilian branch and the military branch, five regional or provisional directors, directors for logging priorities, fishing, canning, war industries and other departments. Associate directors' staffs were established in all parts of Canada. Setting up organizations does not solve any problem. On September 9 Mr. MacNamara said there was an over-all shortage of a hundred thousand workmen on the farms and in wood production. These men are needed, according to Mr. MacNamara, for farm and wood production, yet the government goes on conscripting them and increasing the army for service in Canada.
Let me refer to another aspect of the problem. This statement is subject to correction by the Minister of National Defence. During recent months voluntary recruitment has fallen away very considerably. Voluntary recruitment in the armed forces is at a level the like of which has not been seen before since the beginning of the war. Yet we continue to call up men, take them from their useful occupations, place them in an army, and give them training-an army that is all dressed up with no. place to go. We do not know, nobody in this dominion knows, outside of the cabinet and the officers concerned, whether or not there are reinforcements available for the army overseas.
The Address-Mr. Diejenbaker

Australia in September last found it necessary to consider whether, with the danger of invasion removed, the question of reallocation of service men to production would not enhance their war effort. On the one hand you see advertisements asking men to go back to the farm, farmers to go to the woods, and on the other hand competition with the farms continues. You see advertisements saying to men in the industrial services engaged in wartime production that their place is in the air force, their place is overseas in the armed forces of this country. Surely the time has come when the whole system of man-power administration in this dominion must be rationalized. There are man-power shortages in the key industries, and yet the garrison army remains. Can it be said any longer that the policy in effect makes for efficiency in the utilization of man-power resources?
I should like to say a few words on selective service. General Marshall says, as reported in the press of to-day, that it is necessary to bring in national selective service on an even greater scale in the United States than ever before. What is our position? We have a tremendous selective service organization operating in various parts of the dominion, and yet in spite of the criticism of last year the government apparently has a policy that still is not equalizing the call-up in the various military districts. What is the reason? I can well visualize that in one military district so many men have volunteered in the service of their country that it would be impossible to call up more than a very low percentage if those who are left endeavour to enlist and are turned down. Only a few days ago there was turned out a booklet "Canada At War", January, 1944. I ask hon. members to compare that "Canada At War" with the issue of January, 1943. What it reveals is this: In the first place, in January, 1943, the male population of Canada from 19 to 45 was set out. Since that time the male population from 18 to 45 has been estimated. In every military district of Canada, except No. 5, there has been an increase of from 18 to 20 per cent in the male population available for service. In other words, by reason of the inclusion of the 18 year olds, including the 18-year-old class, adds about twenty per cent to the numbers that were available when the call-up limitation was 19 years of age. And yet, with every other military district showing an increase, in No. 5 military district there are 300 men less of the 18- to 45-year-old class than there were last year in the 19- to 45-year-old class. Based on those figures, the record of enlistment, while shown as 17-7 per cent, in point of fact is 9-8 per cent.

Here is the record of the call-up all the way across the dominion, which shows that there is no equalization, no even distribution of the load. The government, as a policy, apparently deliberately takes the stand of not equalizing the call, and the people of Canada have a right to ask the reason.
Taking the military districts one by one, the following is a record of the call-up during the period from October 31, 1942, to September 30, 1943:
Military district-Location	Percentage
No.	1-London, Ont	
7-8No.	2-Toronto, Ont	
7No.	3
Kingston, Ont	 5-7
No.	4-Montreal, P.Q	
7No.	5-Quebec, P.Q	
5No.	6-Halifax, N.S	
7-9No.	7-Saint John, N.B	
8No. 10-Winnipeg, Man	
7'8No. 11-Victoria, B.C	
8-1No. 12-Regina, Sask	
8No. 13-Calgary, Alta	
7-5
What does this reveal? It reveals-and I take the figures for my own province-that in Saskatchewan, with an enlistment record of 35-7 per cent, sixty per cent more are being called up than in the military district where voluntary enlistments are the least. I believe in the principle of Canadian unity. In adopting a policy under which men in all parts of Canada are not given an equality of opportunity to serve-because it is denied them under the call-up-the government is doing more to cause disunion and friction across Canada than could be occasioned by any other act in the administration of the war effort.
Earlier I made reference to selective service. It is top heavy with employees. A return several inches thick was brought down the other day, setting out the record of employees in that branch of the service. As I see men moved about, I ask myself this question: Does that department, or some of its officials, believe that their work in life is simply that of pushing people around? An example comes to my mind, one of many others, respecting a young French Canadian from Montreal, an electrician by trade, who last November was out of work. He was ordered to go to Drumheller, Alberta, to work as an electrician in the mines. He paid his way out to Drumheller, and upon arriving there he was advised that there was no work for him as he was not the kind of electrician required. He was 2.500 miles from home without a job. The selective service officer in Drumheller advised him that the proper thing for him to do was to go to Flin Flon, Manitoba, to stop off at Prince Albert for instructions. This was a trained man, and he is still at Prince Albert. He has been there for two and a half months

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
trying to get action from selective service, but none of the officials will accept any further responsibility for him.
I know of two or three men who were farming several hundred acres of land, and who, although they had work to do at home, have been ordered to leave home during the winter months as a condition of postponement. Those men have been directed to travel two or three hundred miles to other farms. The time has come when the whole system of selective service should be reorganized. Changes should be made in its personnel to the end that conditions such as I have mentioned shall not be permitted to exist in this, the fifth year of the war.
I could go on and record many other examples, equally direct and equally revealing. It all comes back to this, that such conditions have arisen because of the fact that, in the midst of war, realizing that the selective service can be made operative only in one way, the government has failed to carry into effect the principles necessary to that end. We have been in session now for more than a week. The man-power situation is serious. The question of reinforcements for our troops overseas is one about which we want to be reassured. The Prime Minister indicated on Monday last, as I understood him, that some time in the course of this debate the ministers concerned would place before the house and the country the position of affairs. Again to-day we face the same attitude that has characterized the administration of the manpower problem, namely, a postponement of action, a postponement of revealing the situation as it exists.
In the time remaining at my disposal I have a few suggestions to make in connection with the men who are being discharged. This is not a partisan matter. All of us want to make sure that the service men and women shall be assured of a fair opportunity when they return to civilian life. There is not a little resentment among the more than 100,000 service men who have been discharged, owing to the fact that only 5,950 of them are in receipt of pension.
Another matter of complaint is the inadequacy of clothing allowances. The allowance on discharge was increased recently from $35 to $65. I say that $65 is insufficient with which to clothe the men who are discharged from the armed services after serving one or two years overseas.
Another matter I wish to discuss is in connection with soldier settlement. I ask the minister why it is that the soldiers who served in the war of 1914-18 and who still hold land are still in debt must pay five per cent interest.
which is a rate of interest forty-three per cent higher than is being charged the men who return from this war and who have taken up land under the Veterans' Land Act? That is something that should be remedied. It is discrimination against the man who served in the last war, and it is causing no end of ill feeling among them.
I think the time has come when mothers dependents' allowances should equal those of wives. In many cases dependent mothers are unable to carry on with the present allowances. There is no reason at all why a mother who gives her son should not receive an allowance equal to that paid to the wife of a soldier to enable her to escape destitution.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) and other members have dealt on more than one occasion with the necessity of the readoption of the insurance principle in connection with pensions. Why it was taken away in 1940 has never been satisfactorily explained. Why it has not been restored in 1944 and made retroactive to the beginning of the war is something that I ask the minister to explain when he speaks on this matter. I know of the kindly attitude of the minister and his desire to see that these anomalies are rectified. Where is there any opposition to the bringing into effect of this principle, to the equalizing of mothers' allowances and to the granting of a cost-of-living bonus along with dependents' allowances equal to that paid to civilians?
Many of our men have been overseas for more than four years, some of them having spent their fifth Christmas there, removed from their loved ones and friends. If the government now takes the stand that there are sufficient reinforcements available, that the manpower situation in so far as the armed forces are concerned is reasonably good and the shipping situation has improved in recent months, I suggest that the time has come for the government to grant a furlough to men in the armed forces who have been overseas from the beginning of the war. A similar scheme is receiving close attention in the United States. The men in the air force are brought home after a certain period of service, and the same treatment is given men in the navy. A similar system should be put into effect for those serving in the army. I realize the difficulty, but an effort should be made to establish a system of rotating leaves or furloughs. It would do much to improve enlistment in the army and enhance the morale of those who serve overseas, as well as of their dependents at home in Canada. I have heard men in the army say, "I am going overseas, and I will have to stay to the end; if I went in one of
The Address-Mr. Diejenbaker

the other services I would come home sooner or later, whether or not I were a casualty; I would be given an opportunity to return to my loved ones." The adoption of my suggestion would, I submit, improve the morale of the soldier.
I appreciate the opportunity offered by the speech to bring these matters to the attention of the house and the country. I ask the government to place before the people of Canada the true man-power position, both in the domestic sphere and in the armed forces.
Reference has been made in the speech from the throne to agriculture but time does not permit my discussing that to-day, except to say that I believe in the principle of floor prices, but like hon. members who have already spoken I ask the government what level is to be set. Is it to be a price level in accordance with present prices and subsidies? Is it to be a level that will ensure the cost of production and a reasonable profit? If it is not, it will be a denial of the farmers' due.
The promise to bring in price levels for agricultural products cannot be made effective beyond the period of the war, unless there is an amendment to the British North America Act or the provinces and the dominion agree on concurrent legislation. The farmer should realize that in that promise there may be little or much. There may be new hope for agriculture if the government is prepared to attack the matter from the constitutional angle. On the other hand, if the government does not do that, whatever floor price is set will cease to exist with the termination of the operation of the War Measures Act. That is something I should like to hear explained by the Minister, of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and those associated with him. What has been done in that connection? What course is being followed to secure the cooperation by the provinces? What amendment will be asked to the constitution to permit of minimum price fixing once the war is over?
There are other matters with which I cannot deal at the moment. I conclude by saying that the man-power problem is of transcen-dant importance to the future of the war effort of this nation, one that must be faced now, and cannot be faced by merely setting up new board or by the passing of orders in council. What action will the government take now to solve this problem?


Mr. M. E. McGARRY (Inverness-Rich-mond):: Until very recently it was my resolve that I would not take up very much of the time or the attention of this house by partici-

pating in this debate; but on reflection, having the honour and of course the responsibility of representing one of the best, if not the very best, constituencies in this vast dominion, I felt that the voice of that constituency should be sounded in this chamber, even though it would be through the rather non-resonant medium of my humble self. Another reason why I thought I should rise, for a very short time anyway, was to offer my hearty felicitations to the mover (Mr. Tremblay) and the seconder (Mr. Tucker) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The matter contained in their addresses was sound; it was consistent with what was revealed in the speech from the throne, and it was rendered with an eloquence and impressiveness which reflect credit not only upon the hon. gentlemen themselves but on the constituencies which have the honour of sending them to this house.
Possibly I should make a few remarks with regard to the matters contained in the speech from the throne. Before doing that I wish to refer to a few matters which were commented upon by the last speaker, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). Anyone, even though a stranger to the house, would recognize that the hon. member is a lawyer, because with very little material he can make a very strong case; but a stranger would never suspect him to be of a mechanical turn of mind, because he deals so much with man-power; it is his hobby. I know that the hon. member is just as anxious as I am to have the forecasts of legislation in the speech from the throne brought to effectiveness, but I think that when he urges too hasty legislation, particularly in a matter such as the health insurance plan, without first the removal of the constitutional hurdles which are in the way, and before the prelude of a programme of education, he is not taking the most effective way to bring this legislation into administrative usefulness.
I notice he also referred to the matter with regard to General McNaughton which took up so much time in the house this afternoon. Last night I read in the Ottawa Journal that General McNaughton was interviewed by reporters-I imagine, of the Journal-and it was expressed there that General McNaughton unqualifiedly stated that there was nothing wrong with him. In that very same newspaper, in the same column of the next edition, I read an interview which he had with press representatives last night at the Seigniory club, and what he said there was an altogether different statement; it was qualified; he said that organically there was nothing wrong with

The Address-Mr. McGcirry
him but he was advised to take a rest as a precautionary measure so that he might avoid what was possibly a threatening organic condition. I do not understand this. Surely there is nobody in the house who cannot wait for a day or two to find out which is the truthful statement.
I am not going to take up any of the time of this house by entering into a detailed discussion of the history of this great global war, and particularly of Canada's record in the war effort. Suffice it to say that Canada's war record is a splendid one, and if there be those who feel that this sentiment is incited by regional prejudice or by ultra-egoism, all they have to do to dispel that view is to refer to the laudations by Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, the press, and every worth-while magazine on the north American continent. To bring about this military achievement in Canada is not an easy matter. It cannot be dealt with at random; it must take some planning and require some executive qualities; it must take some cooperation. We in Canada are fortunate to have at the head of our war ministries men who had distinguished military service in the last war. Not only are they qualified in that way, but they have had the wisdom to make a selective draft on good men, men competent to initiate, to organize and to develop programmes and to bring them to a successful termination. But even this could not have been done through these instrumentalities without the hearty cooperation of the industrialists. We had the cooperation of the industrial worker, the producer, the transportation utilities, the merchant marine, last, but not least, we had the patriotism, the generosity and the tolerance of the civil population of Canada itself. If we doubt that, all we have to do is to look at the record of the civilian population. Ever since the war began, young men by the thousands have flocked to the forces, voluntarily offering their services in any theatre of war. We find young ladies holding lucrative and responsible clerical positions leaving these positions and entering industrial plants, thus releasing able-bodied men for the forces. We find to-day comparatively old men, men beyond middle age, who endured the hardships and the horrors of the last war, standing in arms and protecting our shores. Men and women are giving not only from their savings but from their current earnings vast sums of money in order that Canada can carry on her gigantic war effort. Uncomplainingly our people accept the taxation imposts which by necessity are growing greater and greater. Tolerantly they accept our rationing, our regimentations and our restrictions. We find in the country to-day 100-13
business men affected by these regulations and regimentations to the extent of doing only about one-half the volume of business which they did in peace time. Yet we find no general complaint about that. What does that show? It shows the patriotism and the intelligence of our people. It shows they are aware that this is a total war effort and that the price of victory is common; it is not only a common price but a common sacrifice. They know that this is an all-out war and that these little restrictions and inconveniences which we suffer to-day are but trifling as compared with the tyranny and the serfdom and butchery, I might say, to which they would be subjected if these homicidal would-be world dominators were to gain possession of our country and our institutions. They know that their money would be no good to them at all in that event. I think the manner in which the people of this country have cooperated shows not only their patriotism but their wisdom.
When a nation is at war the government has a double obligation. First of all it has to provide the war materials required; second, it has to preserve the economy of the nation. If the economy of the nation is not preserved, the war supplies cannot be provided. At the very beginning of this war-three hours, in fact, after Canada had declared war on Germany-this government established the wartime prices and trade board. I maintain that the institution of that board was the greatest possible step that could have been taken to preserve the economy of Canada and to throw up barriers and hurdles on the road that would lead to the ignominy of inflation, from which we suffered sufficiently after the last war. Because of the establishment of that board we have escaped hoarding and profiteering, and we have not had to witness the disgraceful spectacle of watching some men and some corporations waxing wealthy on the blood and sacrifice of the nation.
In the speech from the throne it was very well stated that the promises of impressive victories were being fulfilled. But the war is not over. This war may be over in 1944. When that day comes we shall be confronted with the terrible cost of this war, and it is up to us to search our hearts now, because I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the youths who are fighting for liberty and freedom on the other side are searching their hearts to-day. They are praying for life, they are praying for comradeship, they are praying for devotion, and it is up to us to see that we cooperate with them even in their prayers, because without our cooperation, even with their devotion and their prayers, victory will not be achieved.



OTISES EDITION

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. McGarry
[Stage Direction]
One would think, listening to some speakers in this house, that this government has not done anything during the period of the war, and even now intends to do little, to improve our democratic condition after the war. I believe that this government has had in mind the right major attitude, and that was the prosecution of the war. But mark you, while they felt that the main intent and purpose of the nation as well as of the individual should be the prosecution of the war, they realized that some consideration should be given to the time when our soldiers will be returning home and when the thousands of people who to-day are engaged in the manufacture of implements of destruction will revert to their peace-time pursuits. As early in this war as 1940 this government put on the statute books three very important measures, all of which tended to help that situation.
There was the amendment to the Soldier Settlement Act. We all know how ineffectually the old act worked, and I think all agree that the reason why it did not work was that, through laxity, the wrong men were put on the wrong farms. The amendment redeemed the old act from some of its weaknesses, so that a settler will no longer be allowed to go on a farm that is not up to a certain standard of productivity, and further he will not be allowed to go on a farm that is up to the standard of productivity required unless he has had some experience in farming. But not only was the old act improved; it was extended so that a fisherman or a man engaged in industry who wished to spend part of his time as a farmer was afforded the same concessions as a soldier.
Then there was the act dealing with compulsory employment after the war of those who left their employment to join the armed forces. Under that act a man will have the legal right to ask for and get, if possible, his old position when he returns.
Then there was the Unemployment Insurance Act. It was instituted at a time when there was very little unemployment. The result is that to-day we have a large repository of funds under the Unemployment Insurance Act which will at least look after the acute stages of unemployment.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I say that while this government has always had in mind as its main purpose the prosecution of the war, it has attended to these other matters in order to be prepared to deal with the crisis which will be upon us in what I might call the conflict of peace. When it is considered what the government has done in these matters, and then when one turns to the speech from the throne and

sees what is proposed to be done to improve the social and economic conditions of our people, who will deny that what is embodied in the speech from the throne is intended to bring about betterment in our social and economic conditions? Take, for instance, the plans for the establishment of a national minimum of social security and human welfare, which are to be advanced as rapidly as possible. That is a matter which the hon. member for Lake Centre mentioned. I sat on the committee referred to by my hon. friend, and I know something of its work; I also make inquiries as I go about the country, and I want to say-and here I am not interfering at all with the plans of our chief and of the cabinet-that before we introduce a scheme of national health insurance we should be assured that the people are well educated in the matter and that they are in a position to absorb it.
The speech from the throne says:
A broad programme has already been developed for the reestablishment of veterans of the present war, and for the care of disabled veterans.
We know that, and I am sure everyone appreciates it.
One thing that I would like to see go further is the floor that has been placed under farm staple products. I cannot see why a floor is not provided for fishermen. They also are producers. They are honest working folk, and as a matter of fact their life is more hazardous than that of the farmer. In fact, we may say. they are more or less taking a chance every day in the pursuit of their calling. I do hope therefore that it is only by an oversight that this provision is not also made for them, and that before this particular item reaches the stage of legislation it will have been made elastic enough to extend to the fishermen.
All these things should merit our approval. I fail to see why hon. members, speaking in this house, can say that this government has made no provision for our people. They ignore the statements contained in the speech from the throne, and suggest that when the time of demobilization comes everything will be in chaos because no preparation has been made to take care of our boys.
There are different conceptions of the kind of world that we shall have after the war. There are two definite schools of thought. There are those who believe that we shall have a utopia, and there are others who say that we are going to have a terrible depression and mass unemployment. I do not belong to either school. I do not believe that we shall

The Address-Mr. Fair
have a utopia in Canada, any more than there is likely to be one anywhere else in the world. I do believe however, and I am sure that those who have been at all observant must certainly have seen it, that there has been providential guidance in this war. We have seen it in the almost impossible escapes of our men from conditions that were seemingly inescapable. We have seen it in the blunders of the enemy, for which no explanation could be given-because they have made major blunders where they could have taken advantage of conditions which might have turned defeat into victory for them. I believe that that great providential guide is still at the helm, and He is just as much interested in peace as He is in war.
I believe that what will happen in the peace conflict, as it might be called, will be this. There will arise able executives, competent men capable of initiating, developing and extending programmes for peace such as we have had in the war. But as I have said, just as in the war programme, we must have cooperation. We must have the same cooperation we had in the war. We must have industries. We must have the industrial worker and the producer, and we must have all the necessary transportation facilities. In fact, we must have everything that came to our assistance in time of war. We are not going to do this by thinking that we are going to have a utopia. We shall have to w'ork and to manage the same as before.
I do not believe that the economic condition of Canada will remain static. It will never remain static so long as we have men and women who are free to act and to back up their ideas, men and women who are willing to work and to make sacrifices if necessary. If you make sacrifices for the conduct of war, surely you should be willing to make sacrifices for peace. In a complex society such as we have, governments are certainly bound to introduce some restrictions. Let them beware, however. If we want a democracy we must allow to enterprise at least as much freedom as is consistent with our modern civilization.
In conclusion, let me say this. God forbid that in Canada after this war there should remain a condition where enterprise will have no reward and where thrift will be of no avail. We do not want to see that kind of government. But there is one thing I would mention before resuming my seat. In the constituency I have the honour to represent, we were unfortunately given little in the way of industrial or military projects in connection with the war. Experts were sent to look over the situation, 100-131
and they came back with the report that for military purposes there was no site that had the strategic importance that was called for in the establishment of such projects at this time. I hope that when the time of rehabilitation comes the government will remember that we were left without projects of this kind while other sections in Canada were absolutely cluttered up with war projects. I hope they will not leave it to the last to do something for us in the way of rehabilitation, but will give us some of the many things that we certainly need; because, after all, we have been very patient during the war, recognizing that the winning of the war is the all-important thing. I trust that when the period of rehabilitation comes we shall not be the forgotten men.
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon we were treated to a liberal helping of Scotch; this afternoon we have been treated to a liberal helping of law; and now we have had a liberal helping of medicine, so I see that I have to watch my step in the few moments at my disposal.
I was pleased to hear the Minister of National War Services (Mr. LaFleche), announce the appointment of Mr. Parker of Winnipeg as governor of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I think it is about time that agriculture was recognized1 on these boards, and I hope that other ministers will continue along that path.
In the speech from the throne I have noted quite a number of things which are possibly to the good provided they are brought along and finished up along the right line. If they are not finished up in the right direction then I am afraid the Canadian people will be sadly disillusioned.
Before dealing with that I wish to make a few comments on the speech delivered by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicoI). I am sorry he is not in his seat, but I want him to know that I am in accord with the speech he made for different reasons. He told us that it would be a benefit to the west. With that I agree. He also told us it would be a benefit to Canada. With that I also agree. But there is one thing that he did not tell us, and that is, when we have all this production where are the markets to come from? He did not tell us that. At the present time with the few farmers we have at work to-day we have produced far more in some lines than the country can take care of. I was thinking over the project suggested by the hon. member for Davenport and I came to the conclusion that there is still a lot of good cream on the milk in the prairies. Perhaps
1%
The Address-Mr. Fair

The Address-Mr. Fair
graded "A" and fifty per cent graded "B". I think that is sufficient to prove that the packers took advantage of a situation over which the farmers had no control whatever, and as a result millions of dollars that rightfully belonged to the farmers poured into the pockets of the packers. In that connection I believe that because hogs had to be shipped from western Canada to eastern Canada for the purpose of slaughtering, the government should stand the heavy shrinkage, and in cases where hogs could not be marketed, the government should stand the cut which had to be taken by farmers on these heavy hogs.
In connection with the cattle markets, we have many complaints. We were told in the committee on agriculture last spring that the government was watching this matter very closely, and that plans had been made, if necessary, to go on the market and buy live cattle. Up to the present time I have not heard of this being done, although I have here a dozen complaints from farmers stating that they have not been at all satisfied with the prices they have received. I understand that at the present time the packers are guaranteed a floor price for any beef which has been placed in storage, and which can be turned over to the government. I am suggesting that the same privilege should be extended to farmers, because if the packer is entitled to a floor price, surely the farmer who produces the cattle should be entitled to exactly the same privilege.
In connection with sheep and lambs we have heard many complaints. Some of those complaints were described yesterday, and they are common throughout Canada. We had a lengthy discussion on the price of wool last year, and several comparisons were made by the Minister of Agriculture. But when we look at the wool prices listed this year we see that the farmers are still being robbed, as compared with farmers in other parts of the world, particularly those across the boundary line. As a result of low sheep and wool prices we find that children in this country have been deprived of woollen underwear during the winter months, a condition which should not be permitted.
In the belief that credit should be given where credit is due may I say the farmers are encouraged by the increases in grain prices recently announced. At present the top price for wheat is $1.25; for oats, 61 i cents, and for barley, 79J cents. Those prices, it must be understood, are not net to the farmer, but rather prices, top grades f.o.b. Fort William In respect of wheat something like eighteen
cents a bushel is deducted for handling and freight charges, and there are comparative amounts for oats and barley.
Some people believe that the farmers who grow these grains arc becoming millionaires. I do not feel that way about it, because I am in that line of business myself. If the farmers were receiving the same treatment as organized labour we should be receiving $1.60 for wheat, 69 cents for oats, and 90 cents for barley. I am not complaining about the wages received by organized labour, but I am still complaining about the prices received by farmers for their products. I am afraid farmers individually and in organized groups have developed the habit of asking for a dime when they are entitled to a dollar. That applies to most of our organized groups, as far as agriculture is concerned. The sooner we get away from that, and see that we get that to which we are entitled, the sooner will agriculture be on a sound basis.
For . the moment I am going to deal with wheat. Taking the period 1926 to 1929 we were told last year the parity price was $1.41. That is sixteen, cents a bushel higher than we are now receiving. It might be of interest to know that in 1926 the farmers of Canada comprised approximately on^-third of the population, but at that time that third received only one-sixth of the national income. For that reason I do not feel that the 1926-29 period was a fair basis upon which to figure- our parity price. If a third of the population of Canada are on the farms, then I believe the period 1915-19 would be much more suitable, when the farmers received a third of the national income. I have before me a table which sets out the farm income during the period 1926 to 1940. During that time the high percentage was received in 1926, in which year we received 17-8 per cent of the national income. In 1932, while a third of the population lived on the farm we received only five per cent of the national income. This table gives other figures in connection with annual wages and salaries in manufacturing industries and, with the consent of the house, I should like to place the table on Hansard. It gives the average income during the period 1926-40 as 9-4 per cent, for one-third of the population. And, just in case there may be any question as to the sources from which this information comes I would point out that it is derived from a study prepared for the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations by Messrs. MacGregor, Rutherford, Britnell and Deutsch,
The Address-Mr. Fair

and a supplementary volume bringing the figures up to date by the staff of the commission. The figures relating to manufacturing are based on the census of industry figures supplied by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. The figures for the number of farms are from the "Canada Year Book".


Thomas Vien: Has the hon. member leave to place the table on Hansard?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Thomas Vien: Very well; it may be placed on Hansard.


Robert Fair: affairs will be set up to take care of pensions and all that kind of thing. When speaking on the soldier settlement estimates on July 24 I suggested that this matter should be taken from the Department of Mines and Resources and placed under the Department of Pensions and National Health. I hope my suggestion will be put into effect when the new department is set up. It is also rumo.ured that the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) is to be in charge of the new department. I know he is sympathetic and wants to do the best he can, but from cases that have been brought to my attention I feel certain that the minister is not getting all the assistance he should from many of his colleagues. For this reason I believe the members of this house should impress upon the government the need of doing everything possible for the men and women who will return from the present war.
I listened with a great deal of interest last night to the speech of the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), and I heartily associate myself with his remarks. He served with distinction in the last war and he knows exactly what he is talking -about. I have been in touch with the officials of the Edmonton branch of the Canadian Legion and I feel satisfied that they want something better for our returned men than is being given them at the present time.
I come now to the question of our soldier settlers. . I have referred to this matter on several occasions, but without result. Before the new department is set up the government should discharge its responsibility to the soldier settlers of the last war and give them clear title to their lands. Some one will ask where the money is to come from, but my reply is that it will cost much less to give six or seven thousand clear titles than it will to continue to pay the staff needed in Ottawa and all across Canada to carry on the affairs of the old soldier settlement board. There is no doubt in my mind that it would prove to be a money-saving proposition for the government and it would give these veterans of world war one a chance to breathe for their remaining days. I understand the average age of these men is somewhere around fifty-five or fifty-six years and many of them are up around the seventy mark. They are being asked to sign a new contract for another twenty years in order to fulfil their obligations to the soldier settlement board. It is not necessary for me to give figures; I wish merely to state that I feel the government should not keep these men in bondage and deprive their wives and families of the necessities of life so that a contract which was poorly devised may be lived up to.
(Mr. Fair.]
This has been admitted by the government on different occasions. I should like to refer to the statement made by the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) when we discussed this matter on July 24, the last day of the session. Speaking about myself he said:
The hon. member identifies himself with the request made by a small group of soldier settlers who met in Saskatoon some time during the past year. They have put forward the demand that they should receive titles to their property and should not be asked to make any further payments, either of arrears or of amounts owing in the future. That point of view has been vbry strongly pressed by this little group, but I say to my hon. friend that to consider anything of the kind would be a gross injustice to the thousands of soldier settlers who have met their obligations and who are meeting them to-day and are not asking for treatment of this kind.
. A little further on he said:
In the light of those facts, for my hon. friend to rise and endeavour to give the committee and the country the impression that this government is dealing harshly and hardly with these soldier settlers is wholly misleading. On reflection I think my hon. friend would agree that such criticism is not very wide of the mark.	-
Commenting on that, may I ask the Minister of Mines and Resources to tell this house how many of these settlers during the past three o-r four years or since the war broke out have signed quit claim deeds or were served with thirty days notice. A thirty days notice means: Make your payments or a certain portion of them within thirty days or get off the farm and go out on the roads-we don't want you any longer. When the minister gives us that information we shall be able to judge whether or not the government has dealt hardly and harshly with the soldier settlers.
Concluding his remarks the minister had this to say, which I think is no credit to an? government:
I repeat that to meet the hon. member's request and wipe off the outstanding indebtedness of soldier settlers would be unjust to those settlers who paid off their debts and to-day have title to their land. Why, during the last year several hundred of these soldier settlers have paid off what they owed on their land and acquired title to it. I can assure hon. members that the government has no desire to deal harshly with any of these men. We recognize what they did from 1914 to 1918 but. after all, governments have to shape their policies in line with the general good. If to-day we took the action urged by my hon. friend and wiped off the existing indebtedness of soldier settlers, it would be a gross injustice to those who have met and are meeting their obligations.
I take it that the minister means by that, that injustice has been done to some of these settlers and that we have to continue that injustice to those who are still on the land

The Address-Mr. Noseworthy
because to give them a square deal might make the other fellows sore and perhaps they would not vote for the government.
But let us take a hint from the statements that have been made not only by that little group that met in Saskatchewan but by soldier settlers all across this dominion. If these injustices are not corrected I tell the minister and the government that before this session is over he may expect to hear not only from the little group that met at Saskatoon but from thousands and thousands of Canadians who will seek to place their views on this subject before this house, and the minister will find then that I am not a lone voice crying out for justice for these soldier settlers of the last war. At another time we shall press for a chance to discuss this further.
There is one more group about which I wish to speak before I sit down, namely the old age pensioners. In the speech from the throne it is intimated that we are to have a contributory system of old age pensions. With that I do not agree. I agree that we should have a more liberal system of payments for these old age pensioners and that the age should be reduced to sixty. After the war there will be a cry of unemployment. I think we should take the older people off the work list so that after the war our younger people will have the chance to work, and for those who have served their country faithfully but have been robbed of the products of their labours during past years we should provide an old age pension that is worthy of Canada. I am quite satisfied that this can be done. I am quite satisfied that millions of dollars are being paid out to-day to interests who are not entitled to it, and I am suggesting that by adopting a scientific monetary system we can not merely make these payments to our old people but make Canada the best country in the world so far as our standard of living is concerned.


Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South):: Mr. Speaker, several members of this house have already indicated that this session of parliament has a special significance. Some have intimated that that significance arises out of the fact that we may have a general election before another session is called. But the real significance of this session lies in the fact that we are now in the fifth year of a war that has not yet been won, a war that has come to have a very special significance for the common people of this country. Consequently the Canadian people are rightly expecting a great deal of this parliament at this session. They expect us to enact whatever legislation or measures are necessary to 100-14
secure a speedy victory over our enemy. They expect us to enact such measures as are necessary to ensure full employment for our men returning from overseas and full employment for those at home. They expect us, in the third place, to enact legislation which will provide adequate social security for all our people, both now and when the war ends.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), in speaking on the address, called the attention of the house to the fact that many members of the forces have already spent their fifth Christmas overseas. Our people were conditioned at the beginning of the war to expect a long war, but they have been led by expressions made by allied leaders to believe that the war in Europe would end in 1944; and while they are prepared to make whatever sacrifices are necessary for as long a period of time as is necessary, they are insistent that we take every possible measure to bring the war to as speedy a conclusion as possible. I have no hesitation in telling the government that the people of this country are not satisfied that we have been up to this time taking all possible steps to secure that speedy victor}'.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) called attention, as did the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), to the large army being maintained for home defence. That is a matter of very grave concern to vast numbers of people in this country. It is a matter that is becoming of increasing concern and one concerning which the misgivings of the people are increasing rather than diminishing. We should know in this session whether in the opinion of the government there is such an imminent danger to Canada as warrants the maintenance of that army for home defence or whether it is the intention of the government to use that army overseas should the necessity arise. The policy of the government, whatever it may be, in that matter should be clarified and made known. It will be a grave injustice to the men serving overseas, to the allied nations, as well as to our own people, should we withdraw, as we have done, all these men from productive enterprises and train and maintain them at public expense, unless we are to use them as soldiers either at home or overseas.
There is much misgiving in the public mind regarding the production of war materials both in the field of agriculture and in the field of industry'. A few months ago I read in the morning paper that the people of Britain were faced with the necessity of, reducing their meagre bacon ration: at the same time I learned from farmers in New Brunswick

The Address-Mr. Noseworthy

that they were obliged to kill young pigs, to kill these litters as they were born, because they were unable to secure feed on which to raise them. I have seen stacks of flour stored in farmers' garages, more than they can consume for the rest of their lives, flour that they were forced to buy in order to secure a few bags of feed for their stock. I saw only a month or six weeks ago pens of cattle ready to be marketed for which there was no market. The Swift Canadian company, the only company to which these farmers were allowed to sell their stock, had, I am told, refused to send their buyers forty or fifty miles from town because there was an abundance of stock nearer at hand. The whole nation has been put on a sugar ration. Only two weeks ago citizens of Chatham, Ontario, called my attention to a refinery for the production of sugar from sugar beet which was closed in that town.
Instances such as these are causing our people to question whether we are seriously trying to provide a maximum supply of war essentials for the allied cause or a maximum of profits for those who control our manufacturing and processing enterprises.
The same question arises in the matter of production in the industrial field. I am constantly meeting men who are paying taxes from their wages who complain of evidences of waste and extravagance on every hand-examples of gross waste of time and material in many plants in which they are working. I have heard no single criticism of our war effort more frequently than that as I have moved about the country. I am satisfied that much of this could be prevented if employers were more willing and ready to grant their employees a voice and some responsibility, as is being done in England, in the matter of management in those plants; if the government were more willing and ready to grant representatives of labour a voice on those committees and councils which, set forth the conditions under which workers do work, as, for example, are set forth in order in council No. 9384.
I have as yet been unable to find that the government has any adequate means of determining whether the prices charged on initial contracts, granted on a cost basis, are fair or equitable or Whether the people of Canada are getting a fair return, for the money spent. I raised this question in the house two sessions ago. I have raised it since. I am still satisfied, when I take the statements by the Bank of Canada and find that, in 1942, 620 companies had accumulated $379,000,COO for distribution as income to stockholders in comparison with 
$269,000,000 in 1938, that somebody is still profiteering in this war. My information, gathered from reliable sources, is that the government is up until this day dependent for its information, and for its check on these initial war cost contracts, on government accountants, government accountants who have no engineering knowledge, no means of telling what machines or tools are required to do a specific job, no means of telling what material is needed, no means of telling how many man-hours are needed, but are forced to rely entirely on figures which the producers supply. I am told that there is no auditing of many of the oil companies' books in connection with government orders. In England, war contracts are paid for on the basis of a fixed profit, usually seven and one-half per cent, and the profit is based on the original investment of the company and not on the turnover of goods that are produced in the plant.
We were told a year ago that the excess profits tax takes care of or prevents the accumulation of profits. The British government has issued a statement in which it contends that, were there no other controls than that of the excess profits tax, there would be no deterrent to the accumulation of profits on goods sold to the government. It is impossible to secure a statement showing the reserves that are being built up by many of these companies. The London Economist a few months ago estimated that Canadian companies had built at the end of 1942 reserves of 700 compared with 100 as the index figure in 1939, whereas 2,000 British companies had been forced to reduce their reserves over the same period to 80 from an index of 100 in 1939.
In other wordls, there has been more than seven times the accumulation' of reserve by Canadian companies than by British between 1939 and 1942. Very little light has been thrown on this whole subject of profits in Canada in war time. Numerous investigations by government officials in the United States have revealed some very startling facts. It is not surprising that Canadians should have misgivings regarding the profits of some of these firms whose parent companies in the United States have been profiteering on a grand scale.
Sessional paper 139, tabled in this house on January 26, shows that the Department of Munitions and Supply has employed 257 dollar-a-year men and that more than one hundred firms represented by these men have received contracts from the government ranging from a few hundred dollars to $270,000,000 in one case, and amounting in toto for the one hundred companies to more than $800,000,000.

The Address-Mr. Noseworthy
The wartime prices and trade board has employed another 216, the majority from large commercial and industrial firms, concerning whose dealing with the government, the return tells us, no information is available.
This situation affords so many opportunities for profiting out of the war that, in my opinion, some more adequate means is required to safeguard the public interest than that afforded by a war expenditures committee overloaded with government supporters and sitting behind closed doors. I think we should be told, for instance, why a certain advertising company with a dollar-a-year man in the Department of Fisheries gets two contracts for $50,000 each to advertise the sale of canned lobster when within a short time after his appointment and the granting of the contract that commodity disappeared almost entirely from the shelves of the stores in this country.
Has it become the policy of the government to let this house occupy itself with insignificant matters of legislation while all matters of most vital importance to the people of the country become subjects of order in council? Wage control, price control, rent control, rationing, all subjects that are of vital importance to every citizen1, are removed completely from the control of this house as far as discussion and debate are concerned, and have become subjects of orders in council.
This is amazing from a government led by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Has the Prime Minister forgotten a resolution which he himself moved before the Liberal convention twenty-five years ago, which provided for:
The restoration of the control of the executive by parliament and of parliament by the people through a just franchise and its exercise under free conditions and-[DOT]
This is important.
-the discontinuance of government by order in council.
There are a few more passages in that speech of twenty-five years ago which I would quote, not by way of criticism, but in order to urge the present government and the party which the Prime Minister leads to seize the present opportunity that this session affords of placing on our statute books legislation which will make his dreams of twenty-five years ago a reality. They may never again have so great an opportunity as they have to-day. The country is waiting for legislation of that kind. It would make a grand finale for the Liberal party, for, regardless of what party is returned to power after the next election, no party would rescind such measures for the alleviation
of society's ills as this government can now, if it chooses, place on the statute books during this session.
On the occasion, twenty-five years ago, on which the present Prime Minister introduced a resolution which was incorporated as part of the Liberal platform on the methods and principles for regulating labour conditions, which had been adopted by the international labour convention, he called special attention to the fact that the Liberal party would be the first political party in any country in the world to accept this programme. The verdict of history is that Canada has to-day the most backward labour legislation of any important country that was represented in that international labour convention. and that notwithstanding the fact that the party which was the first to adopt its principles has been in office eighteen years since that time.
Let me read again from the same document. The Prime Minister made this statement: This resolution

. . . is an expression of the belief that industry( exists for the sake of humanity, not humanity' for the sake of industry.
Again I quote:
Is it not true of most of the large industries of the country, as organized at the present time, that the capital investors choose the board of directors, that the board of directors select the management, and that the management determines the terms and conditions of employment, without necessarily inviting the cooperation of labour in matters which affect its own wellbeing?
Most interesting of all. on page 134 of the report of the national liberal convention of 1919, he is reported as having said:
I think the time has come in the history of Canada when the people of this country are determined to have a government that is not ruled by any railway, by any financial interests, or by any business or other corporations. We want a government that is going to be free from the control of the interests, from the control of specially privileged groups; a government that is representative of the principle of government by the people and for the people, and which will be carried on at the instance of the people's own representatives.
If any change has taken place it is that after eighteen years of Liberal rule those interests now get the ear of the cabinet and the cabinet determines the terms and conditions of employment by order in council.
The country expects this parliament this session to enact legislation that will ensure full employment wrhen the war ends; full employment, not merely for the purpose of keeping people busy, but employment that is socially useful and that would provide all our
204
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy

people with all the necessities of life. That must be our first aim. To do this we must take steps to see that the necessities of life, in food, clothing and housing, are produced in sufficient quantities to feed, clothe and house our people. In days prior to the war thousands of our people lacked food, clothing and housing accommodation, yet at the same time we spent millions of dollars attempting to bribe people to buy goods that they did not want to buy. We permitted the price and profit mechanism to determine our economy and based our production solely on that which could be provided with the greatest profit for the producer. The war came and we made two radical changes. First we planned production on a priority basis and recognized basic needs. We gave priority in our production programme to those things that were needed by a nation at war. We curtailed the production of non-essentials until those other needs were met.
To achieve prosperity for our people after the war we must apply the same principles to peace-time production, and the government must accept the responsibility of seeing that first of all there is an available supply of food, clothing and housing for all our people.
In the second place we made available to our allies and to our own people, without undue regard for price or profit, those things that -they needed. When our allies needed war materials we did not let either price or profit prevent us from supplying them. To enable our own people to be fed and clothed, and to some extent housed, the government made some effort to see that the prices were kept within reach of their purchasing power. When we recognize in peace time, as in war, that basic needs are of vital importance we shall then place welfare before wealth. In the words of the Prime Minister that I quoted sbme moments ago, we shall recognize that "industry exists for humanity, not humanity for industry", or I may add, the profits of industry. Price and profit will cease to be the sole determining factor of production.
In the third place the government has, in part, financed the increased production of things essential for war out of savings accumulated by voluntary or restricted consumption of non-essentials. Before the war we talked of spending for prosperity. Since the war began we talk of saving for victory. What is true of an armament programme is true also of social reconstruction. Such a programme must be financed largely out of savings, and I think we have to accept the fact that if we are to spend money on social reconstruction we must save it on nonessentials.
rMr. Noseworthy.]
In addition, of course, to our savings effected as I have outlined the government has used the nation's credit for the production of essential goods. That credit must likewise be made available to meet the peace-time needs of our people. It is in order that the nation's credit may be made available and used for the production of socially useful and essential goods that we in "the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation believe that the government should have the sole right of expanding or contracting or issuing credit. Because we believe that this control cannot be exercised while private interests own our banks we advocate the public ownership of these institutions.
On motion of Mr. Noseworthy the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 6 p.m.
Monday, February 7, 1944