1945-09-20

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) asked me some days ago if I would give to the house a statement with respect to the repatriation of Canadian prisoners of war and civilians in the far east, letting the house have such information as would help to bring the position up to date. The statement I have to make is as follows:
All Canadian prisoners of war liberated at Hong Kong have, with one exception, been evacuated to Manila, where they are awaiting transportation to Canada. The exception is the case of one man whose lack of strength at the moment rendered it inadvisable for him to be removed.
Some 500 Canadian prisoners of war liberated in Japan have been evacuated, half to Manila and half to Guam. As of September 20, 1,086 prisoners of war have been officially reported safe in allied hands. Thirty-two liberated prisoners have already reached Canada and nineteen more are known to be on their way.
Brigadier Kay, Canadian Military Attache at Chungking, having completed his mission at Hong Kong, is now returning to Chungking.
Satisfactory reports on the progress of the liberation of Canadian civilians are being received. As was announced yesterday, a small group of eleven Canadian missionaries has already reached Oakland, California. Official word has been received of the liberation of 200 of the 600 known Canadian civilians. A list of these was recently given to the press. Some of the 600 are missionaries and persons who made their homes in the east and who may wish to stay there. On the other hand, there are a number of Canadians who are not known to us and a number of British subjects not included who will be coming to Canada to join their families here.
As reported in the press, Mr. E. H. Norman, of the Department of External Affairs, accompanied by two other officers of the department, has set up headquarters in Manila to look after arrangements for the relief and repatriation of Canadian civilians. They have been joined by two officers of the Canadian Red Cross whose primary function will be to look after the welfare of Canadian civilians.
It is hoped that the larger proportion of prisoners of war and civilians will be transported direct to Vancouver and arrangements have been made there by all the departments concerned, together with the Canadian Red Cross, for their reception. However, a certain number will arrive at United States west coast ports. The army has made arrangements for the reception of liberated prisoners of war and the Department of External Affairs has sent an officer to San Francisco who will be in touch with the United States authorities at all ports and with British consuls. The Canadian trade commissioner at Los Angeles will assist in the handling of any Canadians who may arrive there. In addition, the Canadian Red Cross will station one or two officers at San Francisco and will send on other personnel as may be needed from time to time.
Wheat and Barley

All prisoners of war and civilians arriving at United States west coast ports and destined for Canada will be sent to Vancouver. Provisions for medical care and for the supply of clothing, comforts and small luxuries are being made by the services for prisoners of war and by the Canadian Red Cross for civilians at all points where they are likely to arrive.
The Canadian government has informed the United Kingdom that the Canadian authorities and the Canadian Red Cross will be glad to afford every assistance possible for the repatriation of liberated United Kingdom prisoners of war and United Kingdom civilians from the far east who may be repatriated by way of Canada. If shipping facilities across the Pacific make it possible for the United Kingdom to make use of this route, large numbers of repatriates destined for the United Kingdom may arrive at Vancouver and be transported across Canada.



POLICY WITH RESPECT TO FLOOR PRICE-MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 31

Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley), the adjournment of the house under standing order 31, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the government's policy with respect to a floor price under wheat as announced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and its effect upon the income of the farmers of western Canada.
In support of the urgency of this matter, Mr. Speaker, I would beg leave to point out to you that this may mean a possible decline of thirty-five per cent in the purchasing power and income of a large area of our agricultural industry.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: On a point of order, the hon. member cannot debate his motion now.


Percy Ellis Wright: Therefore I believe it is a matter of urgent public importance.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member is asking leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.
I must draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that this question is already before hon. members in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It is the privilege of every hon. member to make any suggestion and any recommendation to the government, and to discuss any matter which

comes under government responsibility; therefore I do not see any urgency and cannot allow the motion to be made.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to dispute your ruling, but I should like you to reconsider the ruling in the light of the circumstances-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: -in which this house may be placed from time to time. Under such a ruling almost anything that an hon. member wished to place before the house could be ruled out.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is not debatable.


James Horace King: I must say to the hon. member that I have already rendered my decision and it is not debatable.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I am not disputing it, but I am asking for reconsideration.



CONSULTATION WITH FARMER ORGANIZATIONS AS TO SETTING OF PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. BURTON (Humboldt):: Did the government confer with any farmer organizations in regard to the setting of the price of wheat, announced yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce? If so, what organizations were consulted? Further, did anyone agree to it, on behalf of the organized farmers?


James Horace King: I would ask the hon. gentleman to be good enough to place his question on the order paper.



REQUEST THAT 1945 BE DECLARED A CROP FAILURE YEAR IN ALBERTA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Would the Minister of Agriculture say whether or not it is the intention of the government to declare the present year a crop failure year in the province of Alberta?


James Horace King: I do not see any urgency in the question of the hon. member. It should be placed on the order paper.



MEASURES TO COUNTERACT REDUCED YIELD IN WESTERN PROVINCES

Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house and before you proceed with the next item I should like to read a statement on barley which I promised to the house yesterday.

Labour Conditions
Due to drought conditions extending over the greater part of the crop growing areas of western Canada the yield of barley has been greatly reduced and action has been taken to counteract this condition so that the live stock production programme of Canada will not be jeopardized.
In order to protect Canada's live stock feeding programme and because of the short crop of barley, the agricultural supplies board is of the opinion that all barley marketed in 1945^6 from the 1945 crop should be made available for the domestic market. With this in mind the feeds administrator advised the grain trade on August 22 last that no further export permits would be granted during the crop year 1945-46 for barley, whether whole, ground or processed.
To enable farmers to purchase and feed the higher grades of barley, some of which would normally receive a premium, when sold to domestic maltsters or exported, it has been decided as a temporary measure to add five cents to the advance equalization payment, thus raising the amount from fifteen cents to twenty cents per bushel on all barley marketed in the prairie provinces, the Peace River block of British Columbia and Creston-Wyndall area, British Columbia, during the crop year 1945-46. This increase will be made retroactive to August 1, 1945, on all barley delivered and sold since July 31, 1945, without receiving the malting premium. If any barley has been marketed and sold since that date without receiving the full five cents per bushel premium, then payment will be made up to the five cents. Regulations in this regard will shortly be released by the Canadian wheat board and these regulations will fix the effective date for payment at country points of the twenty cent advance equalization payments as farmers deliver their barley.
These regulations will also change the present methods of payment of malting premiums by domestic maltsters. Instead of paying the malting premiums to the seller of the barley, the maltsters will be required to pay five cents per bushel on all barley purchased into the equalization fund. The same system of paying the premium into the equalization fund will be used by exporters, if the assurance of domestic supplies will permit the export of some barley later in the crop year. The effect is, therefore, that the increase in the equalization payment replaces for the present crop year the malting premium that would otherwise have been paid to some farmers on barley sold to domestic maltsters or exported.
To further safeguard the feed situation throughout Canada, the present policy of
holding reserve stocks of feed grains at Fort William and in eastern Canada, on which the government pays interest and storage charges, has been extended to cover part of the prairie provinces and British Columbia.


Mr. SENN:: Is it the intention of the government to continue the freight assistance policy for the movement of feed grain to the eastern parts of Canada during the year?


James Garfield Gardiner: As I remember it, the present position is that the order in council authorizing that assistance earlier provides for the payments until further announcements are made, and there has been no announcement made of any change with regard to this year.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Is this subsidy, if that is what you call it, to apply to eastern as well as western barley?


James Garfield Gardiner: This provision has to do with, the control of the barley crop in the western part of Canada.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: May I direct a question to the Minister of Labour, of which I sent him notice earlier to-day. Will the minister table the interim or completed report of the survey on post-war employment prospects made by his department last year, which on March 23 last he stated was incomplete? Further, will he also table the report which I understand was made in August last by an interdepartmental committee, appraising employment prospects in war and civilian industry.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I want to thank my hon. friend
for giving me: notice of this question; but I think he will agree that it has become an established precedent in this house that memoranda submitted to a minister by officials of his department are not subject to being tabled.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Were they memoranda,
or were they surveys?



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PATRICK H. ASHBY (Edmonton East)':	In view of the serious shortage of
building materials in Alberta, will the govern-
Housing
[Stage Direction]
meat empower and authorize the local emergency shelter administration in Edmonton to commandeer what supplies are available and give priority for their release to returned men where houses cannot be completed: before winter sets in unless such action is taken?
Hon. C. D, HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction) : The distribution of lumber is handled by the timber controller, and there is quite an organization responsible, far that distribution. I feel quite certain that to have another authority intervene, even in one province, would lead to confusion; therefore I believe the present system, which we are trying to perfect as much as possible, is the only feasible method of handling the situation.
Mr. ASHBY:: Then may I ask a further
question. In view of the serious shortage of plumbing and other building materials in Alberta, will the minister say whether the air force station at Penhold could be dismantled and the material made available for the construction of houses in Edmonton for returned men? I am informed that sufficient material would be thus made available for all their needs.


Mr. HOWE:: That is not a question which could be answered on the orders of the day, because it will be necessary to obtain information from my officers and, as a matter of fact, from- another government department. I suggest that the question be placed on the order paper.



PLUMBING MATERIALS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SOLDIERS' HOUSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. NORMAN J. A. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln): A day or so ago I directed a question to the minister in this same connection.
I thought perhaps a statement might be made as to whether or not this material is available, because houses are being held up waiting for equipment. It seemed to me a statement in this house would be timely in order that the people might know the situation.
Clarence Decatur Howe: I gave an extensive answer to that question when I spoke in the house on Monday last. Perhaps if the hon. gentleman will read my speech he will find the answer there.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: The minister said, "No, no, no," but this equipment is lying idle.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Arising out of the last question I should like to ask: might we be informed what the question was, and1 what was the answer?


Mr. IRVINE:: Put your question on the order paper.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Are the controls that have been carried on by the Department of Munitions and Supply being transferred1 to the wartime prices and trade board?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The controls carried on by the Department of Munitions and Supply have to do with scarcity, and those controls are not being transferred. Some of the controllers often act for the wartime prices and trade board as administrators of prices; they are subject to a dual jurisdiction, and that situation is not changed. If the scarcity control ends, the price control is left where it always has been, as the responsibility of the wartime prices and trade board.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION IN TORONTO On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: May I direct the attention of the Minister of Veterans Affairs to a report which appeared in the newspapers this morning in regard to the serious shortage in accommodation available at Christie street hospital, and the lack of sufficient staff to deal with the situation? I should like to ask the minister if he will make a statement in the house shortly dealing with the whole subject, and with particular reference to the progress being made in the construction of Sunnybrook hospital.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): I shall be very glad to take my hon. friend's question under advisement.


MEAT RATIONING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: On Tuesday I asked the Minister of Finance if he would be good enough to consider mak-

The Address-Mr. Reid
mg a statement to this house with regard to the meat supply in the country, the possibilities in regard to stock for slaughter, and the shipping situation, in order that we in this house might understand the position. I am not opposing rationing, but I should like to get the information with which to answer many of the inquiries that are coming to me


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I read in Hansard the remarks of my hon. friend, and I am considering whether I should make a brief speech during this debate, if it lasts long enough, to put some of this information on Hansard.


GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, September 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. M. Benidickson 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. Bracken, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, in complimenting you upon your election to the high office of Speaker of this house let me also commend you for having drawn to the attention of hon. members the rule prohibiting the reading of speeches. If I am to judge by past years your task is not going to be an easy one; and as one of the twenty-five or so hon. members who have sat in the house since 1930 or prior to that year I await with some interest your enforcement of the rule, after the new members have made their maiden speeches.
We on this side may be pardoned if we seem to take pleasure at the return of the Liberal government to office in Canada after six years of war. It is a unique record in the political life of any government, and I think it well that we take note of the fact that in no other country has the government been returned after holding office during war-time. This government is faced with a difficult task in the period which lies ahead of us; but, as was pointed out by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) our plans are being well and truly laid, and in fact are further ahead than those of any other country in the world to-day.
Much has been said about Canada's enviable record, and the splendid contribution in men and material this country has made toward the defeat of Germany and Japan. Another record has also been made, one which to my
mind will be of great help during the critical years lying ahead, and that is that this country for the first time has undertaken a great financial effort through and by its own people. We have not borrowed, nor have we had lend-lease; yet billions of dollars have been expended, all of which have been contributed by the Canadian people.
In an endeavour to be as brief as possible it is my intention to touch upon only one or two matters. In the speech from the throne the matter of a Canadian flag was touched upon, and has been discussed by some hon. members.
I think more people in Canada to-day will welcome the fact that the government has decided to have a Canadian flag. If the choice were left to me I could see none better than the one which flies above the parliament buildings. The red ensign is beautiful and distinctive, and carries all those symbols which I believe would please all groups in Canada. Certainly it is more striking than the flags of either New Zealand or Australia-and I shall refer to those countries later. If I were to change anything on the red ensign it would be to place thereon the maple leaf, something which I suggest might be done to good advantage. Now that we have decided to have a distinctive flag, I trust that any discussions in regard thereto will be free from recriminations from any section of the country.
Mention has been made of old age pensions. While I had not intended discussing that subject in this debate, I must say I was disappointed in the proposals for the betterment of the present old age pension plan, as outlined by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Claxton). I should like to see something more, and to have heard proposed a proper contributory system, retiring everyone who so desired at the age of sixty-five years. Under such a system, any person receiving the benefits would receive them by right rather than as a matter of charity.
I have one criticism to offer. When members of the C.C.F. party deal with social security measures, and proceed to tell what has been done in other lands, for reasons best known to themselves invariably they do not tell their audiences that in most of those countries, if not all, the people or the workers involved make a direct contribution toward the social security provided. By that omission they leave the impression that the money comes from the state as a whole; whereas, if one will look at the record concerning most countries, and particularly Great Britain, New Zealand and Australia, they will find that the people there, and especially the workers, pay in large measure-and, Mr. Speaker, as I shall show in a minute or two, they pay plenty.
The Address-Mr. Reid

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) referred the other evening to conditions in New Zealand. Before proceeding to dissect his remarks may 1 point out that if we are to have discussions iL Canada about New Zealand or Australia, anc if it is to be suggested by any party that the policies in those countries are the ones we should follow, then I say for any sake let us have all the facts, not just part of them. I am prepared to discuss the facts, as I know them, from official records of New Zealand.


Mrs. STRUM:: Is the hon. member aware that New Zealand began as early as 1939 to pay old age pensions at the age of sixty?


Thomas Reid: If the hon. member were to read my past speeches about New Zealand, she would find that I am perfectly well aware of the social measures of that country. What I have said is on the record.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre mentioned first of all, the price of food. If hon. members will recall, or will look at Hansard, they will find that I interjected, and that the hon. member was good enough to take his seat to permit me to ask a question. I asked him, if food was Cheaper in New Zealand, what were the farmers receiving?-because, after all, it is they who produce the food. Let me assure hon. members, however, that when one is dealing with percentages he finds that at times they do not always reveal the complete picture. Be that as it may, in the cost of living index for New Zealand it is shown that the cost of food is only some 29-52 per cent of the entire living costs. The remaining 70 per cent is made up of manufactured goods, including rents, all of which must be paid for. Those manufactured goods purchased by the people of New Zealand cost from two to four times as much as the same articles in Canada.
Not only are lower prices paid to New Zealand farmers, but their labour costs are higher, and the farm machinery they use- the same kind used in Canada-costs far more than the same machinery would cost in this country. Had I the time I would be prepared to talk costs in dollars and cents. Sometimes, I realize, that is not always a complete picture; but I could tell the house what farmers have to pay in butter, wheat and eggs for farm machinery in New Zealand, as compared with what like machinery would cost in Canada.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Would the hon. member give the source of the information he is now giving the house?


George Alexander Cruickshank: The New Zealand year book.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Where did you get it?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I will lend you a copy.


Angus MacInnis: You are not making the speech.


James Horace King: Again I must call the
attention of hon. members to the fact that when a member is addressing the house no interruption can be allowed without his permission.


William Irvine: We have a right to know the source of the hon. member's information.


Mr. TUCKER:: Oh, you are the only
people who know anything, probably.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: We want its source.


Thomas Reid: This speech seems to be a
thorn in the flesh of the group now interrupting, because they have been speaking so much on the subject, and do not like to hear an answer. Now we find that an hon. member asks for the source of information before I have given that information.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We want the source of the information you have already given.


Thomas Reid: Well, wait until I give itand if there is going to be a free-for-all, then all I ask is that they come one at a time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As you did the other
night?


Thomas Reid: 
An hon. MEMBER:: You are right in your own line.


Thomas Reid: If you want me to tell the
line you should be in I can do so. The C.C.F. talk about more social security and a reduction of taxation. In New Zealand-we are keeping to New Zealand because the C.C.F. introduced it, and I am glad they did-it is a matter of soaking the low wage earner and letting the man in the higher brackets off as far as income tax is concerned.


Angus MacInnis: That is why they vote for the Labour party.


Thomas Reid: We will likely hear plenty about the Labour party. I said that we would not hear much about New Zealand after I made my last speech- in the house, and I was quite right. Is it any wonder that the leader of the opposition in New Zealand, whose, remarks must be taken to be just as authentic as those of the opposition to this government, who says that in New Zealand the farmer is the forgotten man? The Labour government of New Zealand are becoming perturbed about the farmer because they realize, that the stranglehold they have' on him and the things they have done to him are not going to last much longer. I ask hon. members to note what is now taking place in New Zealand. The New Zealand Labour government, which has few, if any, farmer cabinet ministers, are now out to take some representation away from the farmer constituencies. At the last election the farmers nearly outvoted them and so it appears that before the next election comes
along the New Zealand government plans to reduce the representation of the farmer constituencies so that the balance of power will be held by those in the cities.
Many people in this country are carefully watching the new government which was elected in Great Britain. I came, from that country in my early days, and it is my humble opinion that the people of Great Britain will ' take less during the serious days that lie ahead with better grace from a Labour government than they would do from a Conservative or even a Liberal government. Probably that is all to the good. Have you noticed however, the change in the attitude of certain people in this country and the United States since the Labour government was elected? We did not hear much about Great Britain from the C.C.F. members in this house before the war, although we heard a great deal against, the British empire and the British commonwealth of nations. Hon. friends opposite now seem to have a kindly feeling toward the British1 government. This has arisen only since the election in Great Britain.
Be that as it may, I am going to quote what one of the cabinet ministers in that Labour government had to say. I ask hon. members to note the dissimilarity between the policies of the Labour government in Great Britain and those of the C.C.F. in this country. I quote from the Ottawa Journal of September 5, which contains a report of a speech made by Herbert Morrison to the national conference of labour. The article is headed "Nationalization no 'magic cure', says Morrison".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Reid: I am glad hon. members say "hear, hear". The article says:
The test of success will be whether those industries will be better run, whether they will show a steady increase in technical efficiency and public spirit from top to bottom.
And then later on:
Morrison warned that if people in industry *-both labour and management-lose their spirit of enterprise, then the new Labour government -will be helpless and unable to better Britain's standard of living.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: What is wrong with that?


Thomas Reid: Nothing. The labour men of Great Britain believe in free enterprise; they believe also in private enterprise and in profits. They talk of their taking over the Bank of England, but we did that in this country ten years or so ago. We are not behind the times here; we are abreast of the times, because we took over the Bank of
The Address-Mr. Reid


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: What country is the hon. gentleman speaking about?


Thomas Reid: Australia.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: A Labour government in power two years.


Thomas Reid: 
Mr. GILLIS:: A worn-out operation before they took it over.


Thomas Reid: Sir Keith was asked the reason for these failures, and this should be of interest to the people of Canada. I quote:
Why then have these socialist ventures failed in Australia? Sir Keith says that many of the Australian enterprises had capable managers 
who knew their business. The failure was due to other causes. Sir Keith puts them into a few paragraphs:
"Australians . . . are, alas, so very human that, when governments have gone into industry, those concerned have used their unions and their pressure politics, their votes and their influence to get personal advantages."
And again after observing that managers and executives were capable, he says, "They have been powerless against constant political interference, leading to over-development, overcapitalization and faulty finance."
And finally:
To-day nearly all these state enterprises are back in the hands of private enterprise after having proven inefficient and a huge drain on the taxpayers.
In fact to-day it is open to question whether Australia has more state enterprises than Canada, and they are not as successful as those in Canada. From what I know, Mr. Speaker, they are not nearly so successful as the government enterprises we have in Canada. I thought it advisable, in view of what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said in introducing this subject, that I should put the other side of the picture before the people of this country. In passing, if we are going to discuss these questions, I say let us have the
r"
entire picture. I do not want to be accused
as I was on former occasions, of intending by my remarks anything derogatory to the people or the country of New Zealand, but I do feel that when a party in this house is constantly dangling before the people of Canada what New Zealand has been able to
accomplish, we ought to know just what the facts are. These hon. gentlemen have been pointing to New Zealand with pride for three or four years, but before the people of this country turn over all they have to an untried socialist government, I say we should know what the actual facts are about New Zealand and Australia.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a straightforward question?


Thomas Reid: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I asked it once before, but perhaps the hon. member did not hear it. Will he give the house the source of the information about New Zealand that he has placed on Hansard this afternoon? I have before me the official New Zealand Year Book, and my hon. friend's information does not tally with the official record.


Thomas Reid: I think that is a fair question. The last time I spoke on this subject I stated, in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), that I was quoting from the official New Zealand Year Book, the latest edition obtainable in

The Address-Mr. Green
the library, and the figures I gave of income tax comparisons I took from the speech which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) made in the house last year. I have already given the source of the information which I quoted to-day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Just newspaper reports, Lord Beaverbrook's.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member gave us the sources he says he used last year, but he has not stated the sources of the figures he has given the house to-day.


Thomas Reid: These statements come from New Zealand, and most of the information from the statement of the Hon. Mr. Nash, the finance minister of that country. He dealt at great length with their social security measures and the payments which workers and the people were called upon to pay to support these socialist ventures. I have a copy of it here. I think that when the Minister of Finance gives these figures they should be accepted as authentic. Who could give a truer picture than the minister of finance?


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: It does not sound to me like one of Mr. Nash's speeches and I have read many of them.


Thomas Reid: I shall be pleased some time to show the hon. member the documents.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Send them across.


Thomas Reid: Not until I am through. You do not catch me like that. I know that old game.
It was not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to say one word about the Japanese this afternoon, but the subject has been introduced into this debate. I have one question to propound to the member for Winnipeg North Centre, who spoke of the great deeds of the men of the Winnipeg regiment, who are now returning from Hong Kong. When it comes to the time to dispose of the Japanese in Canada, I am just wondering whether my hon. friend would leave the decision in that matter to those Winnipeg men who are returning from Hong Kong. If he would not, I would like him to tell the house why these men should not have some say in this matter. I do not want these words of mine, Mr. Speaker, to be twisted around outside this house, as they have been before, to make it appear that I nurse some racial hatred against the Japanese. Those are tactics that have been resorted to in the past; they could not discount the arguments that we put up, so they talked of racial hatred.
May I say to those who have become the champions of the Japanese in this country, that I would be willing to abide by the vote of the people of British Columbia; and if that is not the democratic way to settle it, I would like to hear why it is not. I would like to be told a better way. I am sure that if this question were left to a vote of the people of British Columbia there would be no doubt as to what would be done with the Japanese in this country.


Mr. MATTHEWS (Kootenay East):: Who brought them here?


Thomas Reid: Not I, sir.
In closing I want to say one word about the atomic bomb. I think Canada has been rather too timid and backward in not seeking to take some credit for the development of the atomic bomb. Canada supplied the minerals, the scientists and other kinds of help in its development, and we are just as much entitled to credit, if credit is due, as is the United States. If I had my way, though, I would not divulge the secret of the atomic bomb to any other country, because if we pass the information around it is going to be more difficult indeed to keep it a secret. God forbid that there should be another war! But who can tell? When one looks round at the multitudes of people in the various countries some of whom are beginning to arm, I think that from a practical point of view we should keep that secret to ourselves, because the day may come when we may have to use it again.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, in opening my remarks to-day may I, as so many others have done, congratulate you on your appointment to the high office which you now hold, and may I say that judging from the manneT in which you have fulfilled the duties of your office since the opening of the house, I am1 convinced you will preside over our deliberations not only with fairness but with quiet dignity and kindliness; that means so much to every member in the chamber. I believe you are a worthy successor to our former Speaker, the present minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen), who also possessed these gracious attributes in a very large measure.
The attitude of the government in this debate has taken quite a change during the last few days. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) rose to reply to the speech of my leader, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken), he acted) as though there were nothing to answer-nothing had been Brought out that was even worth answering. He went

The Address-Mr. Green

on to boast a bit about the election results, and I could not help admiring his nerve in doing so. Here we have a government which had approximately half its supporters defeated in, a general election, now holding office by the support of a group of members who were formerly independent, a group who have shown considerable facility in changing their political coat, a group who will not be very comforting people to have behind one in a pinch, and yet the Prime Minister says: "Oh, well; we won a great election; what is there to complain about? Let us get on with the business of the house."
A few days after that, on Friday last to be exact, the Prime Minister went to his new riding of Glengarry. Apparently he is going to keep up his political fences a little better this time than, he did in the last parliament. He went to the annual fair, and according to the press he made certain statements. He is reported as follows.
Mr. King said that the three most important things facing Canada to-day were demobilization, employment and housing.
So that so far as he at least is concerned the amendment offered by the official opposition has had some effect.
Now I notice that the ministers are being smoked out of their holes; they are coming out and making statements, and the whole attitude of the government is not at all as smug as it was a few days ago. I suggest they would be very well advised not to try to assume that smug attitude at any time from now on until the end of this parliament, because they are very much under thie observation not only of members on this side of the house but also of the Canadian people.
I have mentioned' the main facts set out in our amendment. Let me read the amendment again for the benefit of all our friends to the left. I do not see* how any one of them who is dissatisfied with the government's progress on the questions mentioned in the amendment can conscientiously vote against it. I quote:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that Your Excellency's advisers have:
(a)	failed to demobilize our armed forces on a fair basis and, in particular, have failed to prevent serious disadvantage to overseas service personnel:
(b)	failed to provide a speedy and effective plan of reconversion from war to peace, and failed in particular to join in partnership with labour and industry in devising a workable scheme to provide jobs, with fair wages, for discharged service personnel and war workers;
(c)	failed to take adequate and timely action to meet the ever-mounting housing crisis.
To-day I propose to say a few words about demobilization and housing, to emphasize two

features of reconversion which have not yet been dealt with to any extent in this debate, and to conclude with some remarks on Canada's policy or lack of policy in the Pacific.
First of all, demobilization. Our amend*-ment sets out the position of members of the Progressive Conservative party, and it has been adequately dealt with by various speakers from our party. But yesterday there appeared in the press certain statements from overseas which I think require an explanation from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Abbott). They deal with the repatriation of N.R.M.A. troops overseas. They allege that N.R.M.A. men who were forced to go abroad, and who were never in action, are being sent home ahead of men who fought. Apparently this is being done because these N.R.M.A. men have a high point score, most of such points earned by long service here at home in Canada.
This article quotes from the Amsterdam edition of Maple Leaf, which is a Canadian army newspaper and as such is entitled to the most careful consideration of every member of the house. The clipping says:
The editorial asked why National Resources Mobilization Act personnel who hadn't left the United Kingdom for Europe by V-E day now were returning home with the first division

Not the fourth or the fifth division, if you please, but the first. It added that thirty-one per cent of a draft from the Saskatoon Light Infantry, support battalion of the first division, consisted of N.R.M.A. personnel. It went on to put the situation clearly:
This sort of business isn't funny. Men who volunteered to come overseas, who either went into action as volunteers or did their best as volunteers, to see that the fighting men were equipped with the necessaries deserve better treatment. This is an appeal on behalf of the volunteers who made the Canadian army an army of which to be proud. All that is wanted is justice.
That statement by the army paper seems very fair, and I think the government policy, if it is as alleged in the army paper, is very unfair. The Canadian people do not believe in a policy of that type. I suggest to the Prime Minister and his Minister of National Defence that the Canadian people from one coast to the other believe that N.R.M.A. troops who are available should be used for the army of occupation and that those still in Canada should be sent over to relieve the volunteers as soon as shipping can be arranged.
Then, housing. Like demobilization, it has been dealt with by those who have preceded me in this debate. I think it is largely a question of supplies. After all, we have every-

The Address-Mr. Green
thing here in Canada to build houses. The problem is to turn our resources into buildings. I advocate that the government should lead an all-out drive, the same sort of drive that enabled us to build ships and tanks. There is not yet any evidence that an all-out effort to solve this housing problem has been made. The government have many war plants; surely some of them could be put to use for the production of supplies and equipment needed for buildings. I see by this week's press that in the United States all restrictions on construction hawe been removed. Perhaps the time has arrived when that should be done in Canada too. The construction industry in Canada has always been a progressive and up-to-date industry. I know that is true in the west. Men engaged in building have always been a good deal ahead of most othei industries, and I am sure that if they are given their heads, if they are given every encouragement, they can provide the buildings much more rapidly than buildings have been provided in the last few months. I agree that houses are the first need, but the need does not stop there. There is a great need for small stores. Hundreds of houses have been put up with no stores to service them. Office space is needed. Doctors being demobilized from the forces are unable to get offices. The same thing is true of other professional and business men. This question of building is going to be of vital importance to Canada for a long time to come.
So far as office space is concerned I suggest to the Prime Minister that he have a survey made of all the office space in Canada being used by governmental departments. I know in my city of Vancouver there are government departments scattered around in practically all the large office buildings; they are in the very best space available in the city. At the same time we have the government using the old Vancouver hotel as an army headquarters. I am quite sure that many of the governmental departments could be put into that hotel, thereby freeing large areas of office space. Probably the same condition exists in many other centres in Canada.
I now come to reconversion. The first feature of the reconversion plan is the complete and utter failure to consider the human factor. Let me take you to Vancouver. On V-J Day, August 14-and no doubt the situation was exactly the same in other cities in Canada-the people were rejoicing; everybody was happy because at last this terrible war had ended. Within forty-eight hours- in fact within twenty-four hours in many cases-thousands of our citizens were thrown 47696-21J
out of work, not knowing where to turn. I think the minister responsible for that policy failed to realize its effect on the people. And, mind you, the Minister of Reconstruction said something the other night which shows that he deserves a lot of blame for that policy. At page 227 of Hansard he used these words:
Personally I am the last man entitled to claim surprise at the end of the war, having known months in advance the approximate date of the use of the atomic bomb.
There might have been some excuse for him and his department if he had no idea when the war would end, but certainly the man on the street, the man in the war job, had no way of knowing that the war was about to end. He was being told by the press and public men that it would go on into 1946. There was not the slightest suggestion that it was about over. He had been making a great contribution; had considered himself a partner with his loved ones overseas. Remember that many of our fighting men came from families the heads of which were engaged in this war work. These people in war work were high-spirited; they had answered every appeal made by the government; they were paying heavy taxes with not much chance to save; many of them were putting what little they could save into houses and trying to become established; and then immediately after V-J Day they were thrown out of work. They were told to get out to the woods and the mines. Many of them were not physically fit to do so. Many of them, by this time skilled tradesmen, were told, "You go out and get a job in the woods." Very little sympathy was shown to them in official quarters. They were treated as though they were a commodity like lumber or steel; and, Mr. Speaker, that shook the confidence of the people in the whole reconversion plan of the government. It affected not only war workers but also men and women engaged in ordinary peace-time activities. Everybody was jittery. They said, ''Am I going to lose my job too?" It had a bad effect on the morale of the people in our province; also it was a bad example to set for private employers; it gave the private employer an excuse to fire people in just the same way. I think it is a very serious matter that the official mind worked in this way, and if it worked in that way on V-J day it will do so again. To me that is a very serious matter. It might have been all right in 1939-I do not think it was, even at that time-but since then there has been a steadily increasing value placed on people, placed on the human factor. The whole trend has been in that direction. Take the
The Address-Mr. Green

trend of legislation passed in this house-the social security legislation,; the whole trend has been to think of people before we think of material things and of wealth. The Atlantic charter promised freedom from fear and freedom from want. That is what the Canadian people expect. Instead, after V-J day they got this vindictive treatment; were thrown out of work without any warning. I suggest to the Prime Minister that is not good enough in 1945 from any government, federal, provincial or municipal.
It was not necessary. Other methods could have been used. The Minister of Reconstruction and other members of the government could have explained to the Canadian people that there was now a great need for men in the construction industry, in the woods and in the mines. They couldi have asked them to change over, to take these jobs in other industries. They could -have called on the shipyards in Vancouver-and I use Vancouver only as an example-to release a certain number of construction workers, of miners, of loggers, and might have augmented their wages for a period of three or four months until th-ese Canadians had become reestablished in other industries.
I also think some provision might have been made for the expense of moving, and there could have been a delay in the dismissals, rather than throwing people out by the thousands without any notice, as was done.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member says, "without any notice". They were given seven days' notice.


Howard Charles Green: I was there; I know what happened. They were given seven days' pay and kicked out. That is what they were given. The picture is this: it was put clearly by the hon. member for Vaneouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt) in a speech I heard him make during the election campaign, and no one had a better right than he to make the statement. He said: "You can lead a Canadian anywhere, but you cannot drive him one inch." That should have been in the minds of the government in starting their reconversion plan.
Let me refer now to the second feature of the reconversion programme. The Minister of Reconstruction the other night used the words, "peace-time pattern of employment." What does that mean? It means that we either have or will have a pattern of employment for peace-time, a plan that will say which industries are to be maintained and which industries are to be allowed to die, that will say, as a result, where people are to get jobs. That decision is in the hands of, the dominion government to a greater extent than ever

before. They have these government plants; they have interests in other plants operated by private industry; they are placing many orders; they have great influence in marketing, in deciding where our goods are to be sold and what goods are to be sold; in producing and distributing materials; and through the industrial development bank. * It is largely in the hands of the dominion government to-day to determine what industries are to be maintained in Canada and where the people will have to go to work. That pattern, if there is one, should be made public, for every portion of the country is vitally interested. Take as an example the people of British Columbia. We should know the pattern, should have a chance to discuss it with the government, and to take some steps at least to help maintain industries which we believe should be carried on into peacetime. Now we are working in the dark; there is too much uncertainty.
Let us look for a moment at the aircraft and shipbuilding industries in British Columbia. At one time the Boeing aircraft plant employed, either directly or through its subsidiaries, over ten thousand people. Men and women were working not only in Vancouver but in other centres throughout the province, doing a great job. In the United States the bulk of aircraft manufacturing is done on the Pacific slope; yet now in Canada that Boeing plant has been shut down. We would like to know whether it is the policy of this government to stop manufacturing aeroplanes on the Pacific coast and, if so, why that has been done.
At one time -we had more than thirty-three thousand men engaged in shipbuilding in British Columbia, and in that province we turned out over seventy per cent of all the merchants ships produced by Canada. Many other subsidiary engineering industries were built up, and in fact industries of all kinds; many skilled workers were trained. Now there have been extensive lay-offs. There is some talk that in future our shipbuilding industry will have to go on a repair and maintenance basis, merely doing the repairing of ships. That happened after the last war. We had a flourishing shipbuilding industry on the Pacific coast then, but after the war it died. It is true that at present some government work is continuing, but there is no certainty about the future. This government has not announced any policy in regard to shipbuilding, and really there is no excuse for not having done so. In July of last year the Canadian shipbuilding and ship repairing association presented to the government a brief in connection with shipbuilding; various representations

The Address-Mr. Green
have been made by labour unions and by members of the last parliament; yet no one knows just what the shipbuilding policy is to be. Last September it was announced that an interdepartmental committee was being set up to review the proposals submitted by the shipbuilders. I do not know whether that interdepartmental committee has ever met. It was supposed to meet and then the shipbuilders were to be called in. Labour union leaders also should have been called in, but no promise ever was made that this would be done. Apparently there have been no results, although all this happened over a year ago. Now what do we see happening? The Canadian Pacific Railway Company, one of the firms which will be requiring many ships, is placing its orders in Great Britain. I have a press dispatch, dated August 28, to the effect that their first freighter already has been launched at Glasgow, and that three more are to be produced in Great Britain. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company will require many passenger ships, both for transoceanic service and for coastal service. The same is true of the Canadian National Railways. Is it the policy of this government that Canadian companies are to be required to use Canadian ships? We must have a peace-time pattern for both the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, and we must have it at an early date.
So much for the amendment of the official opposition. In conclusion I come to the question of Canada in the Pacific. The centre of world activities either is shifting or has already shifted from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Far-reaching decisions are being made in that area this very day. As an example take the decision as to what treatment is to be meted out to Japan. It seems clear that a very strong hand will be required. That is something which should be of concern to every Canadian. Press dispatches show so clearly the attitude being taken by the leaders of that country. I have here a press dispatch dated August 15, which tells of a Tokyo broadcast by the chief of the Japanese broadcasting corporation's overseas bureau, one Kusuo Oya, who was broadcasting to the troops on the fighting fronts telling them about the surrender. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) laughs; I have no doubt he has had to learn a great many Japanese names since he took over the administration of the Japanese in Canada.


Humphrey Mitchell: When you pronounced that name I said you were doing pretty well.


Howard Charles Green: This broadcast is significant, because here is what the man said:
We have come to a point where it is useless to resist the enemy further. We have bowed to the enemy's material and scientific power.
. . . We have lost, but this is temporary.
The press dispatch goes on to say:
Oya added that Japan's mistake was the lack of "material strength, necessary scientific knowledge and equipment," and declared: "This mistake we must amend."
A few days later we had a dispatch in which the sultan of Johore quoted the former Japanese commander of Singapore as saying:
We hope that peace will last for twenty years, and then we will be back here again.
Then General Wainwright, that heroic soldier who led the United States troops in their last stand on Corregidor, told the American people the other day that no soft peace must be given to the Japanese, and according to the press dispatch he stated that the Japanese-
. . . are not sorry for what they have done to countless thousands. . . .
They are not sorry for the torture they have inflicted. ... It simply would not occur to them to be sorry, because they have done nothing which is at variance with their accepted philosophy.
That is the point which should be clearly understood. I am a soldier and I do not pretend to know how long will be required or by what steps the bestial elements in their nature can be eradicated.
But until we are assured that these qualities have been extinguished-not simply submerged -then the Japanese nation, powerless as it is to-day to make war, will remain a menace to our world.
A strong hand is needed with Japan, and Canada's voice should be heard. The Canadian flag should be flying in Japan to-day. Other nations are showing great interest in the Pacific. Here we have the United States planning now for bases in different parts of that ocean. Russia is edging in, having moved into Manchuria. I have a dispatch dated September 4, which reads:
The Soviet Khabarovsk radio said to-day that Russia is planning a large scale development of her northeast Pacific coast and will build new harbours on the Kamchatka peninsula opposite Alaska.
Khabarovsk also told men of the Red army that Russia would turn the twenty-odd islands of the former Japanese Kurile chain into "varitable bastions forming a screen of steel" protecting Russian Pacific wTaters.
Australia also is talcing a great interest and demanding that she be treated as a principal power in the Pacific, not as a subsidiary power. There is also the question of trade. Everyone knows how vital it will be to Canada to develop a great trade across the Pacific ocean.
Canada should be one of the principal powers in the Pacific. And yet, what is

The Address-Mr. Green
Canada's Pacific policy? Nowhere is our position more uncertain. Throughout, the government have been hesitant. True, Canada was the first to declare war on Japan. Then we had the ill-fated expedition to Hong Kong. When it came to taking part in the Pacific council the Prime Minister had to be pressed before he would have this nation join the council. He took the position that it only had to do with the southwestern part of the Pacific; that there was no hurry for Canada to join it.
Then came the Kiska force in August, 1943, when Canada sent troops up to that island. But when the island had been taken, Canadian troops were not sent on to take part in the fighting on the other islands of the Pacific, as had been done with the United States troops. Oh, no; they were brought home, and they did no fighting whatever until more than a year later, when some of them were forced to go over to Europe.
Within the last few weeks we have had the spectacle of the Canadian cruiser Uganda taken from the firing line across the Pacific and brought back to Canada, because of the man-power policy of this government for the Pacific-something which did little good to the fair name of Canada around the Pacific shores.
At the present time the government shows little sign of being interested in the Pacific. Well, the Canadian government, the Canadian parliament and people would be well advised to watch very closely what goes on around the shores both of the Pacific and of the Arctic, as well as the Atlantic. Canada must be prepared to play her full part, and the government must take the lead.
Finally I would say a few words about this House of Commons. We are most fortunate in having among our number so many new members who have served in the armed forces of the country during this last war. Those who have spoken have shown clearly- oh, so clearly-that they have an important contribution to make to Canada's public life. They and their comrades are the greatest asset of this nation. The young men and women who have been in the fighting forces of Canada are the biggest asset of this nation to-day, and will be in the years to come.
Hon. members of those forces who have taken seats in this chamber have shown a fine spirit. I might add, too, that that same fine spirit has been shown by other new members who were not privileged to serve in the forces. There is on the part of members of the house a keenness to serve which I suggest is truly remarkable; to me it ha( been

inspiring. In the years which lie ahead I am sure the house can, if it so chooses, give the Canadian people real leadership.
Many Canadians have been afraid of the post-war years. There have been many head-shakers, many prophets of doom. They have been wrong. Canada has come through the war stronger than ever, largely because of the character, courage and intelligence of the individual Canadian. Canadians can surmount every obstacle in the future; but let me repeat that this House of Commons has a duty to give them bold and straight-forward leadership in facing such obstacles.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate I should like first to associate myself with the concluding remarks of the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Green). At first I had not intended speaking in the debate. I had been enjoying the valuable contributions made by the younger members who appear for the first time in the house. The contribution not only of members from the armed forces but that of other members has been of a high standard indeed, and one of which we may well be proud.
A further reason for refraining from taking part in the debate was that during the six sessions I have been here it has always seemed to me we have spent too much time on the debate in reply to the speech from the throne. In those sessions we spent on this debate periods ranging from two to six weeks, with the result that invariably in the last few days of each session we found ourselves passing millions of dollars' worth of estimates without having given them proper consideration. Therefore in future sessions I suggest we give some consideration to having this debate conclude when the various leaders of the groups in the house have spoken. I would ask that this suggestion be taken into consideration.
To-day I was moved to take part in the debate because of what was said yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) respecting the setting of a floor price under wheat for the next five years. This is a matter of great importance not only to western Canada but to agriculture throughout the dominion. Let me say at once that I am not objecting to order in council P.C. 6122, which sets a ceiling price of $1.55 on wheat for export. It seems to me the reasons given by the minister for the setting of that ceiling price are logical and carry great weight. Under the conditions existing in Europe there is every reason why we should contribute to their betterment. I would point out however that in doing so we should not place the burden upon only one section of our Cana-

The Address-Mr. Wright
dian economy. Under this order in council that is what we may be doing, especially if we allow the floor price of $1 a bushel, f.o.b. Fort William to remain, as suggested by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). I am sure all hon. members will agree that as applied to the average halfsection farm in western Canada to-day, it is below the cost of production.
I stated that I believed the floor price for wheat was of importance not only to western Canada but to agriculture throughout the dominion. During the last twenty-five years, in our agricultural economy in Canada, wheat has been king. If one were to follow wheat prices he would find that with very few exceptions-and these always where there were scarcities-the prices of other agricultural products have followed the trend in wheat prices. When we have had prosperity in western Canada and have had a good price for wheat, there have been good prices for other agricultural products throughout Canada. In those circumstances not only was there prosperity in agriculture, but that prosperity reflected itself throughout the economic life of the dominion. Prosperity in western Canada meant jobs in eastern Canada, better prices for fruit in British Columbia, and better prices generally throughout the dominion.
Wheat has been our greatest exportable commodity, and I believe it will maintain that position in peace time. The climatic conditions of a great area in Canada are such that not only is wheat the easiest crop to grow, but it is the most profitable. It will be seen therefore that a floor price for this commodity is of great importance to the country at large, and it has particular significance to-day because it gives some indication as to what the government's policy is going to be with respect to floor prices for other agricultural products.
Last year we passed floor prices legislation. The government stated that the legislation was being introduced for three purposes. First, it was to compensate agriculture for the low prices it had received for many of its products during the first two years of the war. During those years prices for agricultural products were really below the cost of production. I can remember in 1940 when there was a frozen wheat crop in northern Saskatchewan, the district from which I come, and our wheat was selling at from twenty-seven to thirty cents a bushel for feed wheat. We were buying British Columbia apples at S1.80 to $2.35 a box. It took five bushels of our wheat to buy one box of apples. That fall I had the privilege of visiting British Columbia, and I
saw some of the orchards in which these apples were being grown. I found that the fruit grower was getting from thirty to forty cents a box for his apples while he was paying $1.95 per hundredweight for our feed wheat. In other words it was taking six boxes of his apples to buy a hundredweight of our wheat, while it was taking five bushels of our wheat to buy one box of his apples. The result was that there were thousands of children in western Canada who never saw an apple, and many fruit growers in British Columbia were not able to diversify their production as much as they would have liked tio do. That, I say, was one of the reasons the government gave for introducing floor prices under agricultural products.
The other reason was to compensate for the price which agriculture might have received had there been no price ceiling structure in Canada. We all know that had there been no price ceiling structure, the prices of many agricultural products would have gone above the prices which were paid. The present legislation is being brought in recognition of the fact that the price of wheat probably would have gone to $2 or $2.25 per bushel if there had been no ceiling, and the same with beef and many other agricultural products.
The third reason they gave for bringing in floor prices was that it was to give the producer the cost of production. These floor prices were supposed to represent the cost of production of farm products, plus enough to give the farmer a return on his capital investment and a reasonable standard of living. I want to say that I do not think that the $1 per bushel for wheat will do any one of these things. That $1 per bushel for wheat is not $1 per bushel on the farm. It is really* 80 cents per bushel on the average farm in western Canada, and that does not compensate the farmer for the low prices he received in the early years of the war or for the prices he might have received had this order in council not been passed. Nor will it give him his cost of production plus a reasonable return on his capital.
If you are prepared to farm three, four or five sections of land as a corporation farm, it is jusv, possible that with economical management you might get away under the present legislation, but not under any other circumstances. I wonder if it is the policy of this government to have large corporation farming become prevalent in western Canada- because that will be the result of this present legislation.
This legislation is important because it indicates what the government's policy is
The Address-Mr. Wright

going to be with respect to floor prices under other agricultural products. It means a reduction from the present price of approximately thirty-five per cent. That is, floors under agricultural prices are to be placed at thirty-five per cent under the existing prices. I had a great many inquiries during the election campaign; and I have received many since, as to what I thought the government policy would be with respect to floor prices. I must say that at no time did I answer that I thought the policy would be a reduction of over fifteen, or at the most twenty per cent under present prices. But here we have legislation which is going to mean a possible reduction of thirty-five per cent in the purchasing power of the largest group in Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is just twenty per cent.


Percy Ellis Wright: One fifty-five and one dollar; figure it out. If that is not thirty-five per cent I will have to go back to school.


James Garfield Gardiner: The floor is now $1.25, and if you reduce it to $1, that represents only a twenty per cent reduction on the floor. This does not prevent the farmer from selling higher, if a market can be found for a higher level.


Percy Ellis Wright: The legislation under P.C. 6122 sets the selling price at $1.55. That is the price we shall be getting for our export wheat under this legislation.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is $1.55 for wheat sold overseas, but it does not say that that is the highest price that can be obtained for Canadian wheat elsewhere.


Percy Ellis Wright: I admit that if the legislation had not been passed we might have received higher prices. I believe the government at the present time is selling wheat in Canada for $1.25 per bushel for domestic consumption. That is being sold to our millers and the farmer is getting nothing.


James Garfield Gardiner: Worse than that; the wheat board are selling it at seventy-eight cents to millers.


Percy Ellis Wright: I was going on to say that not only were they doing that; they were paying a subsidy to the miller, which means that the miller was grinding wheat at seventy-eight cents per bushel, basis Fort William. I wonder if that is what the government considers as the floor price, seventy-eight cents per bushel, basis Fort William?
As I said, this matter of floor prices under agricultural products is one of the most important problems we are faced with in the (Mr. Wright.]
reconstruction period. It has to do with the purchasing power in the hands of a group of people which represents the greatest market in Canada. These people purchase more machinery, they build more houses, they buy more clothing and equipment than probably any other group in the dominion. If we are going to reduce their living standard by thirty-five per cent, I want to tell you that there will be a lot of people out of work in the next five years.
We are in favour of the quota system for marketing our wheat. I think this has been generally accepted in western Canada, especially the quota with respct to deliveries. It is good legislation and it has worked out quite satisfactorily. This $1 per bushel which we are getting under the proposal by the government as announced yesterday is not $1 per bushel for all the wheat we can grow in western Canada; it is only $1 per bushel for the wheat we grow under the quota, which is fourteen bushels to the acre on eighty per cent of our 1940 acreage.
What does that mean in income? I have a neighbour who is farming a quarter section. He has a family of six. Under the quota he can sell only from twenty-three acres, which means that he can sell fourteen bushels per acre from twenty-three acres of land. Anything he grows over that he cannot sell. I ask hon. members to use a little mental arithmetic to figure out how far that man can go toward clothing, feeding and educating his family on that sort of income. It just cannot be done.
I am positive that this floor is not the floor which will be accepted by the people in western Canada.
The minister has not given us any indication whether organized agriculture in western Canada was consulted or not, or whether organized agriculture in the whole of Canada was consulted. Was the Canadian Federation of Agriculture consulted? Were other farm organizations in Canada consulted? We do not even know whether the advisory committee to the wheat board were consulted.
The minister has not stated in this house, nor has any other member of the government, that this is a satisfactory floor so far as the farm organizations are concerned. I doubt very much whether it is. I know western Canadian agriculture well enough to know that it can never be a satisfactory floor for wheat from western Canada with prices where they are to-day for the things the farmer has to buy. We have no guarantee from the government that if wheat drops thirty-five per cent in price, the prices of the implements the farmer buys will go down with it.

The Address-Mr. Wright
Indeed, we know quite well from past experience that that will not take place. During the last war the price of agricultural implements and all the other items that enter into the farmer's cost of production went up and stayed up practically all through the depression. Prices increased then, and prices have increased since this war started, despite the price ceilings. Anyone who has bought agricultural implements knows that. I had to pay $2,050 just a few months ago for a tractor that I could have purchased for $1,600 in 1939, and that $2,050 was after removal of the ten per cent war exchange tax. The prices for the implements the farmer needs will stay up when our agricultural prices decline.
What agriculture in Canada wants is some tie-up between the floor prices the farmers are to receive for their products and the prices they will have to pay for the things which enter into their cost of production. That is what they ask for, but there is no indication of that in the legislation brought down by the government.
Here is another point. Is the. government treating all other industries in Canada on the same basis as agriculture? We have a government board dealing with textiles and a government board dealing with lumber. I have not heard of any price ceilings being placed on what the lumberman may charge for his exports. It is true that they can export only a certain quota, but for what they can export they can get any price that the buyer wishes to pay. Lumber is just as important as food to the people of Europe. I was over there last fall with other members of the house and saw the destruction of houses that had taken place in Europe. Houses are important just as food is important. Yet we have had no indication from the government that they intend to treat other industries in the manner in which they are treating agriculture. I hope the minister when he speaks will give us some such indication.
What does agriculture in Canada want?


Joseph William Burton: A fair deal.


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes, my hon. friend says agriculture wants a square deal. That is all that agriculture asks for. Agriculture does not ask and has never asked for special privileges. Agriculture wants only a fair deal. It wants to obtain only its fair share of the national income, according to production and according to the number of people engaged in agriculture. That is all the farmers have ever asked for through their organizations, and they have never got it. The only time in my life when agriculture received its proportionate share of the national income was between 47696-22
1915 and 1919, during the last war. Even to-day, with agricultural prices where they are, agriculture in Canada is not receiving its proportionate share of the national income.
The farmers believe that they can do a lot for themselves through the organization of their own industry. They have asked this government to pass a natural products marketing act which would allow agriculture to organize so as to obtain the best possible prices for their products. They want a natural products marketing act which will allow organized agriculture, when a majority of the producers of any agricultural product signify their desire for it, to have a marketing board through which all of that product would be marketed, so that a small percentage of the growers may not be able to disorganize the whole market. They would be prepared to abide by regulations passed by the dominion government or provincial governments with respect to the quality of their products, so that the consumer would" be protected. Marketing boards and export boards which would take care of the exportable surpluses of agricultural products, so that when they were to be marketed in other countries the government would step into the picture and through longterm agreements with importing countries stabilize the export market-that is what agriculture is asking for.
Last fall I had the privilege of visiting England and talking to quite a few members of the present government there. I know that so far as the food of Britain is concerned, they do not want to see it go back into the speculative markets. They intend to buy through government agencies, and I am sure that they would prefer to deal with cooperative agencies and government agencies for their requirements in the countries from which they are importing. They would be prepared to make long-term contracts which could be negotiated on a satisfactory basis to both the consumers in Europe and the producers in this country. But the present legislation indicates just the opposite. It indicates that it is the intention of the government to go back to the marketing of wheat in the manner in which it was marketed in 1939, when the war started. That is, we are going to have a wheat board which will be prepared to accept delivery from the farmer. The Winnipeg grain exchange will function again, and growers who are not prepared to deliver to the board will be able to sell their product on the open market. The floor has been set so low now that it is going to force many farmers to sell on the open market if they can get an additional five cents a bushel for their wheat because the initial payment is not sufficient to meet their expenses.


GQM'MlO'NS
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Wright
But that is what your legislation amounts to, and that is not the desire of the western farmer as expressed through all his organizations.
James Garfield Gardiner: The last resolution they passed asked for an initial payment of one dollar.


Percy Ellis Wright: That was not a floor price. I know of no resolution that has been passed by any farm organization during the war which states that one dollar a bushel would be a satisfactory floor price for wheat.


James Garfield Gardiner: They have passed resolutions to the effect that the initial payment should be one dollar. That is the last resolution they passed.


Percy Ellis Wright: When was that passed?


James Garfield Gardiner: In 1943.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is an entirely different thing from a floor price.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was the last resolution. It asked for $1 initial payment, and that is the only way under our system that a floor can be established, namely, by establishing the initial payment.


Mr WRIGHT:: 
Percy Ellis Wright: 
James Garfield Gardiner: May I correct the hon. member's statement? The order, as I read it, does not set the advance at all. What the order says is that any time in the next five years it cannot be lower than $1; it can be set higher.


Percy Ellis Wright: The Minister of Agriculture knows as well as I do that every time the government had done that very thing in the last years before the war, almost invariably the price of wheat went down and sat on that peg or very close to it during the full period. That has been the experience in the past and the minister knows that.


James Garfield Gardiner: The order does not say that the government is setting the price at $1;
The Address-Mr. Fair

it cannot be set at less than a dollar at any time to July 31, 1950.


Percy Ellis Wright: We are having a different story now.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what the story is, and I am telling the hon. member that he is telling a new story.


Percy Ellis Wright: Maybe the minister does not agree with the policy of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) and is still fighting for a better floor price. I hope he is; I hope that the cabinet will listen to him. I know from experience in the past they have failed to listen to him in other matters.


James Garfield Gardiner: The order in council the hon. member is discussing says that the floor shall not be less than $1. It does not say it has to be.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am afraid the minister is making his old familiar play on words. He has done that and kidded the people of Saskatchewan for a long time, but he came mighty near to not kidding them the last time.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was one of only four in Saskatchewan to have a clear majority.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is simply because
there were only two candidates.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: The other three are in the C.C.F.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; two are over here.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Twenty-eight is a good majority!


Percy Ellis Wright: I hope that, as indicated by the Minister of Agriculture, this is not the final word with respect to a floor price under wheat, and that we shall have a reasonable floor price set for that product. That is the whole basis of the plea I am making to the government to-day. I hope that they will bear it in mind and that it will have some effect on them.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member who has just taken his seat, I have been to a certain extent forced into this debate because of the announcement made, yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). I am very glad to know that at least some of the ministers of the government are not satisfied with the meaning we took from that announcement yesterday. We are hoping that something better is coming about.
Before going on with what I have to say, I wish to thank the editor of the Ottawa Citizen, for the help he rendered in getting me back Htfr. Gardiner.]
to this parliament. The help was in the form of a left-handed compliment in an editorial of April 26 last. The editorial was obviously false and deliberately misleading. Of course the objective was the return of another candidate for the Battle River constituency. The editorial was widely advertised over the radio, in local weeklies, and in posters on many telephone poles in the Battle River constituency. However, the net result, thanks to the editor of the Ottawa Citizen, was that his candidate collected less than twenty per cent of the votes polled and made a contribution of $200 to the national treasury. I hope that the government will make good use of this money, because the man who lost it perhaps could ill afford to lose it.
On another occasion earlier in the session I introduced a bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. As I stated in introducing that bill the object was to do away forever with the Winnipeg grain exchange. On Monday last the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch) speaking in the debate-and his remarks can be found at page 207 of Hansard- mentioned the fact that I had introduced, this bill, and undertook to uphold the grain exchange as an institution. I did not in any way attack the grain, exchange of any of its members, and I feel that the hon. member who took their part is perhaps one of the residents among the sleek and fat operators of that institution, while I am here interested in the lean, overworked and impoverished victims of that organization.
At page 207 of Hansard of September 17, the hon. member had this to say:
The Winnipeg grain exchange has been investigated by royal and other commissions more than a score of times within my own memory, and without exception it has been held to be making an important and worth-while contribution in the marketing of the products of the prairies. During the whole of that period it has been a simple matter in some sections, and in some areas it still is, to get an audience and a sympathetic hearing by detracting from that institution.
Any hon. member who is interested1 in the remainder of the hon. member's speech in that regard can find it at page 207 of Hansard as I
have indicated.
I think we all know, some of us from sad and costly experience, that the grain exchange is something like the gold standard. During the depression years of robbing the farmers and other classes in this country we stayed on the gold standard, but in 1940, owing to the pressure of war financing, we went off the gold standard. That, I think, is sufficient proof for us that, it. is not good in a time of

The Address-Mr. Fair
need. We also found that during the war practically all the grain exchanges in the British empire were closed down. The Canadian grain exchange was the last of them to close down, as far as my memory goes. I believe also we read in the press that Mr. Ranke, of the British cereals purchasing agency, refused to buy Canadian wheat if the exchange were left open. I remember also one of the senior members of the cabinet who has now gone to another section of parliament for security in his old days, possibly because: he was scared to face another election, went to England late in the fall of 1939.
As far as legitimate business of the exchange is concerned I believe that they are allowed to operate by legislation, but that legislation is not just as it should be. In the past we have had millions of bushels of wheat sold on the exchange that was never grown. It has been operated as a gambling den in most cases to the detriment of the farmers of western Canada. At the present time and for a number of years past the wheat board paid commissions to these operators, many of whom render no service whatever on sales of our wheat. I believe the same system is carried on in the old country where they are subsidizing some of the idle members of the exchange, so that they will have the gambling den all ready to set up after the war is over and the party is finished. I have often wondered why we did not sell automobiles and other types of merchandise on the exchange as wheat is sold. I am wondering why we do not put our money on the exchange or on some similar organization, and then we would hear some of those who are helping to conduct the Winnipeg grain exchange do a lot of howling. Personally, in case anybody should have any wrong impression as to where I stand, I am definitely opposed to the operation of the Winnipeg grain exchange for the sale of wheat or other grains. When I say that, I am uttering the opinion of all of the farm organizations in western Canada. The grain exchange is not run for our benefit. There is no question about that. I have taken part in the debate to-day and have said what I have because I believe the present policy of the government is heading us for further use of the grain exchange. If that is the government's programme, then I wish they had told the farmers of western Canada about it before June 11, and we might have had some different results on that day.
When the minister made the announcement yesterday I do not think he felt very happy about it. The minister is an honest man and knows conditions in western Canada much
better than some of the other members of the cabinet. I think he was a little bit ashamed when he made that announcement yesterday. Of course, it is in his department and there was nothing else for him to do but make it. I cannot agree with the interpretation the Minister of Agriculture places upon it.
In yesterday's Hansard we find the following at page 289:
In asking Canadian producers to forego such benefits as might be realized in the short run through higher export prices, the government recognizes the paramount need for relative stability of income to wheat producers. Toward this end, the government undertakes that in the five-year period ending July 31, 1950, producers will receive not less than $1 per bushel, basis No. 1 northern, in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver on the authorized deliveries for each crop year.
From the words "authorized deliveries" I take it that we are still to be on a quota basis. Let us go back a number of years and take the wheat crop of 1935. At that time, the price was established by the wheat board at 87i cents, as a concession, I believe, granted by a number of parties, the government, the wheat board, the grain trade and the pools. In any event, when I came to the house first the price was 87^ cents a bushel, but I think the house will remember that before long radical changes were made in connection with selling our wheat. We soon found the price down to eighty cents; then legislation was brought into this house fixing the price at sixty cents. Later someone wanted to get a pat on the back, and had the happy idea of raising it again to seventy cents. That figure did not mean seventy cents in the pocket of the farmer delivering his grain to the elevator. On the contrary, in my part of the countiy, for the average grade, it meant about forty-five cents for the best grain grown in the world. That price obtained until the 1941 crop was sold. For the 1942 crop the price went up to ninety cents, and in September, 1943, another change was made which brought it up to $1.25 a bushel. Now, in September, 1945, the Minister of Trade and Commerce tells us the party is over, that we are going to get down to business.
Perhaps some people think the farmers are getting too well off, and I readily admit that to-day they are in a much better financial position than they were when the war broke out. But I would point out also that farmers are working more than twice as many hours as any other occupational group in this country, and that their standard of living is not nearly as high &s that of most other groups. Now we are to get a floor price, but I am
The Address-Mr. Fair

afraid that after this year we are going to break our backs reaching down to that floor. That is what I was afraid of right along, when the legislation was brought in last year giving us guaranteed floor prices. No one even hinted where that floor price would be, and many of us were afraid it would be down in the cellar, that the legislation would be good for election purposes only.
I am not satisfied even with to-day's level of prices for farm products. It does not make any difference whatever what may be the prices for our farm products unless the prices of the commodities we have to buy are kept in line with them. During the years 1930 to 1940 the average portion of the national income received by the farmers of this country was 9-4 per cent. That is, 9-4 per cent of the national income went to approximately one-third of the Canadian population, who in most cases, as I have said already, were working twice as many hours as any other group. Even if we go back and take in a few of the good years prior to the beginning of the manmade depression, we find that the farmers of Canada, still representing one-third of the population, received only 11-3 per cent of the national income. If we take one specific year, 1932, we remember that many of us who had good crops at that time and hauled them to the elevators did not get back the cost of the threshing, and that year the farmers of Canada received five per cent of the national income. The Liberals were not in power at that time, so that we cannot blame them, although most people say the Liberals and Conservatives are alike. In any event nothing was done then to help the farmers. No move was made in the direction of cutting interest, the settlement of debts or anything of the kind to relieve the position of the farmers, with the result that we had to take it on the chin and come through as best we could. The condition that existed on the farms during that period is reflected in the statistics concerning the men who tried to enlist in the armed forces during the late war. In one case, out of 93,000 men who offered their services to the air force, only some 15,000 were able to pass the examinations, or one out of six, which is not a very good record.
I am not going to go into a great many details in connection with these matters, but I believe that the floor price should not be less than SI.25 a bushel for the next five years, with participation certificates issued for the balance. That will net us less than $1 a bushel for the average grade of wheat produced in my particular section of the country, and still will not give us our -proper share of the national income unless the prices of the 
commodities we have to buy are kept down or cut down and the prices of other agricultural products raised. This also would help to make up for the low prices we received during the depression and the early years of the war and would let us pay interest on the debt which, because of the policies of the different governments, accumulated during that depression period. At the present time labour is demanding a thirty-per cent increase in wages, and in some of the newspapers we read that labour wants a forty-hour week. Just where does the farmer appear in that picture? The farmer is not organized. Time and again I have told farmers that they have the remedy right in their own hands, and have tried to get them to apply it, but apparently some of them still have the wool pulled over their eyes.
We were not told by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance that during the next five years prices of other commodities would be cut or controlled, and I am just wondering what their policy will be when they come to deal with some of the other commodities. As I said earlier, I believe the present programme is designed to prepare the lambs once more for the slaughter-house; that is, to prepare the farmers for the reopening and operation of the Winnipeg grain exchange. That is a definite detriment; and while twenty or more commissions have been appointed to look into the affairs of that institution, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg South, my reply is that twenty or more white-washing jobs were done, through which the farmers can see very clearly. I remember that on one occasion we sent to the old country to get the services of an economist over there-Sir Josiah Stamp, I believe it was-and that he made an excellent job! But the fact remains that the grain exchange was in operation during the worst depression years we had, and that they did not in any way succeed in keeping the price of grain up where it properly belonged.
While I am speaking about agriculture, perhaps I might mention one other point, namely, the necessity for some amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I suggest that act should be amended so that settlement might be made on an individual basis. In years past hon. members in this group have advocated that, time and again. I believe even the Minister of Agriculture would understand very well that a farmer on one side of a road allowance may have a good crop, because of rain, while the farmer on the other side of the road might not have had the rain and would therefore be without a crop. In my view this should be settled on an individual

The Address-Mr. Fair
basis, and we should also widen the scheme to include a proper and complete crop insurance coverage.
There is something further that is wrong in the act as it now stands. Some provision has, I believe, been made in the regulations. The point I have in mind, however, affects the farmer who is in a dry belt and qualifies for bonus, but moves out before a certain date in the fall. Even though he has incurred expenses during the year, he is denied the bonus provided by the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. This should not be allowed, and is a wrong which should be corrected.
Then, I say the eight-bushel yield is too low, and should be set back to the original twelve bushels an acre.
Then, in respect of a father and one or more sons operating their holdings with one outfit of machinery, I suggest all should be given the benefit of individual bonuses. Otherwise farmers' sons will be discouraged from starting up in agricultural pursuits.
I now come to rationing-and I have heard a good deal about it. I believe that the idea of sending meat overseas is a noble one, and that most people are in agreement with it. However, I have not yet heard of veiy many people who are in agreement with the programme or policy in that connection as set out by the wartime prices and trade board. I feel that this is one of the most disadvantageous times in which to bring it into operation, because we are now having large runs of cattle into the stockyards, and we find that the facilities there available are not adequate to take care of the offerings, unless, as the minister pointed out the other day, the stock can be shipped out at the rate of so many a day. I am not sure that that suggestion can be followed. It is something which may sound very nice, but the practising of which may present some difficulties, because of train services and for other reasons.
I do not believe that rationing will cure the problem. I think it will be found that large quantities of meat will spoil, as it did spoil on that earlier occasion when rationing was discontinued. Many people at that time refused to give up their meat coupons for cheap cuts of meat, or for the processed varieties. To-day merchants seem to be understaffed, and are complaining about the extra work placed upon them, _ if they are to keep records, and all that kind of thing.
Yesterday morning I received a letter which, in part, is as follows:
Why should meat retailers in the Dominion of Canada be on the dirty end of the stick because of the short-sighted policy of the Liberal government?
Any ten-year old kid could have foreseen a dropfin hog population with the existing differential between coarse grains and live hogs.
If Messrs Gardiner and Ilsley would use some of the money they have been taking from the public by taxation to pay a just price on hogs, we could have so many hogs that the existing facilities could not process them and meat rationing would not be necessary.
You can rest assured we do not intend to carry on under this system for many weeks. The amount of labour at our disposal will not permit us to comply with existing regulations, nor can we afford to pay for additional help solely to make up the innumerable returns and statistics demanded-
Unless meat rationing is lifted, without any doubt, a total strike of meat retailers across Canada will ensue.
Only this morning I sat in a barber shop for a few moments awaiting my turn. A man was in the chair and, although I do not know who he was, what he had to say about rationing, and what the barber afterwards told me concerning their general conversation, would not be allowed by you, sir, in this chamber.
As I said earlier, it is a noble thing to export our surpluses to feed hungry people in other countries. First of all, 'however, I suggest our own Canadian people should be fed. I believe, too, that other action might be taken which would help increase the production of stock, and possibly bring our production to a point where we could more readily feed other people, and ourselves as well.
In order to do this, I believe in inducements, rather than in compulsion. One inducement would be that the bonus of ten and fifteen cents a bushel on barley-I believe it is ten and twenty cents at the present time- which is being paid to hog or cattle raisers who do not grow their own feed, should be extended to all those who feed and market hogs, regardless of whether they produce their own grain. We may be told that this is impossible; but I should think our statisticians would certainly be able to estimate how many bushels of wheat, oats or barley, are required to raise a hog, under ordinary conditions. If a man receives pay on the basis of ten and twenty cents on the number of bushels used in raising a hog, I believe that the difficulty would be overcome. By that means I feel production would be encouraged, and I believe that some action along this line should be taken, because production in my part of the country at least, and I believe in other provinces as well, will decline much faster now that the war is over, and with conditions as they now obtain.
It has also been suggested that because we have very few veterinarians in the country
The Address-Mr. Fair

the government should assist in some way in training and in keeping these veterinSrians available. This is a profession which is not practised to any great extent to-day. Unless something is done the life of valuable stock will be jeopardized because of the absence of veterinarians in communities.
I have another item before mej one which I do not believe I could discuss fully before six o'clock. This would come under the heading of unfinished business; and when I say "unfinished business" I mean it was left over from the last parliament. I believe hon. members will agree it is one of those pieces of unfinished business which have followed the first world war and which have not yet been dealt with.
I have been glad to listen to so many young returned veterans from the war which has just been completed, and I hope that their courage in supporting the proposal which I make to-day, and which I have made on several other occasions, will not fail them, as it did not fail them when they faced the enemy. I would hope that before this session ends we would do something worth while for men who, in some cases, are the fathers of hon. members who represent constituencies in this parliament. I refer to the old soldier settlers from the first great war. As has happened after this war, a number of soldiers who took part in the first world war were recruited from farming communities. After the cessation of hostilities a number of these men decided they wanted to go back to settle on the land. After some sifting out, we find that 25,017 of these men were finally settled on the land under the soldier settlement board. The former Minister of Mines and Resources, who administered this scheme until recently, told us that the scheme was a hastily improvised one, and I agree with him. At the time these men were settled on the land there was advanced to them $109,034,331, which amounted to $4,358 each. The rate of interest was five per cent on current account and seven per cent on their accounts as soon as they went into arrears. They were given twenty-five years to pay.
I have a lot more detail which I am not going into. I wanted to give a rough picture of things, because anyone who is interested can find full details in last session's Hansard.
Hon. members will remember that agricultural, cattle and hog prices went down, and a number of these men found that they were up against an impossible proposition. First, the land was purchased at very high prices and even under ordinary conditions they would not have been able to make things go. When poorer times came there was nothing for them 
to do but to get out. Finally some sixty per cent of them did get out; they had sense enough to see that far ahead. However, many others who had not that foresight kept on battling against almost impossible odds.
I am using the date of March 31, 1944, as the cut-off date. If the government persists in its policy it will not be more than possibly ten years before most of these old veterans will be dead. The government will be able to get back the land and sell it possibly to some Japs or Germans or Italians at one-half of the cost of the land as they are doing under present circumstances.
The total amount repaid was $75,888,550, made up of $50,507,493 principal and $25,381,060 interest. I am giving these amounts separately because I should like hon. members to note that during the same period the cost of administration of the soldiers' branch only was $27,340,763 or approximately $1,100,000 a year for the period under review. If you take the interest of $25,000,000 and the cost of administration of $27,000,000 you have a total of $52,000,000 odd. The amount of principal repaid was $50,507,493. A number of necessary adjustments were made amounting in all to $44,000,000 up to the end of March, 1944, at which time there was a total amount outstanding of $7,715,954.
At that time there were 6.153 men still remaining on the fend. By that same date only 4,130, or sixteen per. cent of the original settlers had been able to obtain title. The 6,153 who were still on the land represented twenty-five per cent of the original number. The average indebtedness at the end of March, 1944 was $1,254. I am bringing, in this amount for a definite purpose. The original debt of these men was $4,358 and, after twenty-five years' hard work, in many cases persecution by the officials of the board, each man srtill owed an average of $1,254. That is equal to twenty-nine per cent, of the original purchase price. Under the present Veterans Land Act a veteran who keeps up his payments over a ten-year period gets a grant of $2,320 which is thirty-nine per cent of the original amount of credit extended to him. On many occasions the government has made promises to these men, and that is exactly what another government did. I have here an address of Sir Robert Borden, then Prime Minister of Canada, which he made in 1917 to the Canadian expeditionary forces. He said:
The government anti the country will consider it their first duty to see that a proper appreciation of your effort and of your courage is brought to the notice of the people at home, and it will always be our endeavour to so guide

The Address-Mr. Fair
the attitude of public opinion, that the country will support the government to prove to the returned man its just and due appreciation of the inestimable value of the services rendered to the country and empire; and that no man, whether he goes back or whether he remains in Flanders, will have just cause to reproach the government for having broken with the men who won and the men who died.
Similar promises have been made by the present government and I hope they will make a better job of living up to them. Back in March, 1941 an order in council was passed which I think is of interest to all Canadians. It has made many of us hang our heads in shame. At that time it' was found that a number of veterans of great war I were enlists ing to serve in the second great war. A number of these old veterans were soldier settlers and they found they could not keep up their payments. They saw a way, at least for the duration of the war, to provide a means of livelihood for their families and they enlisted. No payments were coming into the soldiers settlement board, and on March 19, the treasury board, on the recommendation of the former Minister of Mines and Resources passed this order in council;
The board has had under consideration a submission of the honourable the Minister of Mines and Resources reporting that:
1.	A considerable number of persons who agreed to purchase farms from the soldier settlement board or from the director of soldier settlement on long term contracts have enlisted in the Canadian armed forces.
2.	In many cases the dependents of such enlisted persons continue to occupy their farms but no provision has been made for payment of instalments in respect of their contracts or of taxes in respect of their farms.
3.	The director of soldier settlement has no authority to carry such accounts indefinitely and it is considered desirable to provide for deduction from dependents' allowances to cover local taxes and interest due.
Accordingly the board recommended . . .
That is the treasury board about which we have heard so much, the board that has so much control over parliament and to which some consideration should be given at an early date.
. . . that notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in any of the regulations providing for payment of dependents' or marriage allowances in respect of dependents of members of the Canadian armed forces, that in all cases where the dependents of an enlisted person continue to occupy the farm for which such person is indebted to the director of soldier settlement and in respect of which the contract terms are not otherwise satisfactorily provided for, there may be deducted from the dependents' or marriage allowance amounts sufficient to provide for payment of taxes levied by the local taxing authority in respect of the property
in question and interest accruing annually on indebtedness to the director of soldier settlement, such deductions to be made monthly and in no ease to exceed $20 per month except with the consent of the dependents concerned.
Promises were made to these men after the first great war and definite promises were made during this war; yet we find that order in council in operation. In the case of the ordinary man who enlisted in this war for the first time there are no deductions from the allowances paid to his wife and family. But those fellows who have offered everything for the second time are penalized simply because they have entered into a contract with the soldier settlement board and are not able, on account of conditions man-made, artificial and deliberately planned, to make their payments.
Again, for those fellows who felt they had a little longer lease on life than some others and wanted to continue, order in council P.C. 10472 was passed on November 19, 1942, providing that those settlers with courage who wanted to try to carry on a little longer could bring their cases before the board or committee that was set up, and if that committee saw fit it could reduce the man's indebtedness by a certain amount, and give him a further extension of twenty years in which to pay off his indebtedness-forty-five years of his life to pay for a quarter-section of land and starve himself and his family in the process, simply because of the policies designed by this and former governments.
The action of the government in bringing down the price of our wheat to $1 a bushel for the coming five years is a challenge to the men who are settling on the land under the Veterans' Land Act at the present time. By that act-and I expect that policy will be continued-the government are making it impossible for any man, no matter how hard he works, or what kind of farm he may buy, to carry on and ever get possession of his home. It does not take many years, even for those who have established themselves in the farming industry, to find themselves thrown out on the road, as many of my neighbours have been in past years, when they are compelled to sell below cost of production and pay exorbitant prices for everything they buy. Before this order in council is made effective the government should review its whole agricultural policy and programme and take into partnership with them representatives of the farm organizations and have the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) divorce himself from his unhealthy and unholy matrimony with the banks and other financial institutions.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
The Address

Mr. McGarry

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. M. E. McGARRY (Inverness-Rich-mond):: My first desire in rising to speak this evening is to put the house at ease, and I do not think I could do better than to announce that my remarks will be brief. I wish, however, to preface them by extending hearty congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, on the great honour that has been unanimously conferred upon you by this house. In the last parliament you, sir, and my very humble self had a close association in being seat-mates in what you might call the suburbs of the House of Commons. Now we are separated by distance. There is an old adage that says, "absence makes the heart grow fonder." If I might be allowed to change the wording I would say that distance makes the heart grow fonder, and that would be applicable to our associations at this session.
I know, sir, you are quite conscious of the fact that with the great honour bestowed upon you there goes a great responsibility, and knowing you as I do, I realize your willingness to assume that responsibility. I know also you are quite competent to discharge the duties which will devolve upon you, and I think I can speak on behalf of the house when I say that in the performance of those duties you will have the cooperation of every hon. member. The very unanimity displayed in appointing you to the position you hold is a prelude to that cooperative assistance which you will receive.
I wish also to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and right here I think I should compliment those who had the selection of those speakers. I think their choice was splendid inasmuch as they selected two hon. members who had contributed a great deal to the conflict of war. Now they come into the house and are just as solicitous and as ardent in the conflict of peace. Young men as they are, they have projected, in this conflict of peace we are now undertaking, thoughts which may very well be given consideration in the rehabilitation and reconstruction era.
I have listened to the speeches delivered in this house and I have nothing but congratulations to offer; but if I may be allowed to be critical on one point it is this. I do not like that mist of gloom they seem to cast over the country now that we are undertaking a conflict which is just as serious as the conflict of war. Comparing the visibility of affairs in Canada to-day with conditions six years ago, one can say that six years ago the 
people of the Dominion of Canada were suffering the agonies of the damned and at that time they had very little hope of redemption. Finally peace came. The war was won and it was won at an exorbitant price. It was won in suffering; it was won in losses irreparable; it was won in the agony of our loved ones and in the torture of the innocent. That was the price we paid for war. A new era has now arrived. We are given an opportunity now to show whether we are worthy of that redemption, and I think the outlook is not too gloomy.
We have to-day in Canada, fortunately, a government that has carried on a gigantic war effort. We have a government that not only prosecuted the war successfully but have brought down measures designed to deal with the problems which they anticipated would arise and which are arising at the present time. When this conflict of war was on we in Canada were fortunate. We were fortunate because we had at the head of our war departments men who not only had great experience in military affairs but had the wisdom to select an executive that was competent to initiate, develop and carry on to a successful termination a gigantic war effort. I say we are fortunate in that we must always remember that despite the efficiency of our war ministers very little could have been accomplished in this war conflict had it not been for the cooperation we received from every element of our Canadian citizenship. Our labour men, our industries, our farmers, our fishermen, our transportation facilities and everything that could be integrated into the war effort assisted. Our young men volunteered and went willingly to the front; and comparatively old men, men who had passed middle age, who in the last war had gone through the experiences, the sacrifices, the hardships and the miseries of that struggle, volunteered and stood in arms to protect our country. Young women who were occupying lucrative clerical positions left those offices and went into war industrial departments and undertook the onerous employment of making implements of destruction.
Our people were not only generous; they were tolerant. They were generous to a degree. They gave not only of their savings but of their earnings to war bonds to supply a fund for Canada to carry on our gigantic war undertaking. They accepted the restrictions of rationing and all other regimentations without a murmur. They complained very little about the ever-increasing tax imposts. They regarded these as a matter of war necessity.
As a matter of fact, our civilian population conceived the idea that this was an all-out

The Address-Mr. McGarry
war effort, and while they could not display the same equality of sacrifice they at least offered equality of service. There was something else that they did. They maintained the morale of the nation. Valour is a virtue. There is no doubt about that. It was a necessary virtue of those who were standing in arms against the aggressor. But it is no more a virtue with the fighting forces than it is with the civilian population, whose thoughts are bound up with those brave men who have to undergo the dangers of every day and face the uncertainties of the morrow.
So I say that while incidentally it may appear that I am offering some eulogy to the government, which they well deserve, neither this government, however efficient the ministers in the war departments might be, nor any other government, could have done what Canada did had it not been for the cooperation of our Canadian citizens. Let us not forget that the intelligentsia of Canada are just as much concerned in this conflict of peace to-day as they were in the conflict of war. Therefore it does not behoove us in the House of Commons to be throwing misty or gloomy shadows in front of the effort that is now being presented to the people of Canada. Six years ago I was not so hopeful that the conflict of war would be won. To-day, because of the measures that this government brought down in war time to deal with such great problems as unemployment, 1 am hopeful that we shall win the conflict of peace. I am perfectly sure that the speech from the throne reflects the spirit of a policy which will bring about a happy and successful rehabilitation and reconstruction programme.
When a country is at war there are two responsibilities which devolve upon the government. The first is to supply men, money and materials to carry on war projects. But just as important is the responsibility of maintaining the economy of the nation. I believe that this government did a very good job in that field. Mark you, three hours after war was declared this government established the wartime prices and trade board. We all know the effect of that action. The effect was that there was a check-up on hoarding and profit eering. We all saw the result of that. We did not see, as we did in the last war, men waxing rich on the blood and sacrifice of the people; we did not see our prices mounting to a dizzy height as they did in the last war, and when the fall came, not to ordinary peace-time level, but below, it was responsible for the depression which followed. The action taken by the government is one of the things which has kept Canada economically sound, and has
made for a proper distribution of wealth throughout the nation.
May I recite just a few of the measures that are not promises but measures which are operative at the present time. First of all, there is the Unemploment Insurance Act. That is certainly going to serve a great purpose now It was timely inasmuch as it was introduced and put into operation at a time when there was no unemployment. The result is that today we have a repository of cash which will certainly render auxiliary assistance in the days of transition when there must necessarily be some unemployment. Mention might also be made of the amendment to the Land Settlement Act, a great improvement on the old act. It not only improved it but extended it. Then there was the compulsory employment act.. One could recite many measures. These were all brought into force and will be of auxiliary service in this transition period. When we add to that the proposed measures contained in the speech from the throne I, for one, am greatly surprised that some hon. members say that this government has no plans for the future. I cannot see where there has been one omission. There was no lack of provision for what might be anticipated by any sensible government. I cannot understand why hon. members say that there is no planning. It must be that they have not followed the history of this government since 1940, or they say it for some ulterior purpose.
Inquiries have been made in the house as to whether or not the war was terminated so far as Canada is concerned. I do not think we can give an intelligent answer to that question until we find out the meaning of the two words -war" and "peace". I shall quote what one authority says about the definition of war. This is Webster's definition of war. He describes war as being "the absence or cessation of peace or cooperation; that condition of a nation or a community which is not at peace." Therefore, if we were to judge from the remarks of some hon. gentlemen opposite, we would come to the conclusion, following that definition, that Canada is still at war.


Clarence Gillis: And will be for some time.


Moses Elijah McGarry: To confirm my theory of war, let us look at the definition of peace. Peace is "active cooperation by means of spiritual, mental and material forces between nations, states and rulers, and between parties in the same nation and state; the employment of spiritual, mental and material forces against evil powers at home and abroad, such as ignorance, injustice, ugliness, disease and intolerance." When these agencies are eliminated we are supposed to be at peace; but whatever
The Address-Mr. MeGarry

the meaning of the words may be, we cannot have any peace in Canada unless we have the active cooperation of these mental, spiritual and material forces.
Canada did not enter this war as an aggressor; she entered it for the purpose of preserving our democratic rights and to establish a lasting peace. Paradoxical as it may seem, it was necessary to go to war to have peace; we won military victories, and finally we won the last and most essential victory. But in a war for peace military victories are only milestones which mark the pathway that will lead to the haven of peace. But there is another conflict in which we must take part; we must enter into it with the same generosity, the same spirit of cooperation and tolerance as we did in the conflict of war, because I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, it is just as serious a conflict.
I would say to my hon. friends opposite, be a little patient; remember that we are only just now at the transition period between war and peace. 1 do not think any hon. gentle man can suggest more than this government is going to do, some of winch it has in operation and some to be put into operation before this session closes. No one can deny that we have wise and effective planning, and I would say to these hon. gentlemen that they should not expect performance before planning. Take a little time. It took the greatest Creator and Builder of all six days to make this world. Now we are trying to build a better world, and some hon. gentlemen think that should be done, with our efficient ministers, in two weeks. They should not speak in that way: they should not be spreading these words of gloom among the people. If that sort of thing had been done at the beginning of the war, possibly we would not have come out of that conflict as successfully as we did. I am absolutely in earnest about that. Let no one make these gloomy assertions that we are working in the dark. Visibility is good, but, as I said before, we must cooperate; we must have generosity; we must have tolerance, and we need every help the people of Canada can give.
To the government I would say, make as much haste as you can. Translate into performance the plans already laid down; and when this programme of reconstruction and rehabilitation is under way, do not forget that you cannot have absolute peace in Canada while there is one section discriminated against, one section which does not fit into the general picture. I have certain appeals to make to the government in regard to my own constituency. I am not going to present them 
now, but I say that if we want to have peace and contentment in the whole of Canada we must see to it that no section of this great nation is listed among the forgotten units.


Mr. W. D. WYLIE (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, it appears that new members are having a field day, so to speak; and, being a new member, I wish to take this opportunity of discussing some serious problems pertaining to the constituency of Medicine Hat, which I have the honour to represent. As many hon. members know, my constituency was represented in the last parliament by Doctor F. W. Gershaw.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: A
good man.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: A very good man and a very good friend of mine, and a gentleman held in high esteem by all who know him, regardless of their political views. I am pleased that he is now in the upper house, and I am sure southern Alberta will be well represented in that chamber by Senator Gershaw.
I regret that I am unable to use the expression of some hon. members in describing their constituencies. I have heard many of them say theirs were the best constituencies in Canada. I can say that the ueople of Medicine Hat constituency are the best people in Canada; and if I cannot say that Medicine Hat is one of the best constituencies, that is because of the inaction of the federal government. When I say that I include also our Conservative friends to my right, because, after all, they were in power for a few years and nothing much was done in my constituency. We did sell our wheat for twenty cents a bushel, and our hogs for two to two and a half cents a pound, and I do not forget that in 1937, when the present government were in power, they purchased a good deal of stock in that area at the handsome price of one cent a pound, so that they did not do so very much better. From this I believe hon. members will understand what I mean when I refer to the inaction of the government.
The largest part of my constituency is in what is known as the drought area. We have an average rainfall of from seven to nine inches. A few small portions may have an average of twelve inches, but that would be only a very small part. We have three irrigation districts. The first is the eastern irrigation district at Brooks, comprising some 1.500,000 acres, with approximately 200,000 acres irrigable. This project is well known for its high production not only of grains but of alfalfa and all kinds of field crops, and also

The Address-Mr. Wylie
the large number of dairy herds of good quality stock. They also take great pride in the wonderful buildings in that area, the homes of which they are so proud. This project is also known all over western Canada and parts of the United States for the wonderful pheasant shooting which may be enjoyed there. Thousands of dollars come into that area every fall from this source alone, and every available room in the town of Brooks and throughout the district is reserved a year ahead.
Then we have the Canada land and irrigation project at Vauxhall, which is much the same as the Brooks project, though not quite so extensive. Finally we have the Taber and Lethbridge irrigation district, which is known for the production of sugar beets. Here we have an industry that fits perfectly into the general irrigation farms programme. The growing of sugar beets gives the farmers a hoed crop which keeps their land clean, gives them an assured price for their product, and yields valuable by-products utilized in the now extensive live stock industry, which takes in the winter feeding and finishing of 25,000 head of cattle and 100,000 head of lambs. The Lethbridge feeder association alone does over a million dollars' worth of business each year. The sugar beet industry brings into the country several million dollars' worth of new wealth a year. The area under sugar beet production is approximately 30,000 acres; many growers are harvesting from twelve to fifteen tons or better per acre and receiving around S10 a ton for their deliveries. In addition, they have the valuable beet tops, beet pulp and molasses from the Raymond and the Picture Butte factories, at a nominal figure, for live stock feeding. Production has reached a point where additional factory space will be necessary, if production is to be stepped up; and the Brooks project has gone on record as wanting a factory. I see no reason why they should not have a factory. I know that all arrangements were made about two years ago for a sugar beet factory. The only thing required to establish it was a permit from the dominion government; but this permit, as the residents of the Brooks area know, was rejected.
Since coming to this part of Canada I have heard it said by many people that sugar manufactured from sugar beets is not of the same quality as that manufactured from sugar cane, and that fruits preserved with beet sugar will not keep. A statement of that kind is, in my opinion, entirely wrong. I believe that we in Alberta will recognize good, canned fruit as quickly as would any others, and I am quite sure that any canning done with beet sugar
will keep just as long as if it had been done with sugar cane.
When I go back to Alberta, or perhaps before that time, I am going to suggest that the best thing our sugar factories can do is to put on an advertising campaign so as to advertise their product properly, and to let the people in eastern Canada know that we have just as good sugar in Alberta, produced right in that province, as is found anywhere else in Canada. It is an industry for which there is a big future, a future in which not only Alberta but all Canada will share. There is no reason at all why we should not be producing four or five times the amount of sugar we are producing to-day. I am sure most members from Alberta, and especially those from the southern part of the province, will recognize the truth of that statement. Southern Alberta's sunshine and fertile soil combine to produce flavourful vegetables, with the result that we have the development of the vegetable factories processing some 7,000 acres of peas, corn, beans and turnips. In addition, the only dehydration plant in the province is situated at Lethbridge for the processing of carrots, table beets, potatoes and turnips. In addition to all that, dairy herds have been improved and cheese factories are set up throughout the district.
From what I have said respecting his constituency it would almost seem that I am boosting the constituency of the hon. member for Lethbridge ('Mr. Blackmore). However, it shows what can be done by means of irrigation. In the greater part of my constituency we have two proposed irrigation schemes, namely the St. Mary-Milk river and the Redcliff-Ronalane. I am sure many hon. members have heard discussions in the house respecting this problem, and will remember particularly the contribution made to that discussion by Senator Gershaw. I do not think a session went by without the senator's having discussed that matter. Might I reiterate that, usually, before election there was a little more stress put on it. However, that is something which is essential to the welfare of that part of the province.
During the last election campaign the Liberal candidate for the constituency of Medicine Hat said that unless the people voted Liberal they wmuld not get irrigation. Then, on the night he was defeated he said that he was pleased to see a Liberal government returned to power, but that the people of the constituency of Medicine Hat would still have to get in touch with him before they could get any government jobs.
The Address-Mr. Wylie


Mr. BLACKMORE:: What about the
hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. MacKinnon) ?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: And the hon. member for
Edmonton West too; there should be plenty of support from the hon. member for Edmonton West. The government should move now to give official approval to the building of the transcanada highway and the completion of these irrigation projects by voting in the new estimates a sum large enough to permit a start on these projects.
We should have more industries in the west. When I refer to the west I am thinking, of course, of Medicine Hat in particular. We have an abundance of natural gas. Few people realize the benefits to be derived from natural gas. As Rudyard Kipling once said, Medicine Hat is the only city in Canada with all hell for a foundation. All we have to do is to drill a hole, put in a pipe and there you have power, you have heat and you have light if you wish. I should like some of the eastern members to come out to that area and see what can be done, not only in the city but in some of our ranchers' homes. We can certainly do with more industry in the west.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to what has been said about the housing problem by members on both sides of the house, especially returned men. Hon. members on this side of the house who have returned from the war are just as anxious to have a housing programme that will work as are hon. members on the other side,. They want the same thing. What they want are houses. They want a programme with action, not just talk.
I know as far as my own city is concerned, there has not been a single house1 built there by wartime housing or with government assistance. It was suggested that we could put in a small holding project of one acre plots outside the city limits. The land was surveyed several times, but it was decided it was not suitable because it would cost too much to put water on it. The majority of the residents never did think very much of that project and the city council and citizens of Medicine Hat could see no reason why returned soldiers should be placed outside the city limits. We believe that they should have the privilege of living with the other residents right in the middle of the city. There are lots available there for their homes, and the city council is quite willing to give them lots of from
fifty or seventy-five feet by one hundred and thirty feet if the government will apply this project to the city. I believe that this proposal should have consideration by the government, and that Medicine Hat should have the benefit of small holdings within the city limits. We have plenty of lots right on the power line where all services would be available. After all, we all want the same thing; we want homes; but the whole building project is not advancing very fast. It will require the cooperation of everyone and of all governments to get the project really going.
I was pleased to see that the government is proposing to make changes in the Old Age Pensions Act, although I am disappointed that these changes may not apply until 1948. It is very nice to know that when you reach the age of seventy the means test will be done away with. However, I agree with the leader of this group, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), that the age should be reduced to sixty years and the pension increased to $50 a month. I am sure that there is not a member of this house who would wish to live on a pension of $30 a month at the age of seventy or even sixty.
In the very near future I am sure that all civil servants, provincial and dominion, as well as the employees of most concerns, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company included, will be pensioned off at the age of sixty. The C.P.R. have that now, I believe, in some of their departments. In the civil service in Alberta the pension age is sixty-five; I am not sure about other governments, but I am quite sure that it will not be very long before they will all be superannuating at the age of sixty. I believe that is a good plan because it will enable people to enjoy a little pleasure in their old age, especially if the pensionable age is reduced and the pension increased to at least $50 a month.
I should like to say a word about education. I believe that the time has come when we should have uniform standards of education from one end of Canada to the other and that the government should make grants to assist in higher educational standards being attained. Education is the main training for any young person; it is something that will stay with him or her through life, and the more education they can have the better. I agree with the hon. gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. McGarry), that Canada has a wonderful record so far as the war effort is concerned; I also agree with what he said as to the sacrifices that were made by our boys, and I believe that if we will only work as hard to win the peace as we did to win the war we
The Address-Mr. Bryce

shall have homes for these heroes and a decent Canada for all to live in.


Mr. WILLIAM BRYCE (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I am in the fortunate position that I do not need to come to the house to tell about my constituency of Selkirk, because anybody who has gone to school has read about those hardy pioneers from my native land, the Selkirk settlers, who came up the mighty Nelson and up lake Winnipeg and settled at Selkirk, Fort Garry and along the Red river valley. Later on, people came there from Iceland, people with a democratic point of view which has enriched our own democracy. Still later, we had people come to us from the Ukraine and other parts of Europe, who have helped to develop that great interlake country and have added to the wealth of Canada.
When I sat in the last parliament, Mr. Speaker, I was many times reminded that there were only two official languages in the House of Commons. I can assure you, sir, that my French has improved slightly but my English is no better. I should like to remind you, sir, of that age-old alliance between Scotland and France and to assure you that your countrymen and mine still respect that, and I am quite sure that when you think about it you will have no difficulty in understanding what I want to convey to my hon. friends on the other side.
The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) asked the other day when the war would be over, and there was quite a little amusement among hon. members when he asked that question, but I can assure them that it is a serious question for the dairy farmers to-day. The dairy farmers are being kept in business by a subsidy. The consumer is able to buy the milk his children require because of that subsidy, and I should like the government to come out and tell us if and when it intends to cut off that subsidy. The dairy farmer wants to know that so that he can plan his work. How long will this subsidy last? I do not know whether the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) or the government can tell us that, but it is something that the dairy farmers require to know, and know pretty soon. We have practically no butter in the country. The government at the present time is paying ten cents a pound subsidy to make it possible for our farmers to produce cream. It is a disgraceful state of affairs that the dairy industry has to be subsidized by ten cents a pound to produce butter. Where will our butter stocks be if that ten cent subsidy is taken away? We shall be in a deplorable state. The dairy business is not

something that you can go into to-day and step out of to-morrow. You have to plan ahead and make arrangements; you have to get the feed up this summer that you will use next spring. I appeal to the government, through the Minister of Agriculture, to let us know something about that in the near future. It would be nice to know, too, when the subsidy to the millers is coming off wheat.
I should like to add a few words to what the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie) said a few minutes ago. He talked about the beet growers. I am interested in beet growers, because we took a great deal of trouble in Manitoba to set up a beet factory so that we could establish a better way of farming and get away from straight grain growing. We set up that beet factory for that purpose, but the position to-day is such that we can hardly keep going.
I do not want to go over the whole thing again. The hon. member for Medicine Hat explained how we can feed pulp in the winter time and make as good sugar from beets as ever was made from cane. I want to put on the record, however, some of the things that these beet growers are thinking about. They were good enough to invite me to their meetings, and since they are constituents of mine I feel it my duty to bring their demands before the house.
1.	The establishment of a sound sugar tariff in which ninety-six per cent raw sugar is taxed with at least ninety per cent of the white sugar rate of $2.64 and $1.84 per 100 pounds.
2.	The immediate reinstatement of the customs duties specified in items 135 and 135 (b) on raw sugar until change in tariff is made.
3.	An investigation of the profits of cane sugar refiners in the last twenty years and their justification.
4.	An investigation of the real purpose of the so-called "sugar equalization fund" and of its use.
5.	Publication of the operation and accounting of the "fund" by the sugar administration from its establishment up to date amounting at present to over $16,000,000.
6.	The immediate appointment of a beet man as deputy sugar administrator, which position at present is held by a man who has made his living practically all his life out of commissions on raw cane sugar imports.
I wish to call these matters to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture. The hon. member for Medicine Hat wanted to know the reason why we could not have four or five times the sugar we have. I am going to put certain information on the record. I do not know why he did not if he had it. I am quoting from Canadian Sugar Policy:

The Address-Mr. Bryce	_____
Another unfortunate condition in the complicated Canadian sugar business is the fact that the two Ontario beet sugar mills in Chatham and Wallaceburg and the two Alberta beet sugar plants in Raymond and Picture Butte are owned and operated by the Canada and Dominion Sugar Company and a subsidiary of the B.C. Sugar Refining Company respectively, which companies operate at the same time large cane sugar refineries in Montreal and Vancouver. These people will never go all out for the beet industry as long as there is more profit in the cane refining than in the beet business, and by holding down, in conjunction with the St. Lawrence Cane Sugar Refinery, owned by Mr. J. W. McConnell, who also controls the Montreal Standard, Montreal Star, and Montreal Herald, and with the Atlantic-Acadia Cane Sugar refineries, the expansion of the beet industry to the status quo, they assure themselves of comfortable monopoly markets for their cane sugar products.
Like other speakers, I wish to be brief and I do not want to say more about that. But everyone seems to have been talking about what I intended to talk about.
The Winnipeg grain exchange is pretty close to me and I endorse everything which the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) said. I say to the government or any other government that follows it, heaven forbid that you should ever reopen the grain exchange, because every particle of stone, brick or lime in it was paid for by the sweat and toil of the western farmer. Do not ever forget that. Do not let it come back again. The wheat board has done a good job. It is not often that I hand bouquets to the government, but I say, you did a good job this time, although it can be improved on. In a world such as Henry Wallace talked about when he wrote of the century of the common man, did he expect that in 1945 or 1946 we would go back to gambling in the produce of the farmer? Certainly not. You can never again justifiably have gambling carried on with the produce of the farm. I am saying in pretty blunt words what I mean, but I mean it from the bottom of my heart when I say that we should never again allow gambling in this way. I do not think any man should have the right to gamble in the food of a nation; it should never be tolerated. I have nothing against the men on the grain exchange. They are all good fellows. It is the principle of the thing that I am thinking of. Why should they be parasites on the other fellow? Maybe I have said enough about that because I know there are a lot of people who want the grain exchange back. I do not know what the government was thinking about. I say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) that he controlled wheat, barley
and oats, and then he took over the flax and did a good job on the whole lot. Then he left the smallest crop so that they would have the thin edge of the wedge to start gambling again.
What about September rye? When the farmer sold his rye on September 21 of last year, he got ninety-one cents. Look at the newspaper to-day and see what the price is. It is 81.621.


Joseph William Burton: The same old story.


William Scottie Bryce: That is the same old story. They did it with the wheat and they are still doing it with the rye. I say, shame on the government for allowing them to do it.


William Irvine: Coming through the rye.


William Scottie Bryce: I am sorry that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) is not in his place at the moment, because if my constituents ever get him back in Selkirk-


Mr. MacNICOL:: He will never be in his place.


William Scottie Bryce: -they will have a lot to say to him. In the first place the income tax level is too low. An exemption of $660 and $1,200 is not good enough.
May I come back to the dairy farmer? Nobody in this country has exploited his family like the dairy farmer, and I am one of them. When my children were going to school they had to milk the cows before they went, so that we could send milk to Winnipeg to have some money to spend. These things are not taken into consideration by the income tax people. It is unfair. What about the farm woman? The Minister of Finance said last year that every woman would want the same concession if it were given to the farm wife. I say that the farm woman does far more than the city woman. She has to get up in the early morning to have the breakfast ready for the men to be in the field at half-past six. Then she has to wash dishes the last thing at night. No city woman does that. The sooner the Minister of Finance revises the income tax regulations, the sooner it will be safe for him to go back to Selkirk.
I do not wish to say very much more about cream production, but the income tax is a big handicap to getting cream to-day. In the constituency of Selkirk there was one man who had not filled out an income tax form. The forms were brought in and he was asked about it. The reply was that he had never earned enough money to fill in one. The inspector said to him, "You received so much for your grain?" The man said, "Yes." The inspector
The Address-Mr. Bryce

then said, "You sold some cows; what else did you sell?" He said, "I sold an old steer." The income tax man added these things up and made up a statement. He then said, "You sold some cream." The reply was, "Yes, we took a few cans of cream." The income tax man said, "Well, the dairy company in Winnipeg said you sold $400 worth of cream." He then tallied up the income tax form, gave him credit for the number he had in his family, and said, "You will have to pay income tax on $400." The farmer then got into the old car, or maybe the old buggy, and drove home. He then began to think about it. You see there are some people like that; they take a little while to think. He thought about it and he found that he was paying income tax on $400 that he and his family had earned before breakfast and after supper, and he said to himself, "I will never milk cows for Ilsley." The upshot of it is these cattle go to market and the country is deprived of another supply of cream. I want the government to take that into consideration. The man who is working a double day producing that cream before breakfast and after supper is entitled to some consideration in the income tax regulations; and do not let us forget the woman on the farm, because we would never get along without her.
Last year I asked the Minister of Agriculture some questions about condemnation insurance, and he assured me he would look into it.
I am looking forward to having him tell us something about it because it still is as bad as it was. I showed the house that in 1943 the packing industry of Canada got about $800,000 more than they were entitled to in condemnation insurance alone. The figures all appear in government publications; there are no figures of mine in there. It is a disgrace that that should go on. They have given us a new schedule in the west, and they take so much a head, fifty cents for a female animal and thirty cents for a steer, half of one per cent on hogs, and so on. Why should that thing go on when we have established tuberculosis free areas in Manitoba? I live in a T.B. free area. Why should I have to pay condemnation insurance to the packer when I have no T.B. animals? Condemnation insurance has become a racket and the government should look into it. I can see the minister smiling.
I assure him this is a serious business. We are still working on the T.B. insurance that was established a number of years ago when cattle were worth fifty or sixty dollars apiece. When I replace an animal in my herd to-day I pay $150, but I get only $38 from the government when they come and take it away because it is infected. That should be revised. 
I ask the. minister to revise that. Something should be done about it, because it is not a square deal.
I want to be as brief as possible, but I should like to touch on the cattle situation to-day. A few days ago the minister made a statement in which he said that we can be sure of the price for twelve or twenty-four months ahead. That is not the case. If I sell steers on Monday and get twelve cents for them and send the same quality of steers on Thursday and if there are plenty of steers on the market the packer will pay eleven cents. The only thing that happens is that the farmer loses another twelve dollars and the packer makes it, because the animal goes into the same grade as the ones he bought on Monday. The reason the twelve cents were paid on Monday is that there was not enough cattle on the market to bring down the price; on Thursday the market is perhaps flooded. Perhaps I can explain better what I mean if I quote from the Ottawa Journal of Thursday, September 13: Board buying surplus lamb
The meat board is buying surplus Canadian lamb for export to Britain.
For lamb of exportable quality, and of 38 to 55 pounds cold weight, the board is paying one-quarter of a cent per pound below the ceiling in each marketing zone.
These lamb purchases, together with the board's action in buying all surplus mutton since July 24, assure Canadian farmers and ranchers a market for all their surplus lambs and sheep, said J. G. Taggart, chairman of the board.
That is not true. If there is a lean, market it will work. The only person this protects is the packer. There is neither ceiling nor floor on live animals; it is only on the dead animal; when these lambs are dead they will be protected and the packer will have a market for them. But let you or me strike a market such as we had a year ago, when there were nine thousand lambs and sheep at Winnipeg; the minister knows what happened. We pleaded with him to open the market to the south; that was done, and what happened next morning? The packers had said they did not want those lambs; they were too leggy; they were thin; they were a poor type. Everything was wrong with them, but when we received the telegram from the minister saying that the market was open, the next morning the Winnipeg market rose $1.50, and one of the packers who said he did not need any lambs bought sixteen double-deck carloads. That is what happens, and I am sorry the government makes regulations like that. There is no protection for the farmer in a flooded market, because the packer can go in

The Address-Mr. Black (Cumberland)
and buy at h'is own price. I used to blame the Minister of Agriculture for these things.
I used to think the packing industry dominated the Department of Agriculture. Now I am satisfied that the packers dominate the government. That is the state of affairs which exists not only on the Winnipeg market but on other markets. The farmer has no protection whatever when he goes to the market; he has to take what he is offered, and the packer, being, a shrewd business man, will buy at the lowest possible price.
We also have that situation in the fish industry. Look at the fellow who catches the pickerel in lake Winnipeg; he gets ten cents a pound; but when I go to buy that pickerel in the store in Winnipeg I pay forty-seven cents a pound for it, filleted. There may be some fish men here, and I want them to understand that I know a little about fishing. I have been there in the winter and taken the fish out of the nets, and I have been there in the summer time also. When a fish is filleted it may lose fifty per cent. That would make it equivalent to twenty cents a pound, but there is an awful killing for someone between twenty cents and forty-seven cents. The primary producer, the man who risks his life to get the fish, does not receive his fair share. I asked about that. I went to the fish packers and asked why there should be such a spread between the amount paid the primary producer and the retail market price. They replied, "Oh, we have nothing at all to do with that. Donald Gordon set the price." Well, Donald Gordon needs to revise his prices.
Recently in this house, Mr. Speaker, we have heard quite a bit about rationing. I do not object to rationing; I am all for it if it is going to spread the meat farther. I think the mistake made by the government was in removing rationing when they should have kept it on. I imagine they would begin to see their mistake last February or March, and they should have started rationing again at that time, but I suppose it was too near the election for them to risk it. Let us be fair about this. I have my own flesh and blood in the old country, and to-day they are eating less than they did during the war years. Those are the people who came through the blitz. We know what our own boys have done and what they have suffered. Do not let us kick about a little rationing in order to let the other fellow have something that is coming to him. Some time age I read a stoiy about a prominent citizen of Ottawa who was visiting the ruins in England during the blitz, when people were being dug out and so on. A little
fellow came along and for something to say the gentleman from Ottawa asked, "What do you hope to be when you grow up?" The little lad replied, "Alive." Let us be true Canadians about this. Any sacrifice we make will be nothing compared with what they did for us.
I want to get finished within my time, Mr. Speaker, or I shall not be able to say I was brief. After reviewing all these things I believe it is apparent that the putting into force of the necessary long-time agricultural policy, which should be in operation, is prevented through the domination of government policy by the meat packers, the millers, the sugar combines and so on. The result is that the primary producer is left with uncertain returns and at the mercy of big business.


Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, personally I should have preferred not to intervene in this debate at this time, but I think it only fair to my part of Canada that- something more be said with respect to Nova Scotia and particularly Cumberland county. You have been offered many congratulations, sir, but the best I can wish for you is that at the end of your term you will prove to have been as acceptable to this parliament as your predecessor was to the last parliament.
This debate has been carried on largely by the new members, who have contributed many splendid addresses. There is no doubt that many of these new members will also make great contributions to our public life. Personally I miss the friendship of some wno were here and with whom I was associated in the last parliament. I miss my friend Hon. R. B. Hanson, who was leader of the opposition for several years. Mr. Hanson had twenty-five years in public life; he served his country well.
I miss another colleague who sat near me, whom we called Billie Esling. He was, and is, one of the finest personalities who ever sat in a house of commons, respected and loved by all.
I should like to refer to another colleague who sat beside me. I have in mind Leonard O'Brien, who was an honour to any constituency fortunate' enough to have him as its representative.
From across the way I miss a friend from my home town, Hon. J. L. Ralston, who served the people of this country in peace and in war, since 1908.
I miss, too, a friend who was with us a week ago, and whom I saw within twelve hours of his death, Hon. Norman McLarty, who was anxious to be helpful, and always extended to us his friendship.
34S	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Black (Cumberland)
These men and others we of this parlia-liament miss. But we are glad to welcome the new members. Especially I would welcome the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt), a man of whom everyone in Canada and in the allied armies is proud. The hon. member comes in a direct line from one of the greatest, if not the greatest statesman Canada ever produced, his great-grandfather being Sir Charles Tupper. This evening, on behalf of the people of Cumberland I extend to this hon. member an invitation to return to the place where the war-horse of Cumberland lived, to the constituency he represented and from which he made such a great contribution to the public life of Nova Scotia and of Canada. This country would not be what it is to-dlay, had it not been for the statesmanship of Sir Charles Tupper.
I am also pleased to have in his proper seat our leader, Mr. Bracken. Throughout all his life he has served the public, and I believe he has still a greater service to render to his country. It is a great misfortune that party leaders have such difficulty in gaining election to parliament. Surely that is a reflection upon the voters and the opposing parties. One can look over the history of leaders of political parties in Canada, and he would recognize at once how unfortunate it has been that they have had so much difficulty in having themselves elected-and I am sure the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) will agree with me in this.
There are many subjects with which I could deal, but I shall make my remarks fairly brief. The subject of greatest concern in my province, is the future industrial prospects of Nova Scotia and, in particular, the county of Cumberland. It is only fair to say that they are very much disturbed, very much worried.
To-night I am going to read some of the statements made on Monday of this week by the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe).
I have done what I could to assist him during the war, when he served as Minister of Munitions and Supply. At least I have not made his work any more difficult, and I have endeavoured to uphold him both in the house and in the country. I assure him I will give him all the support of which I am capable in the great task that is his in this period of reconstruction.
The people of Cumberland and of Nova Scotia generally have been very much disturbed, but if they could accept the statements made by the minister they would be completely reassured, and would feel that they could take their place in the industrial life of this country.

In the statement of the Minister of Reconstruction to which I listened on September 17, and which I afterwards read, he said, as reported at page 223 of Hansard:
I see nothing disturbing in the present situation as far as employment is concerned.
My constituents, and the people of Nova Scotia generally, will be very glad indeed to receive that statement, if they can believe it and if that promise will be fulfilled. In my town of Amherst there was an industry employing 3,000 during the war. The staff has been reduced to about 300, most of whom are working on inventories and records.
At a later point in his speech the minister said:
One thing that is abundantly clear is that there are at this moment two jobs open for each and every applicant for a job.
That is welcome news for people in my constituency, if they accept it, or hold the minister to his assurance.
Again he said, on the same page of Hansard:
The work of reconstruction has been in progress since early in 1944 and has been accelerated since the establishment of the Department of Reconstruction in the summer of 1944. The work divides itself into the following branches:	First, over-all planning
including studies of economics and statistics; second, industrial reconversion; third, research and development; and, fourth, control and distribution of materials.
My people in Nova Scotia will want to know what planning there has been; they do not know. They will want to know what industrial reconversion there has been in their province; they do not know. They want to know what research and development there has been; they do not know. They want to know what control and what distribution of materials there has been.
I could make many other quotations from the minister's speech, but I must hurry on. He stated further, as reported at page 225: Reconversion is also under way in war plants owned by the dominion government. This is more difficult in that a sale of the plant to private industry usually is involved. For some months we have had a fairly definite idea of the nature of the peace-time industry which would use each government-owned plant.
We have government constructed and owned plants and buildings in the town of Amherst, and our citizens are most anxious to know what has been done or is to be done with them.
Further on he said:
As nearly as possible we endeavour to keep each plant in a line of work comparable with its former employment in order that the workers living in the vicinity may find employment in the same plant without too great a change of skills.

The Address-Mr. Black (Cumberland)
That is the best news the town, of Amherst and people in other parts of Nova Scotia have heard since V-E day or VM day, when our forces became victorious. But they want a little more evidence that this policy will be applied.
Then he goes on to say:
A limited number of war plants are being retained by the crown and rented for multiple occupancy as an incubator for small industries. Here again the demand for space exceeds any reasonable supply. The most promising small industries are being given preference, and it is expected that from these multiple occupancy plants will develop industries which will in time build and occupy their own premises.
That will be great news for the people back home. Then the minister goes on:
It is quite obvious that during 1946 we may expect an expansion of peace-time industry comparable with the expansion of industry generally during the war years. Many of the largest expansions of industry yet to be reported are now being processed in the Department of Reconstruction.
We would like to have more detailed information with respect to that policy as it applies to our part of Canada. Then the minister goes on:
In our earlier studies of requirements to provide continued full employment we estimated that one million jobs in excess of those obtainable in 1939 would be required. I can report that the one million additional peace-time jobs are definitely in sight, and that there is little likelihood of any over-all lack of employment in the near future.
The province of Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces consider that it is within their rights to share in this reconversion and industrial expansion which the minister promises will be forthcoming to Canada. Many of our work men and women are walking the streets and many have had to leave recently for central Canada in order to obtain employment. I could go on to give further quotations and hold the minister to an accounting and ask that he apply these assurances to our part of Canada. I believe the maritime provinces have earned a right to sympathetic and fair treatment. I will help the minister; I will help the government and I believe every member of parliament should do everything possible in order that the maritime provinces may participate and share in this industrial activity or expansion that he promises is coming to Canada.
I do not want to make any complaint, but -our part of Canada was the last to get wartime industry. The work men and work women of Amherst were enticed away, as were the people in the rest of the maritime provinces. I have under my hand advertisements which appeared prior to the establishment of war industries in our town by which working people were induced to go to central Canada. Here is one which reads:
Wanted
Women to work in a war industry.
Fifty miles outside of Montreal.
Must be between the ages of eighteen and forty.
Here is another one:
Wanted
Girls to help in the production of munitions which are urgently required by our armed forces, the war industry near Montreal requires immediately girls for the following classes of work:
A-Cartridge machine operators.
B-Cartridge inspectors.
C-Matrons.
D-Stenographers.
E-Typists.
F-General office clerks.
While we were slow in getting under way, we have made a good record. I believe the Robb engineering works has made as good a record in the production of shells as any plant in Canada. But this industry has now had to let out a large number of its experienced and skilled help. We have a good clothing industry and we have an aeroplane industry that employed, as I said, three thousand men at one time, but which now has only three hundred. Six or seven industries in the country were given the responsibility after the battle of Britain of assembling and building the Avro-Anson training plane, and one was located at Amherst. The first Avro-Anson training plane that flew in Canada was built in the Amherst plant. Many of the workmen in that plant were not trained, but they were natural mechanics. They felt they had a high duty and responsibility, and the result was that they did such efficient work that they built the first plane put out by any shop in Canada.
Certain information was brought out in the war expenditures committee, but we are not supposed to refer to it and I do not intend to do so. However, information came to me from other sources that the Amherst shop gave the best results of any aeroplane factory in Canada. It was not perfect because there was some waste and lost time; nevertheless its record was the best. They got the best results. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) will confirm that because he got full cooperation from labour, which gave him no difficulty whatever. I have here a report by the minister of labour of Nova Scotia which was given publicity on September 6. It reads:
Another high achievement has been emblazoned on the war record of Nova Scotia, it was ascertained yesterday when Hon. L. D.
350	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Black (Cumberland)
Currie, minister for labour in Nova Scotia told Kiwanis club listeners that the province, man for man, had the highest percentage of production and the lowest percentage of absenteeism in the whole of Canada.
The province was also lowest when the count of men stopping work through strikes was tallied up.
The brisk town of Amherst led the dominion in single town performance, closely followed by Pictou, with Halifax following in third position.
This set of records was highly gratifying and throughout the war Nova Scotians paid attention to their knitting in sterling fashion.
Mr. Currie said there was no reason why Nova Scotia cannot continue in peace wrhat she has done so magnificently in war.
All I ask on behalf of the people of Nova Scotia, of the maritime provinces generally and of my own constituency is that they be given an opportunity. It is the duty and responsibility of the minister to see that this is done. Our part of Canada has played its full part in building up Canada. It has played its full part in the war. Enlistments there have been as high as in any part of Canada. It has played its full part in industry. All it asks now is that it be given an opportunity to have a place in the peace-time industrial life of Canada.
The working people of Amherst will cooperate with the minister. I believe that every member of this house should be anxious to see Amherst and other places in the maritime provinces have a share in the industrial activity under reconversion. I do not want to take up much time but there are a few matters I should like to deal with.
During this session reference has been made to the building of the St. Lawrence waterway. I think the people of Canada are satisfied that that great waterway should be built. I am in favour of it, but I make this condition- and I believe every member from the maritime provinces should support me-that at the same time the Chignecto canal should be built. This portage was used by the early French settlers three hundred years or more ago when they crossed the isthmus of Chignecto. The building of this canal is justified from a commercial point of view. It is justified also from a defence point of view and we should have the cooperation of the United States in its construction. It would have justified itself in the last great war, and we in the maritime provinces are entitled to have this construction proceeded with. Cheap power should be available, either by the construction of power plants on the Petitcodiac river or by the use of coal at the mine mouths. With this power available, industry in the maritime provinces would be on a parity with industries located along the St. Lawrence waterway. I appeal to the

people from all over Canada to see that some measure of fairness is extended to the people of my part of Canada.
I want to refer to the ferry boat Kipawo, which with its predecessor plied, between Wolfville and Parrsboro' across Minas basin for forty years. It is the only ferry service in all Canada that has been discontinued during the war. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) will bear me out when I say that it was discontinued' because the boat was needed for war purposes. I ask that that boat and service be restored.
I also ask that greater measure of justice be extended to the people of the maritime provinces as regards the cost of many commodities which they buy in central Canada. I .pointed out to the house in the previous parliament that bicycles, for instance, with a ceiling price were sold at higher prices in the maritimes than in any part of Ontario or Quebec. Automobiles and trucks are also sold at higher prices in the maritime provinces than in central Canada. If we cannot build these articles and many scores of others in the maritime provinces I believe that there should be an equalization of freight rates so that the people of the maritime provinces will not be penalized by having to pay higher prices than are paid in central Canada.
In Nova Scotia there is also the question of the sugar refinery which was closed down in the early days of the war. I saw a short time ago a ship of 6,000 tons discharging its cargo of raw sugar at Halifax harbour, and that sugar and following cargoes were shipped through Nova Scotia to be refined elsewhere, while our Nova Scotia industry was idle.
The rolling mills at Trenton have been closed, and now the users of secondary products have to buy many of them in central Canada and have delays and the additional freight rate to pay in getting them delivered to their machine shops in the maritime; provinces.
I want once again to refer to the marsh lands, and in this I know I have the support of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). The marsh lands are deteriorating year by year. They are the most fertile lands in all Canada. While millions are being expended to develop virgin areas in the west-and I have supported it-we have never been able to have ainy complete programme undertaken by this government to protect these marsh lands from the tides, to drain them, to utilize their fertility. We had the assurance from my leader when he- was in the maritime provinces that such a programme- would receive his

The Address-Division
support. Again I say that as regards the marsh lands there has been no sense of fairness in what has been done for these fertile lands at the head of the bay of Fundy in comparison, with what has been done under prairie farm rehabilitation in the west. I appeal again to the Minister of Agriculture and to the government that they do not allow this condition to obtain any longer.


An hon. MEMBER:: Question.


Percy Chapman Black: Mr. Speaker, some members are crying "question," but I have not taken up very much of the time of this house, and I am pleading now for some measure of justice and some measure of appreciation with respect to what is required in the maritime provinces.
A great duty devolves not only upon this government but upon the Canadian Car and Foundry company, which had its inception in the town of Amherst, its first president being the Hon. N. Curry. But central Canada has drawn its activities away from Amherst. Canadian Car and Foundry has a great record in this war. Its production has totalled over 1300,000,000, and it has paid out in wages $121,000,000. It has undertaken projects for the British government, the United States government and the Canadian government when other industries were loath to do so. I repeat, it has a great record in the war, but if it is to be a real Canadian industry carrying the confidence of all the people of Canada it should make it its duty to see that some post-war industry is established in the town of Amherst that will employ one thousand workers. I appeal to the government to see that that company gets all the assistance to which it is entitled and that every means is taken to bring about the establishment of such an industry in Amherst.
I am not going to take up any more time, but I have felt it my duty to place before the house the situation as regards the maritime provinces, Nova Scotia and my own constituency of Cumberland. The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply gave a glowing report to the house the other night, but I want to tell him that the people in my part of the country are much disturbed over what is to be their fate in the post-war years, and they will hold the minister and the government and all the members of the federal parliament to an accounting that in the years that are ahead a greater measure of justice be done to the people of the maritime provinces than has been done in the last twenty-five years.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Maoleod):: Mr. Speaker, before you put the question on the amendment I should like to say a few words.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dispense.


Ernest George Hansell: I must inform the hon. gentlemen that I cannot possibly dispense with what I have to say. It may be wondered why I rise at this time, while the vote is in process of being taken; and some may wonder why our party took the position we did on the motion which has just been defeated. I may say that we regarded the. motion, as it was worded, as a political motion, one of those I used to call, once upon a time, a double-barreled motion: you get heck if you do and you get heck if you don't. The wording of that motion was not particularly clear; at least there was one word in it we did not like, the word "alone." The motion said that the

government had failed to propose the fundamental social and economic changes which alone-


William Irvine: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman is discussing a motion which has been dealt with by this house.


Ernest George Hansell: Perhaps I am out of order, but I was only explaining why we did not vote for the motion. If the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine) will say out loud what he has just said under his breath I am sure this house and his constituents would like to hear it.


William Irvine: Don't worry; I will say it in a minute.


Ernest George Hansell: He will not repeat the words he has just used.
I wish to embark upon a subject which has not been mentioned this session and which indeed, during the time I have been in this house, has not been given the attention which I believe it deserves. I refer to the question of electoral and parliamentary reform. I do not speak on this subject with a claim to any superabundance of knowledge by reason of any particular research I have conducted. I base my arguments purely upon my own observations after sitting in this house for several years.
I have concluded, Mr. Speaker, that the most futile business in the world is that of a private member of this house. I have a desire to bring about in Canada a parliamentary system which at all times will get for the people the results they want. I notice quite a number of new faces in the house, quite a number of new members, some of whom I believe are distinguished gentlemen. I understand there are some who have the distinction of having won the Victoria Cross. I believe we have in our midst some high ranking military men. We have one hon. gentleman, who was also here in the last parliament, who on one occasion was lieutenant-governor of Ontario. These men should be of inestimable value to this country; but as time goes by and they sit here I think they will discover that their business here as private members is just about as futile as anything in the world. We have in this parliament some young men with all the exuberance and ambition of youth; someone has said that this is a young man's age, and I am glad to welcome these young men into parliament. I do not agree, however, that this is particularly a young man's age; I rather agree with Henry Ford, who a few years ago said that if you took out of the world all the brains over sixty-five you

The Address-Mr. Hansell
would not have enough brains left to run it. I suppose these young men came into parliament with visions of doing great things. As they sit here as private members, I am afraid it will not be long before they will be sadly disillusioned. Before I came here to the session a gentleman stopped me on the street and said, "I believe parliament has been reduced to nothing more than a glorified debating society".


Mr. SINNOTT:: You said it.


Ernest George Hansell: It was said by a gentleman in my own town, whose name my hon. friend would1 not know. He was a good Conservative, but that does not make any difference. I replied, "Well, you are wrong. It is not even a glorified debating society". It is not even a good debating society, for in a debating society the side that has all the arguments can win on points, but that never happens here. It does not make any difference who has the best of the argument; the government always wins. Before we ever start out in a debate we know who is going to win. So I say it does not make any difference how logical an argument may be, or how forceful it may be; the government always wins.
When parliament opens it does so with a good deal of pomp and dignity. There is the firing of guns, the playing of bands and the officials dressed in their official robes. Soldiers are there as their bodyguard; the mounted police stand at attention dressed in their bright red tunics, and the whole thing gives a tremendous air of importance. I have no criticism to make of that. Perhaps it is as it should be. But sometimes I wonder if all this is simply to fool us into believing that we are really going to do something.
I am sure we are glad to welcome the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Bracken) to the House of Commons. He is a public servant paid for guiding the opposition in the house. I believe he should be paid. Further, he should be paid all he is getting-and he should try to get all he can. I am inclined to believe that the leaders of other parties should also get just a little more for their efforts. However, be that as it may, what happens? In reality, what is happening is simply this, that the leader of the opposition is paid to be an expert in argumentation- and nothing else. Because even he, no matter how forceful his argument and no matter how logical, can never expect to win. The government always wins. And whether it be he or the leader of any other party, no matter how they may feel about their work, they are private members just the same and, so far as power is concerned, they have no more 47696-23
power in parliament than the little page boy who sits in a dignified position at your feet, Mr. Speaker.
The government is all-powerful in these things. What I am calling for is a real, democratic parliament. I am calling for a type of electoral and parliamentary reform under which each and every member of parliament would be directly responsible to the people of his constituency-and nobody else. But what we have in our present parliamentary system is not that. Let no one think I am wholly against the party system; what T am against is rigid party machinery, whereby a man when he is out stumping for the election is bidding for the people to send him to parliament on the basis that he will do what they want, but when he comes to Ottawa finds that he has to do what his party leaders want. That is the thing I criticize.
For what reason does this parliament exist? What, in reality, is its purpose? I do not know that I have ever read a definition of it, but I have prepared one of my own, and I would like hon. members to tell me if there is anything wrong with it: The Canadian parliament exists for the purpose of passing such legislation as will give to the people of Canada the results they want. I do not think there is anything wrong with that as a definition of what this parliament should be. But may I ask this:	Do the people of
Canada get the results they want?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Ernest George Hansell: Of course they do not.
Did they get the results they wanted between 1930 and 1940? Are the old age pensioners to-day getting all the results they want? We could go through the whole gamut of public life in Canada, and I am quite certain we could not say that the people have had the results they wanted.
Why not? Well, if parliament is here to legislate, surely it should be able to legislate without fear or favour, and with no strings attached, party or otherwise, so that legislation would be put on the statute books of Canada which would give to the people exactly the results they want. To a great extent, they do not get those results because of the impotency of parliament. Believe me, it is a brave man who will rise in his place on the government side of the house and vote against his party because he stands for great principles.
I am convinced that under our present electoral and parliamentary set-up the only democracy we have in Canada is the right to cast a ballot-and democracy ceases at the ballot box. Just the same, may I say I was very

The Address-Mr. Hansell

glad when the gentleman who ran in the Prince Albert constituency, and whose name on the ballot appeared as the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, was defeated.
Some bon. MEMBERS:	Hear, hear.


Ernest George Hansell: Imagine my Liberal
friends applauding my saying that I am glad he was defeated!
Do not misunderstand me; I was not particularly glad that he was not coming 'back here, or that it appeared that he would not be coming back. I am sure we would have missed him. It does not make very much difference to me whether it is a Liberal leader, a Conservative or a C.C.F. What I want there is a Social Credit leader. When I say I was glad he was defeated, it was not because of anything personal. Do not judge me too harshly. But I am glad that there is enough democracy left in Canada to say to any man, ''We do not want you."
Some hon. member suggests that he could go somewhere else to get elected. That supports my argument, because there is still enough democracy left in Canada that one section of the country cannot dictate to another.
Does anyone suppose that in Germany at an election anyone could have defeated Adolf Hitler?


An hon. MEMBER:: He is dead.


Ernest George Hansell: Do you suppose they
could have put out Mussolini?


An hon. MEMBER:: He is dead.


Ernest George Hansell: Do you suppose that today the people of Russia could put out Mr. Stalin?


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Ernest George Hansell: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not. know whether I
appreciate that applause1 or not. What I am against is government policy. I believe their policy is all wrong. But if it is business administrators you want, I do not know why the Liberal party should not have just as good administrators as any other party. That is my personal position. I know there are a lot of little things wrong and things wrong which appear on the surface to be big things-housing, the return of our troops, and that sort of thing. But I want to be fair. I realize that in this transition period1 these are big jobs. Why should not parliament be able to say "yes" or "no" to any government legislation without running the risk of plunging the country into an election?
I have offered these suggestions which I think are reasonable ones. What I say is all in favour of the argument for some type of electoral and parliamentary reform. I believe that there should be some reform of the senate, but I am not going into that to-night except to say that seats in the senate should be won by election and not be granted by appointment. But seats in the senate have largely become a system of political rewards, and: that should never be in a democratic country.
A word about money. Why should the government say: We cannot do anything because we haven't the money. Let parliament tell them what should be done. We do not say: You cannot run any trains because we have no tickets. We do not say: You cannot make any cloth because we have no more yardsticks. We do not say: You cannot have any roads because we do not have any miles. Physically it is possible to do all these things. If this parliament should decide that a thing is physically possible and desirable, that should be legislated, and the government of the country, who are supposed to be the ser-
Meat Rationing

vants of the people, should forthwith act accordingly. Then they would be the true servants of the people. Then we would have an effective democracy.
There is a good deal more to say along this line, but I see that it is getting towards eleven o'clock, and I suppose it is only right that I should stop speaking nowr because I have an amendment to the amendment to propose w'hich I now move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low):
That the amendment be amended by adding at the end thereof the following: and has further,
(d)	failed to meet the needs of Canada for a prosperous peace and in particular, to provide a means of ensuring that the national production shall be kept at a sufficiently high level to provide every Canadian with a standard of living commensurate with Canada's ability to produce;
(e)	failed to provide this country with an effective and scientific financial policy for distributing to all Canadians their fair share of the national production without increasing the burden of taxation or the national debt.
On motion of Mr. Matthews (Kootenay
East) the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, September 21, 1945.